Lew Hodgett wrote:
snip
Really, is that how it worked in Britain, Australia and Canada,
registration didn't precede bans and confiscations?

Personally could care less, I don't live in those places.

Lew

you should. this old saying comes to mind:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to
speak up."
Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Stuart wrote:

Good Grief!

Doesn't anyone have time for woodworking any more?


I spent a goodly proportion of today grinding and carefully honing some
chisels :-)

To use on wood I might add!

Are you making a Zip gun?

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

J. Clarke wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote:

It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to finally stop Washington
DC from banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens,
and apparently DC is interested in ways to get around that ruling if
they can.

That's only temporary.

What, the Supreme Court ruling? You really think that you're going
to get the Second Amendment repealed?


I think he means the roadblocks, circumventions, and delaying tactics thrown
up by the D.C. betters are only temporary - not the 2nd Amendment.

"DGDevin" wrote:

How so? Most of the rulings that have come down since the recent
landmark 2nd Amendment case have upheld existing laws.

Times change, people change.

It's simply back to the rewrite desk until they get what's needed to
withstand all legal challenges.

What's to stop DC from putting in regulations so onerous that they
amount to a ban (which is what they've already discussed doing)?

Who knows, maybe that's what will happen.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote:

How so? Most of the rulings that have come down since the recent
landmark 2nd Amendment case have upheld existing laws.

Times change, people change.

It's simply back to the rewrite desk until they get what's needed to
withstand all legal challenges.

What's to stop DC from putting in regulations so onerous that they
amount to a ban (which is what they've already discussed doing)?

Who knows, maybe that's what will happen.

And it will be back in the Supreme Court and this time the Justices will be
_****ed_, possibly enough so to pull the plug on _all_ firearms regulation.
The ruling specifically stated that regulations constituting a defacto ban
were not acceptable. The Supremes generally don't like it much when having
made such a statement the legislators try it anyway.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

And it will be back in the Supreme Court and this time the Justices
will be
_****ed_, possibly enough so to pull the plug on _all_ firearms
regulation.

Times change, people change.

If in fact it goes back, it will be a different court.

BTW, if you want to change something, you don't directly attack
something, you encapsulate it.

I'm certain you don't need an explanation.

Lew

HeyBub wrote:
Stuart wrote:
Your average burglar entering your home is extremely unlikely to be
carrying a gun and you still have the right to use reasonable force to
defend yourself and your property.

Not in the UK, you don't.

"Anthony Edward Martin (born 1944) is a farmer from Norfolk, England, who in
1999 killed one burglar, and wounded another, who had invaded his home. He
was subsequently convicted of murder. As a result, he became a cause célèbre
for some, and polarised opinions in the UK"

Nor in some states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, D.C.)

In other states, you may use reasonable force only if it impossible to
retreat.


Several years ago I worked as a Corrections Officer. One day while I was
at my post I over heard a young white punk talking to one of his
buddies. The white guy commented that when he got out of prison he was
going to quit taking a gun on his burglaries. The last one cost him
additional time when he was caught.

Dave N

"David G. Nagel" wrote:

Several years ago I worked as a Corrections Officer. One day while I
was at my post I over heard a young white punk talking to one of his
buddies. The white guy commented that when he got out of prison he
was going to quit taking a gun on his burglaries. The last one cost
him additional time when he was caught.

And if caught at night with a gun in a domicile, it represents some
really serious time.

The weapon is a real kicker.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

And it will be back in the Supreme Court and this time the Justices
will be
_****ed_, possibly enough so to pull the plug on _all_ firearms
regulation.

Times change, people change.

If in fact it goes back, it will be a different court.

It's quite possibly going back this year into the same court.

BTW, if you want to change something, you don't directly attack
something, you encapsulate it.

I'm certain you don't need an explanation.

So tell us how this "encapsulation" would work.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

It's quite possibly going back this year into the same court.

This is mid June lad, Suter is history.

So tell us how this "encapsulation" would work.

Engage brain before keypad.

Think about it.

Hint: Trident & Net v: Sword & Shield

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

It's quite possibly going back this year into the same court.

This is mid June lad, Suter is history.

So? Hint, Mr. 'Engage brain'--Souter voted _against_.

So tell us how this "encapsulation" would work.

Engage brain before keypad.

Think about it.

Hint: Trident & Net v: Sword & Shield

Hint--clear communication is not your strong suit.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Hint--clear communication is not your strong suit.

Have some customers who might take exception, but regardless, this
part of the thread has become a boar.

I'm out of here.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote:

Several years ago I worked as a Corrections Officer. One day while I
was at my post I over heard a young white punk talking to one of his
buddies. The white guy commented that when he got out of prison he
was going to quit taking a gun on his burglaries. The last one cost
him additional time when he was caught.

And if caught at night with a gun in a domicile, it represents some
really serious time.

The weapon is a real kicker.

Lew


That was his point.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Hint--clear communication is not your strong suit.

Have some customers who might take exception, but regardless, this
part of the thread has become a boar.

I'm out of here.

Lew


Fine with me but please take your hog with you. Thanks....

"Stuart" wrote in message
...
In article ,
HeyBub wrote:

Not in the UK, you don't.

"Anthony Edward Martin (born 1944) is a farmer from Norfolk, England,
who in 1999 killed one burglar, and wounded another, who had invaded
his home. He was subsequently convicted of murder. As a result, he
became a cause célèbre for some, and polarised opinions in the UK"

It all depends on your definition of reasonable force.

IIRC one was shot in the back!

Without seeing all the evidence and reading the in depth court proceedings
it is difficult to pass judgement but there were reports at the time that
he had made public statements designed to lure them to his home so that he
could do away with them.

There have been other cases since where householders have used more
appropriate levels of force and after questioning have been released
without charge. Those cases, of course, don't make such headlines.

It is, I admit, a very grey area but, by and large, courts are tending to
favour the householder unless there is clear evidence that he has
overstepped the mark.

Punching a burglar to the ground, on the basis that you fear for your
safety is one thing but, however much you might feel it is your right to
do so, kicking his head in while he is lying there isn't.

He was rying to get up and reaching for the poker.


Anyway, back to woodworking.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
HeyBub wrote:

Stuart wrote:

Your average burglar entering your home is extremely unlikely to be
carrying a gun and you still have the right to use reasonable force
to defend yourself and your property.

Not in the UK, you don't.

"Anthony Edward Martin (born 1944) is a farmer from Norfolk, England,
who in 1999 killed one burglar, and wounded another, who had invaded
his home. He was subsequently convicted of murder. As a result, he
became a cause célèbre for some, and polarised opinions in the UK"

Bad example, back-shooting burglars who are attempting to flee doesn't
qualify as self-defense.


He turned as I fired. I panicked.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Stuart wrote:

Street deaths and domestics are still down to the use of knives and
other weapons.

Yes, I've read news articles from the UK about efforts to treat knives the
same as firearms. If memory serves they've already gone that route in
Australia, get caught with a tiny keychain knife there and you have a
problem. I suppose it's only a matter of time until steel-toed work boots
require a permit.

Your average burglar entering your home is extremely unlikely to be
carrying a gun and you still have the right to use reasonable force to
defend yourself and your property.

With what, a cricket bat? A National Rail sandwich lashed to the end of a
stick might make an effective club....


Railway food still that bad, eh? They still do fried eggs floating on grease
at the cafe on Paddington Platform 1?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

And it will be back in the Supreme Court and this time the Justices
will be
_****ed_, possibly enough so to pull the plug on _all_ firearms
regulation.

Times change, people change.

If in fact it goes back, it will be a different court.

It's quite possibly going back this year into the same court.

BTW, if you want to change something, you don't directly attack
something, you encapsulate it.

I'm certain you don't need an explanation.

So tell us how this "encapsulation" would work.


He'd swallow your gun.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Hint--clear communication is not your strong suit.

Have some customers who might take exception, but regardless, this
part of the thread has become a boar.

It has become a male pig?

I'm out of here.

In other words you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

David G. Nagel wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote:

Several years ago I worked as a Corrections Officer. One day while I
was at my post I over heard a young white punk talking to one of his
buddies. The white guy commented that when he got out of prison he
was going to quit taking a gun on his burglaries. The last one cost
him additional time when he was caught.

And if caught at night with a gun in a domicile, it represents some
really serious time.

The weapon is a real kicker.

Lew


That was his point.

FWIW, under George the First there was a program where any criminal in
possession of a firearm was referred to the Federal government _after_ he
was convicted on state charges, with his state term starting after his
Federal term was over. Clinton for whatever reason, and, I understand, over
Janet Reno's protests (I'd like to get enough liquor down that woman to get
her to tell me what she _really_ thinks about Clinton) , discontinued this
program.

J. Clarke wrote:

BTW, if you want to change something, you don't directly attack
something, you encapsulate it.

I'm certain you don't need an explanation.

So tell us how this "encapsulation" would work.

It seems the anti-gun crowd has recognized they won't get what they want in
the foreseeable future. I heard Diane Feinstein say as much recently, they
just don't have the votes in Congress because too many voters back home
wouldn't take kindly to sweeping bans such as Feinstein is on record as
supporting. So instead they're using the death of a thousand cuts method.
E.g. if you can't outright ban guns then make it a pain in the ass to buy
ammo; require training courses with difficult tests, permits, registration
(all with steep fees); require inspections of home storage facilities and so
on and so forth until owning a firearm is so much trouble many people just
give up.

Similar tactics have been used in other countries, just keep raising the
height of the hoops people have to jump through and eventually most of them
won't try anymore. That's the sort of thing Washington DC was talking about
doing right after the recent DC v. Heller decision. Many similar
regulations have already been upheld by lower courts post-Heller, so those
who figure Heller has changed the whole ballgame need to take a closer look.
That decision will end total bans such as DC and Chicago have tried (with
little effect on crime), but it won't result in many local, state and
federal regulations and restrictions being scrapped. In fact, and perhaps
ironically, the recent 9th Circuit decision that the 2nd Amendment does
apply to state and local governments nonetheless upheld the right of a
county to prohibit firearms (and thus a gun show) from county property. The
Devil is in the details, and the Heller ruling doesn't mean your local govt.
can't put *any* firearms restrictions or regulations in place.

I think some regulations make sense, safe storage laws for example. But
when such laws are designed and enforced in such a way as to discourage
firearms ownership rather than ensure public safety, well that's another
story.

I wouldn't vote for Edward Kennedy for the position of Dog Catcher but
I was totally incensed when he was refused boarding of an aircraft in
Boston for a flight to Washington. His offense? Some asshole, somewhere
had his name placed on the do not fly list. Kennedy, even though he was
well known to the Boston Airport people was kept off the plane. It took
weeks for him to be cleared to fly again. The same list has my name on
it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old baby was refused
boarding due to his name.

This is what is wrong with the defense against terrorism.

Dave N


And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health care.

"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old baby was refused
boarding due to his name.

I'd guess many of those officials are chosen because of their rigidity or
lack of imagination or smarts or a combination of all three. Or maybe, it's
fear of being punished for thinking for themselves prevents a more realistic
scenario.

And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health care.

Different group of people and certainly a different mindset. Don't know too
much about US healthcare other than I'm led to believe you need bucketloads
of money or have been investing in insurance for a long time to really
benefit from it.

I'm sure someone will crucify me for saying that, but what the hell.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old baby was refused
boarding due to his name.

I'd guess many of those officials are chosen because of their rigidity or
lack of imagination or smarts or a combination of all three. Or maybe,
it's
fear of being punished for thinking for themselves prevents a more
realistic
scenario.

FTMP the same zombies who worked airport security for Wackenhut now work for
TSA. If we go to a government insurance program, the private insurance
industry will shed their dead wood.


And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health care.

Different group of people and certainly a different mindset. Don't know
too
much about US healthcare other than I'm led to believe you need
bucketloads
of money or have been investing in insurance for a long time to really
benefit from it.

You need to be gainfully employed at something other than a minimum wage
job.

I'm sure someone will crucify me for saying that, but what the hell.

Upscale wrote:


"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old baby was refused
boarding due to his name.

I'd guess many of those officials are chosen because of their rigidity or
lack of imagination or smarts or a combination of all three. Or maybe,
it's fear of being punished for thinking for themselves prevents a more
realistic scenario.

And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health care.

Different group of people and certainly a different mindset.

Yep, the *next* great government program is always going to be better and
use smarter people. Sad thing is that too many stupid people actually
believe that.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Larry W wrote:

In article ,
Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
It would certainly have an affect on ammunition availability as well
as the hand gun violence here in L/A where on an average week, there
will be 6-8 hand gun killings.

And in the UK, where strict gun laws are in place, you'd be hard pressed
to count that many in a month throughout the entire country.


True enough, but firearm related homicides were at the same low level
in Great Britain even _before_ their strict gun control laws were
enacted; by some measures, they have gone up since then.



As have home invasions, stabbings, assaults with or without deadly weapon
(because those defending themselves are the ones who are prosecuted),
robberies, etc.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
As have home invasions, stabbings, assaults with or without deadly
weapon
(because those defending themselves are the ones who are prosecuted),
robberies, etc.

Prosecution of those protecting themselves is relatively small and you know
it. It only sounds bigger because everybody hears about it almost instantly.

Anyway, there's a lot more to consider when talking about such increases.
Population density has increased greatly, the lower income segment of the
population has increased as have many other things in this day and age.
There's never been a bigger divide between the rich and the poor and it's
increasing. You can't really compare statistics tit for tat with what was
going on forty years ago. It's a different time, a different age and much of
it is a different mindset. We hear about all sorts of things these days that
we'd never have heard thirty years ago.

As an example, look at what's coming out of Iran. Do you think we'd have
heard any of it if global communications were not as widespread as they are
today? Without the world watching, I'd wager that Iran's government would
have killed quite a few more protestors than it already has. It *is* a
different time and things change because of it.

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Upscale wrote:


"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old baby was
refused boarding due to his name.

I'd guess many of those officials are chosen because of their
rigidity or lack of imagination or smarts or a combination of all
three. Or maybe, it's fear of being punished for thinking for
themselves prevents a more realistic scenario.

And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health
care.

Different group of people and certainly a different mindset.

Yep, the *next* great government program is always going to be
better and
use smarter people. Sad thing is that too many stupid people actually
believe that.

Now why would senators and other government employees be happy to be
covered by a US health plan?

OTOH, The VA health coverage is by far not as good as that of NY Ciy
Medical schools for their employees ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Upscale wrote:


"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old baby was
refused boarding due to his name.

I'd guess many of those officials are chosen because of their
rigidity or lack of imagination or smarts or a combination of all
three. Or maybe, it's fear of being punished for thinking for
themselves prevents a more realistic scenario.

And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health
care.

Different group of people and certainly a different mindset.

Yep, the *next* great government program is always going to be
better and
use smarter people. Sad thing is that too many stupid people
actually believe that.

Now why would senators and other government employees be happy to be
covered by a US health plan?

Because somebody else is paying for it?

OTOH, The VA health coverage is by far not as good as that of NY Ciy
Medical schools for their employees ...

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:h1d8ge09v0
@news6.newsguy.com:

Because somebody else is paying for it?

I think senators earn enough to afford something that suits them, so being
cheap does not have to motivate them in this.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in news:h1d8ge09v0
@news6.newsguy.com:

Because somebody else is paying for it?

I think senators earn enough to afford something that suits them, so being
cheap does not have to motivate them in this.


Given how cheaply Senators can be bought (look at the latest Dodd
scandal -- he cashed in on inside information to the tune of $115k or so),
I would say that politicians tend to view having to spend their own money
for anything to be an abomination, especially when they can figure out a
way to get someone else to pay.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jun 18, 6:21*am, Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote innews:OM6dnQ61pJm6TqTXnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@supernews. com:



Upscale wrote:

"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old baby was
refused boarding due to his name.

I'd guess many of those officials are chosen because of their
rigidity or lack of imagination or smarts or a combination of all
three. Or maybe, it's fear of being punished for thinking for
themselves prevents a more realistic scenario.

And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health
care.

Different group of people and certainly a different mindset.

* Yep, the *next* great government program is always going to be
* better and
use smarter people. *Sad thing is that too many stupid people actually
believe that.

Now why would senators and other government employees be happy to be
covered by a US health plan?

OTOH, The VA health coverage is by far not as good as that of NY Ciy
Medical schools for their employees ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

I use VA health care. My wife has been using what I call civilian
health care.

God protect from having to deal with those assholes for my own care.
It's bad enough pushing to get her well taken care of.

Compared to much of the local medical care, VA in this area is a
shining example they should strive to match. It's far from perfect,
but civilian medical care and its application is so irregular, and
filled with asininities, that it's almost a waste of time.

Someone made a smart-assed comment about getting insurance by getting
a job that pays above minimum wage. That's pure bull****, and he knows
it. Fewer and fewer jobs today offer decent medical insurance. Medical
insurance is becoming difficult to afford except for the upper middle
class, which is ironic, because the way insurance has changed in the
past 50 or so years is a large part of the problem with medical care
in the U.S.

Charlie Self wrote in
:

On Jun 18, 6:21*am, Han wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote
innews:OM6dnQ61pJm6TqTXnZ2dnU
:



Upscale wrote:

"Joe Bleau" wrote in message
it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old baby was
refused boarding due to his name.

I'd guess many of those officials are chosen because of their
rigidity or lack of imagination or smarts or a combination of all
three. Or maybe, it's fear of being punished for thinking for
themselves prevents a more realistic scenario.

And these are the people we are going to entrust with our health
care.

Different group of people and certainly a different mindset.

* Yep, the *next* great government program is always going to be
* better and
use smarter people. *Sad thing is that too many stupid people
actuall
y
believe that.

Now why would senators and other government employees be happy to be
covered by a US health plan?

OTOH, The VA health coverage is by far not as good as that of NY Ciy
Medical schools for their employees ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

I use VA health care. My wife has been using what I call civilian
health care.

God protect from having to deal with those assholes for my own care.
It's bad enough pushing to get her well taken care of.

Compared to much of the local medical care, VA in this area is a
shining example they should strive to match. It's far from perfect,
but civilian medical care and its application is so irregular, and
filled with asininities, that it's almost a waste of time.

Someone made a smart-assed comment about getting insurance by getting
a job that pays above minimum wage. That's pure bull****, and he knows
it. Fewer and fewer jobs today offer decent medical insurance. Medical
insurance is becoming difficult to afford except for the upper middle
class, which is ironic, because the way insurance has changed in the
past 50 or so years is a large part of the problem with medical care
in the U.S.

Amen to all that. I'm not using VA medical care except to get my yearly
flushot (free, takes 2 min 37 seconds for my as nominal employee - I'm
WOC -, including filling out the registration form). Other healthcare
through Cornell's plan with United Healthcare.

I do believe that the care in the Manhattan VA is very good (it's an NYU
teaching hospital). That doesn't mean that all VA's are good, or in good
all specialties. That is where caveat emptor still applies.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Jun 13, 12:07*pm, Han wrote:
"John Grossbohlin" wrote innews:TJWdnRFn8qfKN67XnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@earthlink. com:





Make of this what you will... I thought it was interesting!

What's in your pocket? What's in your shop?

U.S. Customs has proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted
opening knives are not switchblades. The proposal would not only
outlaw assisted opening knives, its overly broad new definition of a
switchblade would also include all one-handed opening knives and most
other pocket knives... Seems that our utility knives and other knife
tools are covered under this too.
Entering my place of work (VA Hospital) requires me to show ID and send
my briefcase or backpack through the Xray machine. *If I leave my Swiss
Army-type knife in there I get a hard time. *As an employee I go through
a minimally active magnetometer, so my pants pocket is theobvious
alternative. *It's nonsense, because I have many sharp or otherwise
potentially hazardous things in my lab, but them's the rules. *They do
make some sense, considering the large quantity of confiscated bad things
I have seen in the police office. *Also, I was amazed at what I have
seen, such as the visitor who put the thing that set off the magnetometer
in the little bypass tray meant for watches, coins, phones etc. *He was
told that he couldn't bring this thing into the hospital. *Either leave
it outside somewhere or with someone, or don't go in. *It was a set of
heavy duty brass knuckles!!!


i am so happy to be in the land of fruits and nuts, seeing as the muck
I arose from!

mk5000

"Generations have trod, have trod, have trod
All all is smeared with trade, bleared, seared with toil
And wear's man's smudge, and shares man's smell
Nor can foot feel, being shod
And for all this, nature is never spent
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things"--hopkins

On Jun 16, 12:23*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Stuart wrote:

Your average burglar entering your home is extremely unlikely to be
carrying a gun and you still have the right to use reasonable force
to defend yourself and your property.

Not in the UK, you don't.

"Anthony Edward Martin (born 1944) is a farmer from Norfolk, England,
who in 1999 killed one burglar, and wounded another, who had invaded
his home. He was subsequently convicted of murder. As a result, he
became a cause célèbre for some, and polarised opinions in the UK"

Bad example, back-shooting burglars who are attempting to flee doesn't
qualify as self-defense.

You can be sure the *******s won't be around to threaten again.