"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
eb.com...

A solution that also generates a revenue stream is obvious.

License all fire arms that get renewed annualy, much like hunting
licenses.

License renewal could be as low as $25/yr/weapon; however, failure to
renew would be a $5K fine and 6 months in jail.

Every body gets to keep their pacifiers and a few $ get generated to pay
for weapons investigation related issues.

Great plan, just have to get that pesky Constitution out of the way first.
Oh sure, people will raise the example of New Zealand where a law requiring
periodic license renewals (with fees) resulted in what the authorities there
dryly described as "poor compliance". They even admitted that the majority
of guns used by criminals were illegally owned and that the pool of weapons
available to the criminal community was refreshed by illegally imported
weapons--gosh, who could have foreseen that? And then there is Canada,
where license and registration fees would make the system
self-financing--well, unless you count the umpteen million taxpayer dollars
poured in trying to make a badly broken system function. The govt. said it
would cost $119 million to set up a registration system, almost all paid by
fees. The actual cost has topped a billion dollars only a tenth of which
was covered by fees, and the system is still a mess. And then it came out
that the govt. hired a lobbyist to lobby the govt. for more money for the
registration system--it's like Alice In Wonderland....

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
om...

Do you really believe that if there was such a licensing scheme, the
revenue would actually be used "to pay for weapons investigation related
issues"? More likely it would wind up in the hands of the teachers' labor
union.

First, based on what happened in Canada the revenue from fees wouldn't even
cover the cost of the program, it would pay for only a small fraction.
Second, although I'm not a fan of the teachers unions, it's kind of foolish
to suggest that money from firearms licensing fees would end up in the hands
of the unions. In other words, one silly statement does not justify
another.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 07:42:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Try a rational ploy next time...or do the research and come up with
the same data I did. I gave up hating handguns after finding the
truth. Give it a try. Loving is much better than hating.

Yeah but my biggest problem with legal guns is the owners who buy one
to have protection and do not get the proper training. Shooting in a
combat situation requires practice.

I have no problem with concealed carry, but if you are going to carry
you damn well better practice.

Now a good way to show someone what is required is to give them a
paintball gun and play a bit. After a few welts it might occur to them
you could end up dead in a shoot out.

Mark

Relax! It was an exaggerated statement for humor to exemplify a point.


"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
First, based on what happened in Canada the revenue from fees wouldn't even
cover the cost of the program, it would pay for only a small fraction.
Second, although I'm not a fan of the teachers unions, it's kind of foolish
to suggest that money from firearms licensing fees would end up in the hands
of the unions. In other words, one silly statement does not justify
another.


"Just Wondering" wrote in message
om...

Do you really believe that if there was such a licensing scheme, the
revenue would actually be used "to pay for weapons investigation related
issues"? More likely it would wind up in the hands of the teachers' labor
union.

How is it put so often by the likes of you here?
Do you have any cites to point to or did you just imagine all these stats?

Have you considered the continual tightening of the gun laws they do every
few years?


"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Great plan, just have to get that pesky Constitution out of the way first.
Oh sure, people will raise the example of New Zealand where a law requiring
periodic license renewals (with fees) resulted in what the authorities there
dryly described as "poor compliance". They even admitted that the majority
of guns used by criminals were illegally owned and that the pool of weapons
available to the criminal community was refreshed by illegally imported
weapons--gosh, who could have foreseen that? And then there is Canada,
where license and registration fees would make the system
self-financing--well, unless you count the umpteen million taxpayer dollars
poured in trying to make a badly broken system function. The govt. said it
would cost $119 million to set up a registration system, almost all paid by
fees. The actual cost has topped a billion dollars only a tenth of which
was covered by fees, and the system is still a mess. And then it came out
that the govt. hired a lobbyist to lobby the govt. for more money for the
registration system--it's like Alice In Wonderland....

Pretty nasty to paint a whole nation of people that are that insecure and
feel so much better owning a gun..

Guns instead of psychiatry?

-------------------
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
Try a rational ploy next time...or do the research and come up with
the same data I did. I gave up hating handguns after finding the
truth. Give it a try. Loving is much better than hating.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:35:33 -0700, Just Wondering wrote:

On 3/2/2011 7:33 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:


You mean that imprisoned criminals (who are nonetheless people)
should have access to automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?

Great idea Han! Green too. Give a 1 lb cube of plutonium to imprisioned
criminals to play with in their cells...Solves the criminal element problem,
eases the overburdening of prisons, and reduces the cost of incarcerting bad
guys for long periods of time.

Plutonium costs nearly $2 million a pound. YOu don't need anywhere near
that much. Letting them play with 1/100 of a gram would be fatal.

But it's recyclable. One pound goes a *long* way. Think how "green" that is.

On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
Can that actually be true in The USA?

Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
people they have a right to bear arms?


It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
property is used.

In article , Just Wondering wrote:
On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
Can that actually be true in The USA?

Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
people they have a right to bear arms?


It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
property is used.

PDFTFT

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:34:02 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 07:42:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Try a rational ploy next time...or do the research and come up with
the same data I did. I gave up hating handguns after finding the
truth. Give it a try. Loving is much better than hating.

Yeah but my biggest problem with legal guns is the owners who buy one
to have protection and do not get the proper training. Shooting in a
combat situation requires practice.

I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
course before they'll issue licenses.


I have no problem with concealed carry, but if you are going to carry
you damn well better practice.

Now a good way to show someone what is required is to give them a
paintball gun and play a bit. After a few welts it might occur to them
you could end up dead in a shoot out.

Sounds like good training. My carry course wasn't as detailed as I've
heard some states require. 5 or 6 hours of class plus proof that we
can hit a torso-sized piece of cardboard at 15 yards.

A postcard just came from www.frontsight.com/liberty-tree2.asp which
sells nice training package memberships for $300. $5k-$20k+ worth for
that price. I'm really tempted this time, but getting to LV is a PITA.
You can take any or all of these courses as many times as you like for
life: 2 Day Defensive Handgun, 4 Day Defensive Handgun, Two Day
Tactical Shotgun; Two Day Practical Rifle. Sucha deal!

--
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.
-- Okakura Kakuzo

On 3/2/2011 11:49 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"Just Wondering" wrote in message
om...

Do you really believe that if there was such a licensing scheme, the
revenue would actually be used "to pay for weapons investigation
related issues"? More likely it would wind up in the hands of the
teachers' labor union.

First, based on what happened in Canada the revenue from fees wouldn't
even cover the cost of the program, it would pay for only a small
fraction. Second, although I'm not a fan of the teachers unions, it's
kind of foolish to suggest that money from firearms licensing fees would
end up in the hands of the unions. In other words, one silly statement
does not justify another.


(a) Money gets collected.
(b) Money is put into general fund.
(c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
(d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
(e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Upscale wrote:

Feeble, brain dead comparisons. Over and over you come up
with the dumbest examples in some inane attempt to argue
your need for a gun. Licensing a firearm is not a
ridiculous idea (except in your feeble mind) as compared
to your epoxy example. On no level are they comparable
(except in your feeble mind). On what exact level of
reasoning does one compare a glue product to a weapon? I
know. The next time I visit Home Depot, I'm going to go
armed because some mad shopper might use a bottle of epoxy
to attack me. Better I go armed so I can protect myself
because the police won't do it.

Nope - can't do that. Home Depot has a "No Firearms"
policy in their stores...


Maybe where you live but not in Texas. I don't patronize stores
that have a no gun policy. HD is a last resort but I do shop
there on occasion.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
om...


(a) Money gets collected.
(b) Money is put into general fund.
(c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
(d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
(e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.

Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
hookers.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:57:35 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:



"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. com...


(a) Money gets collected.
(b) Money is put into general fund.
(c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
(d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
(e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.

Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
hookers.

What's wrong with paying people for honest work?

Doug couldn't think of anything relevant to say again.

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...iller&safe=off
------------------
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...


PDFTFT

"Larry" wrote in message
Maybe where you live but not in Texas. I don't patronize stores
that have a no gun policy. HD is a last resort but I do shop
there on occasion.

Afraid some irate woodworker is going to have a meltdown while waiting in
line and attack you with a cordless nail gun?

Woodn't surprise me one bit after seeing the temperaments of some of the
self-professed better woodworkers here...LOL

Not a problem. Nailguns only drive nails out very slowly and and cannot
shoot them any distance...LOL

Fertilizer makes a better attack weapon anyway. "Excuse me? Where is your
diesel fuel?"

Fertilizer doesn't kill people. People kill people.
--------------

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
Afraid some irate woodworker is going to have a meltdown while waiting in
line and attack you with a cordless nail gun?


"Larry" wrote in message
Maybe where you live but not in Texas. I don't patronize stores
that have a no gun policy. HD is a last resort but I do shop
there on occasion.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:01:05 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"dhall987" wrote in message
.. .


I guess to me the "best form" would be to expect the Supreme Court to
apply the Constitution appropriately and not accept that "the
Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does".

Think about that, exactly who gets to tell the Supreme Court which
interpretation is "appropriate"? Other than a Constitutional Amendment, the
SCOTUS is the end of the road. So the realistic view is that the
Constitution says what the court says it does.
Didn't say that I had the answer, just that accepting without argument
(or actually celebrating) that the Supreme Court isn't bound to
actually "interprete" the Constitution is not the answer. Saying that
it is a "living document" from the perspective that these 9 can change
it at will is not the answer.
The whole
concept of the Constitution being a "living document" just seems
bizarre to me.

At least some of the men who wrote the Constitution disagreed, Jefferson
among them (although of course he also distrusted the judiciary having the
final say over constitutional issues). But Jefferson made it clear that the
Constitution was not a perfected document, that at times improvements would
only be possible "by inches" and thus had to be ongoing.

As I have read Jefferson, he did believe that the Constitution would
change over time, but he seems to me to have said that it would be
changed via the amendment process until it could no longer be and then
it would be done via violence. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". He certainly
did not appear to assume that it would be changed passively at the
whim of a majority of the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately I still want to believe in a government
of laws, not men - but if we accept that the 9 can simply ignore the
law and make up whatever they want then that old saw doesn't quite
work.

What is the alternative? Many people believe the Constitution is
intentionally vague because the Framers knew they couldn't possibly go into
detail on every issue. So the law had to be left up to the various branches
of government (which includes the courts) with broad guidance from the
Constitution. But interpretation was inevitable, and sooner or later that
buck has to stop somewhere.

Of course "interpretation" is needed. To try to codify in detail gets
you the EU's new "constitution" which if I recall correctly is several
hundred pages long or longer. However, there is a distinct difference
between interpreting the constitution and simply making it up. If you
hire someone to "interprete" spanish and he states that "si" means
buffalo or "uno" means green then he really isn't "interpreting" is
he?
Now the 2nd amendment and our court's failure, currently and
historically, to uphold it is a prime example to me. I truly believe
and wish that the government could control private ownership of arms.
However, even a simpleton reading the 2nd amendment and the history of
its enactment know that such controls are illegal. If our courts had
held that way historically, we would have replaced the 2nd amendment
decades ago. The amendment does not talk about handguns or rifles or
muskets or bows & arrows ~ it talks about "arms". This clearly meant
all forms of arms because it clearly meant the arms necessary to
protect ourselves against an over-reaching central (federal)
government.

Not really, if you look for it you can find exactly what the Framers meant
because they spelled it out, e.g. Virginia's state constitution which
detailed what sort of arms citizens were required to bring when summoned to
militia duty--personal arms such as muskets or pikes--no artillery. It is
reasonable to think the Framers meant for the arms citizens commonly owned
at the time to be protected--muskets/rifles, shotguns, handguns--not forms
of weaponry which few private citizens possessed.

....and yet most of the artillary used in the Revolution (other than
that which we took from the British Fort of West Point) came from
private owners. Hmmmmm...
Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.

Amusing, but not historically accurate.

What isn't accurate? Didn't government long ago outlaw (or restrict to
the point or virtually outlawing) private ownership of large weaponry?
Try to "bear" a bazooka some day...
So, to kind of summarize, I am that odd person who is a strict
constructionist that wants to have gun control. I just believe that we
must (and should) change the constitution first. I do not think that
the Supreme Court should be able to decide that society has "reached a
new concensus" and dictate it. If we reach such a concensus then we
should express it in one of the 2 ways set out in the Constitution for
making that change.

Again, if you read what they wrote outside the Constitution you can find
*why* the Framers thought the 2nd Amendment was necessary, namely that they
thought the 2nd was the amendment that made all the rest of the Bill of
Rights possible, a concept they actually inherited from English law. As you
say, if that is now an obsolete concept then the Constitution provides the
means for itself to be amended. But if no government is willing to
undertake that process, then it is inevitable that the courts will have deal
with it.

Only if you want to live in a dictatorship of the judiciary. And thus
we return to the beginning...

Larry wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:



Nope - can't do that. Home Depot has a "No Firearms"
policy in their stores...


Maybe where you live but not in Texas. I don't patronize stores
that have a no gun policy. HD is a last resort but I do shop
there on occasion.

Didn't know that. I thought it was a corporate policy.

--

-Mike-

In article , Larry Jaques wrote:

I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
course before they'll issue licenses.

FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:19:22 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 28 Feb 2011 10:49:38 GMT, Han wrote:

Doug Winterburn wrote in
aweb.com:

On 02/27/2011 06:20 PM, Han wrote:
Doug wrote in
eb.com:

The "law" also says it is illegal to enter the country without
permission.

Sheesh indeed!

Yes indeed. It's so easy to overstay a visitor visa, and so it's
done. There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies
needing cheap labor and people desperate for work.

Btw, I did legally enter and then I naturalized. I also pay
taxesgrin.


I'm referring to the 15% of the citizens of Mexico sneaking across our
border.

Didn't I say
"There is a great deal of collusion between people/companies needing
cheap labor and people desperate for work."?

If we stopped the illegals at the borders, all those out of work
Americans could start working and save (or attempt to save) their
mortgages and livelihood. And companies wouldn't be tempted to hire
cheaper illegal workers.


Personally I think those people (who will have difficulty collecting SS
or other benefits) contribute to the wealth of some of our citizens, and
pay some of our taxes.

Research that a bit, Han. You'll find lots of cases where the illegal
grabbed someone else's SSN and used it to collect benefits.


It is the people who hire them who should be
fined or otherwise punished.

True, both fined and punished! Make the CEOs pick up litter on the
freeways and city streets.

Bull****, put them in prision for a couple years. I virtually
guarantee that after that law is passed and that punishment imposed a
few times, illegal immigrants would no longer be able to get work.
Then when we imprision any public employee who gives welfare to an
illegal and we open the roads back into Mexico, there would be a
backwards flow really quickly.

How much of your income are you willing to spend on your taxes to feed these
bums in prison?

Is there any empty lots in your neighborhood for a prison?

----
"dhall987" wrote in message
...
Bull****, put them in prision for a couple years. I virtually
guarantee that after that law is passed and that punishment imposed a
few times, illegal immigrants would no longer be able to get work.
Then when we imprision any public employee who gives welfare to an
illegal and we open the roads back into Mexico, there would be a
backwards flow really quickly.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques wrote:

I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
course before they'll issue licenses.

FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."

Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:32:27 -0600, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques wrote:

I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
course before they'll issue licenses.

FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."

Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?

Yep, AL is open carry with no permit or license,
one point I"ll add is that open or concealed, you
have to have a permit if it is in a vehicle.

basilisk

"dhall987" wrote in message
...

As I have read Jefferson, he did believe that the Constitution would
change over time, but he seems to me to have said that it would be
changed via the amendment process until it could no longer be and then
it would be done via violence. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". He certainly
did not appear to assume that it would be changed passively at the
whim of a majority of the Supreme Court.

As I said, Jefferson was not a fan of judicial review having the final say.
But considering that the Framers made amendment so difficult
it's hard to imagine how else they thought it would work. Since 1789 over
10,000 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed in Congress, that
only a couple of dozen made it all the way to becoming law suggests judicial
review as the primary means of fine-tuning constitutional law was
inevitable.

Of course "interpretation" is needed. To try to codify in detail gets
you the EU's new "constitution" which if I recall correctly is several
hundred pages long or longer. However, there is a distinct difference
between interpreting the constitution and simply making it up. If you
hire someone to "interprete" spanish and he states that "si" means
buffalo or "uno" means green then he really isn't "interpreting" is
he?

The problem with your analogy is that if we want to know how good a job a
linguistic interpreter is doing we can open a dictionary and find out.
Where is the dictionary that tells us what the Framers *really* meant?
Their letters and speeches and so on are helpful, but they don't amount to
an instruction manual for the Constitution.

Not really, if you look for it you can find exactly what the Framers meant
because they spelled it out, e.g. Virginia's state constitution which
detailed what sort of arms citizens were required to bring when summoned
to
militia duty--personal arms such as muskets or pikes--no artillery. It is
reasonable to think the Framers meant for the arms citizens commonly owned
at the time to be protected--muskets/rifles, shotguns, handguns--not forms
of weaponry which few private citizens possessed.

...and yet most of the artillary used in the Revolution (other than
that which we took from the British Fort of West Point) came from
private owners. Hmmmmm...

Sure, private ocean-going vessels being a good example. But it remains that
Virginia didn't insist that the owners of artillery bring it along when the
militia was called to duty, they specified the arms that most citizens did
or easily could posses. So it seems reasonable those are the arms the
Framers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Yet courts a long time ago allowed the government to
strictly govern and restrict our rights to keep and bear arms such as
155MM howitzers, 50 cal machine guns, mortars, etc. Believe me, if the
2nd amendment were interpreted as meant, we would have scared
ourselves enough to overturn it a very long time ago.

Amusing, but not historically accurate.

What isn't accurate?

I meant the claim that the ownership of heavy crew-served weapons was
protected by the 2nd Amendment is inaccurate based on the courts not
recognizing such a right and indeed stating that regulations and
restrictions are legal so long as they do not deny the basic right to
ownership of firearms. Anyone is free to believe the constitution says
whatever they please, but if that "right" will never be recognized by the
courts then they're indulging in fantasy. These folks who figure they don't
need a state drivers license--that they are sovereign entities and can issue
one to themselves--might actually believe that, but their belief has no
legal force.

Didn't government long ago outlaw (or restrict to
the point or virtually outlawing) private ownership of large weaponry?
Try to "bear" a bazooka some day...

That is my point, there is no right just because someone believes it exists
in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even rights which do
exist are subject to limitations, freedom of speech doesn't mean laws
against defamation are unconstitutional and have no validity.

Again, if you read what they wrote outside the Constitution you can find
*why* the Framers thought the 2nd Amendment was necessary, namely that
they
thought the 2nd was the amendment that made all the rest of the Bill of
Rights possible, a concept they actually inherited from English law. As
you
say, if that is now an obsolete concept then the Constitution provides the
means for itself to be amended. But if no government is willing to
undertake that process, then it is inevitable that the courts will have
deal
with it.

Only if you want to live in a dictatorship of the judiciary. And thus
we return to the beginning...

Exactly, and thus I repeat my question, what is the alternative? Questions
of constitutional law will come up, and it is impractical to have a
constitutional convention every time that happens, so what else do we do?

On 3/2/2011 7:00 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:57:35 -0800, wrote:



"Just Wondering" wrote in message
om...


(a) Money gets collected.
(b) Money is put into general fund.
(c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
(d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
(e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.

Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
hookers.

What's wrong with paying people for honest work?

Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.

On 3/2/2011 7:00 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:57:35 -0800, wrote:



"Just Wondering" wrote in message
om...


(a) Money gets collected.
(b) Money is put into general fund.
(c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
(d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
(e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.

Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
hookers.

What's wrong with paying people for honest work?

Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
Can that actually be true in The USA?

Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
people they have a right to bear arms?


It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
property is used.

Not around here. If it is open for business, it is no longer private
property. That is the justification they used when they told businesses they
could no long allow people to smoke on their premises. Now that they have
established that your private business is not private, it is subject to the
wishes of the state, what's next?

On 3/3/2011 1:36 PM, CW wrote:
"Just wrote in message
...
On 3/2/2011 9:27 AM, Josepi wrote:
Can that actually be true in The USA?

Can a store violate the constitution, on their private property, telling
people they have a right to bear arms?


It's private property. A property owner has a right to control how his
property is used.

Not around here. If it is open for business, it is no longer private
property. That is the justification they used when they told businesses they
could no long allow people to smoke on their premises. Now that they have
established that your private business is not private, it is subject to the
wishes of the state, what's next?


It's more complicated than that. It's not that the property is no
longer private, it is still private property. It's not that the
property owner has no rights, it is the balancing of his rights against
the rights of other people to be free from exposure to carcinogens (in
the form of second-hand smoke). Personally I like being protected from
exposure to cancer risks. But as a purely constitutional matter, has
SCOTUS ruled on the states' power to impose those kind of restrictions?

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:
...snipped...
Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.


I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
is something wrong in those cases also?


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:
...snipped...
Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.


I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
is something wrong in those cases also?

Not necessarily. Where's your patriotism, man? Public service isn't
supposed to be a way to get rich. It's a way to serve your country,
damnit.

--
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.
-- Okakura Kakuzo

On 3/3/2011 3:30 PM, Larry W wrote:
In ,
Just wrote:
...snipped...
Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.


I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
is something wrong in those cases also?


It depends on the particular facts. The officers of private
corporations owe a duty to their shareholders. If the shareholders are
good with the job that management is doing, I don't have standing to
complain. But public sector jobs are funded by taxes. I don't think it
is right for elected officials to tell us taxpayers that we have to give
up more of our wages (in the form of taxes) to fund unnecessary
expenses. If government could get a job done for $50,000, I think it is
irresponsible for government to pay $80,000 for that job.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:29:11 -0600, basilisk wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:32:27 -0600, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques wrote:

I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
course before they'll issue licenses.

FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."

Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?

Yep, AL is open carry with no permit or license,
one point I"ll add is that open or concealed, you
have to have a permit if it is in a vehicle.

basilisk

Loaded where the operator can access it. Otherwise, weapons can be
transported. My understanding is that open carry is never allowed
(brandishing).

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:25:44 -0700, Just Wondering wrote:

On 3/2/2011 7:00 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:57:35 -0800, wrote:



"Just Wondering" wrote in message
om...


(a) Money gets collected.
(b) Money is put into general fund.
(c) Money from general fund is sent to state education programs.
(d) State education programs put money in teachers' pockets.
(e) Teachers pay dues to their labor unions.

Okay, then by that logic since the same fund pays the salaries of
politicians the money could end up in the hands of strip club owners and
hookers.

What's wrong with paying people for honest work?

Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.


Woooossshhhh!

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:
...snipped...
Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.


I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
is something wrong in those cases also?

Not necessarily. Where's your patriotism, man? Public service isn't
supposed to be a way to get rich. It's a way to serve your country,
damnit.

Think about the fact that public employee unions contribute heavily to
democratic candidates, now if they are fighting in the courts less
money is available to spend in the political arena.

Now why would a republican want to get rid of the unions?

Mark

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:00:07 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:
...snipped...
Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.


I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
is something wrong in those cases also?

Not necessarily. Where's your patriotism, man? Public service isn't
supposed to be a way to get rich. It's a way to serve your country,
damnit.

Think about the fact that public employee unions contribute heavily to
democratic candidates, now if they are fighting in the courts less
money is available to spend in the political arena.

Now why would a republican want to get rid of the unions?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Oops, you jumped from patriotism to bile without
answering the question, Mark. Which union are you in? tsk, tsk, tsk

To answer your question, see the paragraph above beginning with "Not
necessarily."

--
The art of life lies in a constant readjustment to our surroundings.
-- Okakura Kakuzo

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:43:05 -0600, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:29:11 -0600, basilisk wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:32:27 -0600, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:43:09 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , Larry Jaques wrote:

I hear that. But most states require at least a basic handgun safety
course before they'll issue licenses.

FWIW, not here in Indiana, and I imagine that any attempt to require it might
be found in violation of the state constitution: "The people shall have the
right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and of the state."

Not in Vermont (there is no "license"), nor in Alabama (CCW permit required
for CCW only). What is this "license" thing?

Yep, AL is open carry with no permit or license,
one point I"ll add is that open or concealed, you
have to have a permit if it is in a vehicle.

basilisk

Loaded where the operator can access it. Otherwise, weapons can be
transported. My understanding is that open carry is never allowed
(brandishing).

You may be right about the unloaded transport part, I never leave a gun
unloaded, so I hadn't considered it.

Al is "open carry" meaning if you want to wear a gun belt and holster
and pistol you can, but don't expect a bunch of city cops to be familiar
with the law and most businesses and govt buildings would be off limits,
it would seriously limit where you could go.

basilisk

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:19:53 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:00:07 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:34 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:
...snipped...
Nothing. But there is something wrong about paying public service
workers $80,000 a year for work that the private sector only pays
$50,000 for.


I can cite many examples that go the opposite way. Would you say that there
is something wrong in those cases also?

Not necessarily. Where's your patriotism, man? Public service isn't
supposed to be a way to get rich. It's a way to serve your country,
damnit.

Think about the fact that public employee unions contribute heavily to
democratic candidates, now if they are fighting in the courts less
money is available to spend in the political arena.

Now why would a republican want to get rid of the unions?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Oops, you jumped from patriotism to bile without
answering the question, Mark. Which union are you in? tsk, tsk, tsk

To answer your question, see the paragraph above beginning with "Not
necessarily."

No bile at all just an observation, as far patriotism I think four
years being willing to be part of the butchers bill fits.

No union affiliation here, my father was in the Pattern Makers League
though.

Look beyond the BS.

Not a registered for any politcal party either.

Mark

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
What is wrong with me owning the firearms that I own?

And if you happen to be a nutcase who has yet to come to the attention of
authorities? What then?

I happen to like firearms. I always have, but for target shooting purposes,
not a perceived need for protection. Having owned a number of guns in the
past, I now have one left. The ownship of firearms in the US is not and
never has been my objection. What I don't like is that it's too easy for
most anybody to buy a firearm. There's too many nuts out there that have
easy access to firearms. The process of registration, licensing and
mandatory education courses would dissuade a great many people from buying.
That's what I'd like to see.

Josepi wrote:
Looks like the "mini" gun controls are quite frequently found in USA
despite any constitutional statements or laws based on them.

What does a gun carrier do then? Leave the loaded gun in his/her car
for the criminal to have easy access?

Interesting.



Sure. Constitutional "rights" are limits on what GOVERNMENT can do, not what
a private person can do.

For example, the 1st Amendment starts "CONGRESS shall make no law..." This
says that the FEDERAL government cannot prohibit freedom of the press. An
individual employer can, for example, limit the hell out of what you
publish, even on your own time. A school cannot sanction a student for what
a student writes on a facebook page, but your boss can sure fire you for
saying the same thing.

For the first 150 years, or so, the Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the
federal government. States were free to have a state-sponsored church or
whatever. In 1925, the Supreme Court began "incorporating" these rights
against the states. The latest to be incorporated (2010) was the 2nd
Amendment in that it is now binding on the states.

There are still a few items in the BOR that are still NOT binding on the
states. States can still impose excessive bail, dispense with indictment by
a grand jury or a jury trial in civil cases, and can quarter troops in
private homes during peacetime.