In article , Gunner says...

Instructing the "wingers" in what?

Well, for starters, understanding which of the first
ten amendments were incoporated against the states.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:58:05 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz
wrote:

Clinton

What is it with you nuts & your endless Monica-envy?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:58:05 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz
wrote:

The community of nations

Like the UN & it's inspectors?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:36:51 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

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.

What part of "AFAIK" was unclear?
We were speaking of guns INSIDE the US, right? And
their use (rather, misuse) therein?
--
Cliff (Educating wingers for over a decade G.)

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:04:51 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"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


Perhaps you had best define "conservative" and "liberal-moderate"
for us. And work on those sigs & posting practices.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:16:01 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"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.

Find a better "range".

Specifically... these are MY weapons
and remain in MY possession. First of all, they are expensive.

And you cannot trust the gun nuts, right?

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.

IF it's locked up & unloaded it's no good for the fast draw.
What's wrong with this picture?

In any case, you are trying the "guns make me safer" argument. See
other posts. Got kids? Thieves that know that you have guns to steal?

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


Trusting your wife with a gun?
BTW, Work on the sigs.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:27:20 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

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.

I can see it all now ... an earthquake or hurricane and you are out
there firing off rounds ...
Worried about Canada invading? Mexicans crossing the desert
border at night to steal your credit cards?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 06:42:06 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

All members of each NG organization also belong to the Federal Ready
Reserve. Its a dual enlistment.

Not required.

This is one of the terms under which the Federal government funds and
equips the NG organizations.

Take it up with the States. Who's the taxpayer, anyway?

Another confused argument down the drain .....
--
Cliff

On 01 Dec 2004 04:24:44 GMT, (Jeffrey
C. Dege) wrote:

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.

And it's the Federal funding that makes the NG possible.
Therefore, the NG is NOT the Constitutional State militias.

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.

An aside -- I really don't care whether the NG is a proper
replacement for the Constitutional state militias. It
doesn't affect the 2nd Amendment argument anyway, IMHO.
Nonetheless, the NG is not a Constitutional replacement for
the state militias, seeing as how the officers are not
appointed at the sole discretion of the states and the
training is not done under the control of the states. The
NG is equivalent to the British Territorials (that is, the
NG units are reserve forces that are area-specific, unlike
the regulars), and is actually a U.S. reserve force that is
only nominally the descendent of the state militias.

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

Lennie the Lurker wrote:

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message om...
Cliff wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:00:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Werent you one of the guys who was bitching about the loss of
freedoms because of the Patriot Act?

So a few Uzi-bangers with hand grenades is the answer?
What bunker are you from? Is it dark in there?

Check the news, six people killed in Wisconsin by a kook with a 20
round magazine in an assault rifle clone.

Forgot to mention, most were shot in the backs, might be a connection
with another murder, 2001 date IIRC, also shot in the back.

For the "any gun should be legal" kooks, I don't have a copy of my
1956 hunting regs. He was not cited for a firearms violation by the
officers that arrested him. outside of the National Radical Assholes,
I don't think you'll find much opposition in this state to ban those
weapons and extended magazines from the woods, a much needed measure.
Unfortunately, money and blustering bull**** still talk louder than
rationale. Myself, I think there should be a bounty on NRA lobbyists.
$5 per head, 360 day open season, no bag limit. If still alive, no
bounty, go finish the job first.

and if those pople had shown up at a "shots fired" radio call armed
instead of unarmed they might just still be alive

--
__________________________________________________ _________________

http://www.khaaan.com/

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 17:09:58 GMT, Lady Chatterly
wrote:

Do you think that it with him nuts & his endless Monica envy is?

That depends on the meaning of is not is not not is is.

Never forget:
is not is not not is
not is is not is not
not is not is not is

HTH (From Keith Laumer's "The Great Time Machine Hoax" if I got it
right g).
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:39:21 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

States cannot dispense with private guns, with or without a
militia.

Per the 2nd States can do anything they please.
Including telling you that you may not have guns.
Which, the observent may note, they often do.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:44:02 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

The larger problem is that Constitutional law is more complicated than most
people think it is. There are many conflicts and events that the
Constitution didn't anticipate.

Isn't that strange. I find the Constitution very simple and
straight forward. But then I don't have a goal to subvert
inherent rights.

What "inherent rights"?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:39:21 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

Most state constitutions contain a BORs, either verbatim or
modeled on the BOR in the federal constitution.

"Most"? Which ones do & don't & why?
"A BORs"?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:44:02 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

The larger problem is that Constitutional law is more complicated than most
people think it is. There are many conflicts and events that the
Constitution didn't anticipate.

Isn't that strange. I find the Constitution very simple and
straight forward.

Are you a winger?

But then I don't have a goal to subvert
inherent rights.

But I thought you were a winger ..
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:09:04 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

They were not the pathetic feminized, sanitized and homogenized
dregs that pass as do many men do today.

They were liberals and could read & write too.
The conservatives supported England & the crown.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:10:26 -0500, "M.H."
wrote:

Lennie the Lurker wrote:

(Lennie the Lurker) wrote in message om...
Cliff wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:00:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Werent you one of the guys who was bitching about the loss of
freedoms because of the Patriot Act?

So a few Uzi-bangers with hand grenades is the answer?
What bunker are you from? Is it dark in there?

Check the news, six people killed in Wisconsin by a kook with a 20
round magazine in an assault rifle clone.

Forgot to mention, most were shot in the backs, might be a connection
with another murder, 2001 date IIRC, also shot in the back.

For the "any gun should be legal" kooks, I don't have a copy of my
1956 hunting regs. He was not cited for a firearms violation by the
officers that arrested him. outside of the National Radical Assholes,
I don't think you'll find much opposition in this state to ban those
weapons and extended magazines from the woods, a much needed measure.
Unfortunately, money and blustering bull**** still talk louder than
rationale. Myself, I think there should be a bounty on NRA lobbyists.
$5 per head, 360 day open season, no bag limit. If still alive, no
bounty, go finish the job first.

and if those pople had shown up at a "shots fired" radio call armed
instead of unarmed they might just still be alive

Are you always this confused?
What's the subject?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:11:45 GMT, Strabo
wrote:


Good stuff Gunner!

Check for copied blogs & general confusion.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:11:45 GMT, Strabo
wrote:


Good stuff Gunner!


Check for copied blogs & general confusion.

Don't you have something to do that is more productive with your time
than posting the hundreds of posts just on misc.survivalism in the last
couple of months.

The Independent of Claackamas County.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:27:09 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:58:05 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz
wrote:

Clinton

What is it with you nuts & your endless Monica-envy?
--
Cliff

HTH

Still dress up in your little blue Monica dress... hoping to get your
presidential knee pads?

snicker

Mike

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no
evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects
American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:28:02 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:58:05 GMT, Mike In Santa Cruz
wrote:

The community of nations

Like the UN & it's inspectors?
--
Cliff


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no
evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects
American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:04:51 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"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


Perhaps you had best define "conservative" and "liberal-moderate"
for us. And work on those sigs & posting practices.
--
Cliff

I was more willing to spend tax money to help others in my high school and
college days. This was true even a decade or more after college. I believe
this would peg me as socially liberal. Maybe even somewhat fiscally
liberal.

I am very unwilling to throw tax money at programs which are or become
entitlements now. I feel like I have done my part and the programs are
corrupt at worst and just terribly mismanaged at best these days. This
would put me on the other side of middle of the road but still in the
penumbra of moderate.

So, while still a moderate, I am further right than I used to be.

Joe

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

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.

No, it doesn't. Here's the Act in its entirety, as it stands today:

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

US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 67:
Sec. 1385. - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by
the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or
the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

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

Here's the original, from 1878:

20 Stat. L., 145

June 18, 1878

CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the
fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and
for other purposes.

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to
employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or
otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and
under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly
authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money
appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred
in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person
willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of
a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by
both such fine and imprisonment."

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

See what I mean by it being a myth? That's all there is to it. Nothing else.
Nothing about who was authorized to form a posse, or about fire departments,
or anything like it.

Ed Huntress

"Strabo" wrote in message
...

States cannot dispense with private guns, with or without a
militia.

Under standing federal case law, they can do so it they decide to.


Most state constitutions contain a BORs, either verbatim or
modeled on the BOR in the federal constitution.

That's up to the states. As I said, under present law, they can do what they
want about guns.

Have you seen any federal courts decide that a state law restricting guns or
gun owners is unconstitutional? I haven't.

Ed Huntress

"Strabo" wrote in message
...


The larger problem is that Constitutional law is more complicated than
most
people think it is. There are many conflicts and events that the
Constitution didn't anticipate.

Isn't that strange. I find the Constitution very simple and
straight forward. But then I don't have a goal to subvert
inherent rights.

Only the simple-minded think it's simple, Strabo. Those, and the ones who
haven't read enough Supreme Court cases to see how often rights are in
conflict, or how often applying a provision of the Constitution to a case
involving a legislature's (state or federal) authority to write a particular
law winds up being ambiguous, contradictory, or both.

For example, how about the Third Rail of the Constitution, the 10th
Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."

So, given that, and any other provision of the Constitution you want to use,
how would you have decided Griswold v. Connecticut? That's the case in which
the medical doctor for the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut gave a
prescription for some form of contraceptive to a married couple, and was
fined for it under CT law. It was illegal in CT to give advice, or for a
doctor to prescribe any form of contraception, including condoms.

Was the state proscribed from making such legislation and enforcing it? Is
there a right to privacy in such circumstances, and if so, where is it
written? Is this a case of a right being reserved to the States, or to the
people?

Have fun chewing on that one. There are about a thousand more just like it,
only some are harder.

Ed Huntress

"Strabo" wrote in message
...
In OT Guns more Guns on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:42:42 -0500, by
Ed Huntress, we read:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

(snip)
It's not my authority, Watcher.

Well, at least you got that part right.

It's well documented in the law.

OK, which law.

The laws creating the National Guard and the standing army. The last time
an
armed unit was called up from the "unorganized militia," if I recall
correctly, was in 1865.

The "unorganized militia" is now a legal subterfuge to finesse the
Selective
Service. They aren't expected to bring their own guns anymore. g

They're more is use than you think.

A militia is used every time a county sheriff forms a posse.

States can authorize posses, or not, as they choose, Strabo. They can't call
up units of the US Army or Air Force, but they can call any of their
citizens who aren't on active military duty in the federal forces.

It has nothing to do with militias, unless a state wants to call its state
guard, or state militia, into posse duty. There is no federal law preventing
it.

I posted the Posse Comitatus Act for Gunner earlier tonight. You might want
to revisit it.

Ed Huntress


Until the late 1980s, when elements of the federal government
began to be used to villify patriotism, state guards (not the
national guard) and land and naval militias were openly active.

They still are. I believe there are around 20 states with active state
guards. There's a move afoot right now to incorporate them into the Homeland
Security system.

Ed Huntress

"Strabo" wrote in message
...
In OT Guns more Guns on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:52:32 -0500, by
Ed Huntress, we read:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:42:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 14:41:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


Which is par for the course. The Civil War was fought over States
Rights, and the damned Federalists won. Which only means they inforced
their views, not the Constitution.

A clear case of Might Makes Right, even though its contrary to the
Founders and framers of the Constitution.

It appears you don't know what the framers intended with the Bill of
Rights.

Tell us, Mr. Historian, why is it that the states would demand a Bill of
Rights, only to find that it was a set of restrictions on what the STATES
could legislate? Do you think the states were screaming for the federal
government to limit their power?

Simple answer. They agreed with the power restrictions of the
federal constitution.

The people of the states created the federal constitution. The
rights of individuals overrode federal power and there was
little state imposition on individuals.

Oh, boy. Show us some evidence that the state legislatures, when they
ratified the Bill of Rights, thought they were ratifying restrictions on
THEIR OWN powers, rather than those of the federal government only.

Show us something from before the Civil War that said the Bill of Rights was
a set of restrictions that restricted the states.


They were not the pathetic feminized, sanitized and homogenized
dregs that pass as do many men do today.

I'll bet they passed just the same as any homogenized dreg. g

Ed Huntress

"Strabo" wrote in message
...
In OT Guns more Guns on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:26:20 GMT, by
Gunner, we read:

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by
the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in
Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that
understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting
his claim on the Fifth Amendment's requirement that private property
not be taken for public use "without just compensation." Marshall
ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended "solely as a limitation on
the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is
not applicable to the legislation of the states."


Good stuff Gunner!

Strabo, you just got through telling me the opposite. Here's what I had
posted:

Tell us, Mr. Historian, why is it that the states would demand a Bill of
Rights, only to find that it was a set of restrictions on what the STATES
could legislate? Do you think the states were screaming for the federal
government to limit their power?

Here's your response:


Simple answer. They agreed with the power restrictions of the
federal constitution.

Now, Gunner posts this:

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by
the federal government, not to actions by the states.

And you say "good stuff."

Are you paying attention to what you're arguing about? If so, why are you
talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:16:01 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"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.

Find a better "range".

I have the ranges I have. Besides, I don't really want to lock my
possessions up at someone else's location. I think ranges generally don't
welcome the liability of storing guns they don't own anyway.

Specifically... these are MY weapons
and remain in MY possession. First of all, they are expensive.

And you cannot trust the gun nuts, right?

I don't trust many people... at least not completely. I'll keep my
belongings at home, thank you.

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.

IF it's locked up & unloaded it's no good for the fast draw.
What's wrong with this picture?

Not locked and unloaded. Locked in a safe and loaded. No trigger locks
inside the safe. 6 digits to unlock the safe. It's double action so just
pull the trigger. The .357 revolver has 3 speed loaders loaded right next
to it. The .45 is loaded with a 10-round mag and 4 more mags next to it.
Not cocked and locked though.

Before the 2 year old came to live with us, I had sometimes left the
revolver on the top of the safe (serves as a nightstand). Another
possibility is leaving the safe door unlocked. The .357 and .45 are just
inside and in reach.

In any case, you are trying the "guns make me safer" argument. See
other posts. Got kids? Thieves that know that you have guns to steal?

Guns do make me safer. I have a 2 year old nephew living with me. Safe
locked. Could be thieves in the neighborhood. I don't advertise that I
have them. No signs on the window saying something like "House protected by
Smith & Wesson" or anything. The next door neighbor and his wife's cousin,
who also lives there, and I share an interest in guns and only they know.
We have a friendship based on mutual respect.

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


Trusting your wife with a gun?

Yes.

BTW, Work on the sigs.

Propose a sig. Or shut up about it.

Joe

--
Cliff

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 0:50:21 GMT, Lady Chatterly
wrote:


Why are you excited you do not have a goal to subvert inherent rights?

Good point.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:38:52 -0800, The Independent of Clackamas
County wrote:



Cliff wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:11:45 GMT, Strabo
wrote:


Good stuff Gunner!


Check for copied blogs & general confusion.

Don't you have something to do that is more productive with your time
than posting the hundreds of posts just on misc.survivalism in the last
couple of months.

The Independent of Claackamas County.

Don't you have anything better to do than to applaud
Gunner's stolen (usually) blogs?

Reminds me of two dogs sniffing .....

Was that a typo (wingers have problems)
for "Good sniff Gunner!"?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:23:38 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

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

Joe

--
Cliff


Perhaps you had best define "conservative" and "liberal-moderate"
for us. And work on those sigs & posting practices.
--
Cliff

I was more willing to spend tax money to help others in my high school and
college days.

While those pesky liberals were spending their tax dollars to
provide you with an education. Was it a liberal one?

This was true even a decade or more after college. I believe
this would peg me as socially liberal. Maybe even somewhat fiscally
liberal.

As opposed to an outright ban on non-church education?

I am very unwilling to throw tax money at programs which are or become
entitlements now.

Like public education?

I feel like I have done my part and the programs are
corrupt at worst and just terribly mismanaged at best these days.

Which programs, in your opine? Why?
What's your *better* idea?

This
would put me on the other side of middle of the road but still in the
penumbra of moderate.

Not knowing any specifics .. how can you say that?

So, while still a moderate, I am further right than I used to be.

Most old folks are. The world changes.
--
Cliff

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:54:08 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

BTW, Work on the sigs.

Propose a sig. Or shut up about it.

Joe,
A cutlined sig. Two minus signs followed by one blank space,
starting at the far left of a new line: "-- " (and nothing after that
onthat line).
Many newsreaders trim that off and all below it when quoting
posts in replies. You never wondered why so many use them?

After that you can add anything you want. See my
example (below).

IF you want a few files of interesting things others have
used below that over the years drop me a line. I know a collector
of interesting sigs G.
--
Cliff

"For us, if it should turn out that God exists, that would have to
be a fact of nature like any other. To the four basic forces in the
universe--gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear
forces--we would add a fifth, the divine force. Or more likely, we
would see the other forces as forms of the divine force. But it would
still be all physics, albeit divine physics. If the supernatural
existed, it too would have to be natural."

John Searle
--Mind, Language and Society

In article , Ed Huntress says...

And you say "good stuff."

Are you paying attention to what you're arguing about? If so, why are you
talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Neither. He's only looking at the person posting the message, he
cannot understand the content. If it's posted by you, the conclusion
is, it's crap and you're the antichrist.

If it was posted by Gunner heavenly choir sound here then it
has GOT to be the god's honest truth, delivered direct from the
mouth of Charleton Heston Himself. And as such is to be greeted
with accolades, fawning, bowing, scraping, etc.

The classical 100 lines of drivel, followed by a single reply
line that exclaims: "Darn That's Good, Keep It Up."

A peculiarity of usenet, Ed: two individuals provide similar viewpoints,
the one with the deeper background is invariably dismissed as a
troublemaker.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

And you say "good stuff."

Are you paying attention to what you're arguing about? If so, why are you
talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Neither. He's only looking at the person posting the message, he
cannot understand the content. If it's posted by you, the conclusion
is, it's crap and you're the antichrist.

If it was posted by Gunner heavenly choir sound here then it
has GOT to be the god's honest truth, delivered direct from the
mouth of Charleton Heston Himself. And as such is to be greeted
with accolades, fawning, bowing, scraping, etc.

The classical 100 lines of drivel, followed by a single reply
line that exclaims: "Darn That's Good, Keep It Up."

Of all the people we see here, whether by cross-posting or not, Strabo is
the biggest enigma I've encountered. You can see really careful and
intelligent thought in many of his posts. Then you get into gun laws or the
Constitution, and it's like that part of his sensibility has been erased
like a hard disk in a MRI machine.

'Probably the result of a public school education. g


A peculiarity of usenet, Ed: two individuals provide similar viewpoints,
the one with the deeper background is invariably dismissed as a
troublemaker.

Since 1983, when I first joined CompuServe, I've found myself reviled online
by both sides of every passion-ridden issue. It used to bother me. But it
did sharpen up my non-fiction writing a lot, and I figure the tradeoff has
been worth it, in dollars and cents. d8-)

Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:23:38 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

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

Joe

--
Cliff


Perhaps you had best define "conservative" and "liberal-moderate"
for us. And work on those sigs & posting practices.
--
Cliff

I was more willing to spend tax money to help others in my high school
and
college days.

While those pesky liberals were spending their tax dollars to
provide you with an education. Was it a liberal one?

Liberals are good at spending OTHER people's money too. I don't mind
contributing towards a quality public education for the youth of this
country. I didn't then and generally don't now either. What I DO resent is
the demand for more and more money for either a diminishing return for the
money or even less return than we got for less money. Public schools in the
US are broken. It is the type of broken that throwing money at won't fix.
Heads need to roll. The NEA is entrenched and entirely too powerful. The
CTA (California Teachers Association) is also too powerful. Both are
foisting substandard education upon our youth, overseen with entirely too
many administrator types and not enough qualified teachers. The money is
being squandered.

The best grade school education I got was in Philadelphia when, for 2 years
in 4'th and 5'th grades, I attended a Catholic school. I didn't learn any
more math after returning to public school until almost 9'th grade! The
Catholic school had its problems too but content wasn't one of them.

This was true even a decade or more after college. I believe
this would peg me as socially liberal. Maybe even somewhat fiscally
liberal.

As opposed to an outright ban on non-church education?

I am very unwilling to throw tax money at programs which are or become
entitlements now.

Like public education?

I am unwilling to throw MORE money at it. Vouchers to allow students to
enroll in succesful schools will cause the others to either shape up or
close. Both of those are a good outcome. Public schools are not competing
well in the market, for the most part.

I feel like I have done my part and the programs are
corrupt at worst and just terribly mismanaged at best these days.

Which programs, in your opine? Why?
What's your *better* idea?

You brought up public school. That's one. Welfare is another. I am
willing to help my fellow man. I am not willing to continue to support
successive generations of house-bound couch potatoes. Get out and get a job
and pay some taxes too!

How about that prime piece of pork in Boston called the "tunnel"? The
sucker leaks like a sieve. That's one that might have been done
differently. I've driven the area when on road trips for my former company
and something needed to be done. But how many billions is it worth? For
whose egos? Something a little less ambitious and utilitarian might have
been better.

This
would put me on the other side of middle of the road but still in the
penumbra of moderate.

Not knowing any specifics .. how can you say that?

Since YOU don't know the specifics, how can *I* say that??! Ha! Nice try.
I know the specifics. Therefore I can say that. It's up to you whether you
believe me. I'm wasting my time with you anyway. You don't believe a thing
I say. I should save the effort and not tell you anything.

So, while still a moderate, I am further right than I used to be.

Most old folks are. The world changes.

They say... In your 20s if you aren't a liberal you have no heart. In your
40s if you aren't a conservative you have no brain. Well... They DO say
that...

Joe

--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:54:08 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

BTW, Work on the sigs.

Propose a sig. Or shut up about it.

Joe,
A cutlined sig. Two minus signs followed by one blank space,
starting at the far left of a new line: "-- " (and nothing after that
onthat line).

Great... So my sig can look just like yours? grin

Many newsreaders trim that off and all below it when quoting
posts in replies. You never wondered why so many use them?

No, I never wondered.

After that you can add anything you want. See my
example (below).

IF you want a few files of interesting things others have
used below that over the years drop me a line. I know a collector
of interesting sigs G.

Yes. Do! Thanks...

--
Joe (hmmm?)

--
Cliff

"For us, if it should turn out that God exists, that would have to
be a fact of nature like any other. To the four basic forces in the
universe--gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear
forces--we would add a fifth, the divine force. Or more likely, we
would see the other forces as forms of the divine force. But it would
still be all physics, albeit divine physics. If the supernatural
existed, it too would have to be natural."

John Searle
--Mind, Language and Society

PS: Nice quote. Of course at this time, Electomagnetic and Weak forces
have been unified. It is just a matter of time and sufficiently powerful
particle smashers to unify the Electro-Weak Force with the Strong Force.
Generating sufficient energy to unify with Gravity however will be a hell of
an achievement. We are probably centuries and some major discoveries away
from that. Hmmm... a divine force! Wonder if that will be how it is
explained.

Joe

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:28:23 -0600, "John Scheldroup"
wrote:

Call it psychic or whatever, but where my visions showed me, I could see tons and
tons of them Guns melting down, and you know what else, by the time your two year
old is your age Joe he's gonna thank yah, he sure will.

Meet the Gun of future that Joe's two year old, now all grown-up has his weapon of
choice for personal home defense!. Old Joe grandpappy would sure be proud to shoot
one of these bulletless guns.

The world is going to change Joe, it's going to change for the better, sure you bet
we'll all be safer for it....

http://www.futurehorizons.net/weap.htm
"Step by step plans show how to build your own Ion Phasor weapon
that can emit powerful bursts of electrified fluid to temporarily disable
an animal or human attacker. Handheld device runs on batteries and
can be easily reloaded. Multiple shot capacity and it's capable of stunning
a target from a distance but without inflicting any serious or permanent damage. "


Oh yeah Joe look at this one, G remember Tuesday is soylent green day...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0302-01.htm

And the rest of us who are serious, will have small hand lasers in the
mega joule range, masers that have the setting, Regular or extra
crispy, and sonic weapons that will turn a water based target into a
puddle of jello.

Isnt technology wonderful?

Better living through applied physics

Gunner Asch






"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

http://www.ardice.com/Arts/Music/Ban...s/3/38_Special

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 04:53:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

And the rest of us who are serious, will have small hand lasers in the
mega joule range, masers that have the setting, Regular or extra
crispy, and sonic weapons that will turn a water based target into a
puddle of jello.

Isnt technology wonderful?

Better living through applied physics

Well, you have a perfect right to any & all "arms", right?
--
Cliff