On Mar 5, 10:10*am, Markem wrote:


I will be sure to tell his parents what a lousy job they are doing. He
is now eighteen, is getting top grades in high school.


Other than pushing his mothers buttons, a very good kid.

That is age-appropriate. :-)

In article ,
says...

DGDevin wrote:

Or because there are complaints against them which might or might not
mean they are incompetent to teach and they are benched while their
case crawls through the system. The ones who are incompetent should
be dismissed IMO, the unions need to be backed off of their position
on that issue one way or another. But even union members are
entitled to a fair hearing to determine if they really did something
wrong or just ****ed off some kids and their parents say by enforcing
discipline.

And just why are they "entitled" to a fair hearing? My state is an
"employment at will" state which means a private employer may dismiss any
employee for any (or no) reason. In the case of teachers, if they can quit
without a "fair hearing" why should the school district not be entitled to
the same discretion?

While an employer may dismiss any employee for any reason by _law_ that
does not mean that he can dismiss a union employee "for any reason" by
_contract_. Understand, there are four parties in a union firing--the
employee, the employer, the union, and the state. And the union can
ruin an employer's day just as thoroughly as the state can, in some
cases more so.

Or do you think teachers who discipline disruptive
students should just be fired if the parents file a complaint?

That's a tough call.

On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student, it's my
right to do so!"

On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which school they
can send their kids - the government school is the only one available.
Further, the law mandates school attendance.

The call is really "did the teacher act according to the disciplinary
rules that he or she has been provided by her employer". If so and if
the rules do not require an unlawful act or one that might constitutie
"cruel and unusual punishment", then the teacher shouldn't be fired for
following the rules no matter how much the parent objects.

"It's my school and I can do what I want to" would apply only to a
private school that is actually owned by the teacher, in which case
firing is not an option--you can't make someone fire themselves as far
as I know, however litigation or criminal charges might be depending on
the specific act.

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:01:30 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Markem wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:24:39 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

Sorry Mark, but I really have to call you on that last statement. Just what
is your basis for stating anyone (who ever that may be) in your definition,
should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for why you feel
this way, but the problem is that you have not stated anything more
substanative to articulate your point.

If they just buy a gun have no experience or training and do not seek
out training, put the loaded gun in the night stand.

Why should such a person be prohibited from owning a firearm? Do you
have evidence that such people create a signficant social problem?

That would be an
example, the kids who were shooting a birds on the telephone line with
a couple twelve gauges, putting bird shot into Qwests fiber optic (the
judge took they're toys away and sold them to pay Qwest for the
damages, civil court).

Kids make mistakes. Would you prohibit them from ever owning a firearm
again because they made a mistake that didn't harm anyone?

Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
not own firearms. Most of the time it is after the fact that this
become apparent.

The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?

I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
them.

Mark

On Mar 5, 2:17*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:


The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. *So how would you define this prohibited class?

"Objection! Leading the witness"

"Markem" wrote in message
...


I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

Mark

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


Sorry Mark, but I really have to call you on that last statement. Just
what is your basis for stating anyone (who ever that may be) in your
definition, should not own a gun. You might have a good explanation for
why you feel this way, but the problem is that you have not stated
anything more substanative to articulate your point.

My wife has a formula similar to Mark's: if she doesn't think I *need* to
own a motorcycle, then I am a person who *should not* own a motorcycle. And
I won't.

I'll put up with her arbitrary ruling, but Mark's is less persuasive.

I don't think you need one, therefore you shouldn’t have one--on that basis
none of you gets anything from Festool before I do.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
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.

No, it isn't.

It's not that the
property owner has no rights,

True. He still has the rights that the state lets him keep.


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).

Why don't they simply pass a law against having someone stand outside
business establishments forcing people at gun point to enter.

Personally I like being protected from
exposure to cancer risks.

Can't take care of yourself so need the government to do it for you. Got it.

"Markem" wrote in message
...


Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
not own firearms.

Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that should
be is arbitrary and nonsensical.

BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely substitute
"they're" for "their".

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

Bad choice for an example Mike since drivers are licensed, insured
and have had to pass a driving test to qualify for their license. I'm
asking no more or less for guns.

That is the point. Where those things have happened, the drivers have
been licensed. Licensing does absolutely nothing to prevent that nutcase
you referenced.

Well said. If licensing, registration and insurance could make the roads
safe, surely that would have happened many decades ago. Want to bet the guy
in this clip had a license?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XJULxJvbzM

There is also the issue that in the U.S. a driver's license is not a
constitutionally protected right, whereas being able to own a firearm is.
Anyone is free to disagree with that, but it's the law of the land.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:53:02 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
not own firearms.

Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that should
be is arbitrary and nonsensical.

BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely substitute
"they're" for "their".

Aw gee now you have fallen low, I have not defined anything. It was
you how sought to define what and whom.

Now that we have established that some who own firearms should not.

By the way I have an FIOD card, now the fight over releasing that
information per a FOI request for all statewide is a more pressing
issue.

Mark

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


Tell me, why aren't you [snip]

Given that your previously demonstrated response to the discussion not going
your way is to have a hissy fit and stomp off to sulk, there wouldn't seem
to be much point in answering you, would there.

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?

I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
them.

If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
to what purpose are you saying this?

"DGDevin" wrote in message
Well said. If licensing, registration and insurance could make the roads
safe, surely that would have happened many decades ago.

Same blunt reasoning on your part. It's not that licensing, registration and
insurance makes things safe. Nothing is or ever will be completely safe. It
just makes them "safer" and that should always be a goal worth pursuing.

Try to refute that with at least a little logic will you?

"DGDevin" wrote in message
Given that your previously demonstrated response to the discussion not
going your way is to have a hissy fit and stomp off to sulk, there
wouldn't seem to be much point in answering you, would there.

Fine, I have hissy fits and you're still an ass. I'll take the hissy fits
thanks.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:14:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?

I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
them.

If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
to what purpose are you saying this?

Why not?

Mark

On 3/5/2011 6:38 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Upscale wrote:

And "yes" even though I
never met them, it's a safe bet for me to call them mentally
deranged. Not enough? Would the names of two dozen serial killers do
it for you?

Most serial killers don't use guns. We better start registering peckers
then...

Would that also require a pole tax?

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If they should not what do you propose to do about it?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

And you are blinded by having no real point to make.

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:53:02 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


Actually no I do not have to articulate any more, some people should
not own firearms.

Nobody has disputed that. The problem is your definition of who that should
be is arbitrary and nonsensical.

BTW, "they're toys" means "they are toys". You seem to routinely substitute
"they're" for "their".

Aw gee now you have fallen low, I have not defined anything. It was
you how sought to define what and whom.

Now that we have established that some who own firearms should not.

No, "we" have established no such thing.

By the way I have an FIOD card, now the fight over releasing that
information per a FOI request for all statewide is a more pressing
issue.

Mark

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:14:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?

I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
them.

If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
to what purpose are you saying this?

Why not?

I'm sorry but "why not" is not a statement of purpose.

Upscale wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message
Well said. If licensing, registration and insurance could make the
roads safe, surely that would have happened many decades ago.

Same blunt reasoning on your part. It's not that licensing,
registration and insurance makes things safe. Nothing is or ever will
be completely safe. It just makes them "safer" and that should always
be a goal worth pursuing.
Try to refute that with at least a little logic will you?

How does registering anything make its use more safe? That's the crux of
one of the points in this discourse Upscale. Registering does absolutely
nothing to increase safety. Likewise insurance. If insurance made things
safer, we wouldn't need insurance. But again - before rushing off to
license, register and insure, you first have to establish that those you
wish to affect even need those processes. You have not done that yet.

--

-Mike-

Upscale wrote:

We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same
thing without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only.
You can't realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many
Americans see a gun as just another simple possession. I do
understand that, but you have to see I don't. I accord it a different
perspective and I always will. And, that's where our opinions will
always clash. The only thing to do is agree to disagree. Can't offer
you anything else.

Actually, I believe I did acknowledge your point in a previous post. Maybe
our posts got crossed in the mail. Despite the fact that a guns purpose is
to kill, that is not a reason for the legislation that has been proposed
here. If responsible people are not running out killing people just because
they have a gun that was designed to kill, then you are protecting nothing
by increasing legislation. That purpose (which I do acknoledge) has nothing
to do with how law abiding citizens behave with them. I do accept your
position and tried to state that in a different post - it's not so much you
that I'm debating as it is the collective thoughts suggesting more controls
for no good reason.



Oh for Pete's sake... How about the parent that didn't lock the
front door and the kid got out? Or the parent that didn't secure
the pool gate and the kid fell into the pool? How about...

Same reason as above. The pool gate had the purpose of prevention and
unfortunately it didn't fulfill its purpose. The gun has only one
use. I know someone is going to pop up and state that the gun could
be used to prevent robbery, rape, whatever. But, it still comes back
to the same thing. The gun is not a benign object like your gate, it
has only one purpose and many many times, that purpose is put to the
use of injuring and killing. You can't say the same thing about your
gate.

You are right about the purpose of a gun. But what has that got to do with
increasing regulations on people who have demonstrated they know how to
behave with them?


How about those guns that killed kids in their own home - for the
most part, all legally owned, guns. Safety and licensing have
nothing to do with one another.

Do you actually believe that? Safety and licensing instill a level of
respect, the importance of proper handling and use.

Sure. I grew up with guns. So did my kids. We did not need licensing to
teach us how to respect a gun. Licensing does nothing to instill this. If
you belive that, then I wonder if you've ever been licensed to carry a gun.
Your argument is like saying that the only safe way to learn to drive is by
taking a paid training course - yet a large percentage of us learned from
our parents without taking a Driver's Ed course. There is no evidence that
Driver's Ed benefits anyone except for those who's parents would not teach
them to drive, and there is no more evidence that licensing would instill
any better safety than one's parents, gun clubs, or any other alternative.


--

-Mike-

Markem wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 00:03:33 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Markem wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:53:13 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

The negative influence of violence on TV... even in cartoons. And
puhleeze don't tell me that **** kids watch on TV doesn't influence
them....that would collapse the advertisers who sell Count Obesula
Cerial!

My nephew wanted his Aunt B to run him over with the car after a
little league game, after all you just get blown back up with a tire
pump. He was eight.


Your nephew needs better parenting. Not social controls.

I will be sure to tell his parents what a lousy job they are doing. He
is now eighteen, is getting top grades in high school. Other than
pushing his mothers buttons, a very good kid.


Well - if that floats your boat. You told a story. I responded to it in
the context you told it. Now you add new details. Oh well...

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
How does registering anything make its use more safe? That's the crux of
one of the points in this discourse Upscale. Registering does absolutely
nothing to increase safety.

And that is something I refuse to believe. You might have put a little more
thought into it before you replied Mike. Since I'm Canadian, I'll use my
local gun experience as an example to show you why I feel registration makes
it safer. I had to go through training, licensing and registration to own my
pistol. That cost me time, effort and a not exorbitant amount of money.
Because I don't want my time, effort and money to be wasted and my pistol
confisgated, I adhere to the safety procedures laid out. These requirements
include proper safe storage, maintaining of my licensing and safe
transportation should I want to go target shooting. Does any of this answer
your question? Do these actions tell you that I take my gun ownershop
seriously and want to protect the effort I put into owning a gun? Obviously,
many Americans might find our gun laws draconian in nature. I earned the
right to own a gun and take pride in that right. Am I wrong to think this
way?

Whatever I have to say isn't going to change a shred of American views. I
realize that. But, I still have the right to state what I believe to be
true. Of all the rights people have in the USA, one of if not the most
important right is free speech. Are you going to argue or refute my right to
free speech?

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
Sure. grew up with guns. So did my kids. We did not need licensing to
teach us how to respect a gun. Licensing does nothing to instill this.

Maybe I haven't explained my reasoning properly. Licensing and registration
to me means that if you want to keep your gun, then you're not likely to do
anything to risk its removal. Does that make any sense? As I've stated
previously, I have only my own experience with safe ownership of a gun to go
by. I'm going to adhere to the safe storage procedures laid out to me
because I don't want to risk its removal.

How about an example? Most break ins are done when nobody is at home. A gun
left on a hall table is an easy theft. If it's locked up in a safe, it's an
additional barrier to the gun finding its way into criminal possession. Is
that a safe example? Guns and ammunition are supposed to be locked up
seperately and not kept together. Another small barrier, but a barrier
nevertheless.

The truth is that the vast amount of guns used in Canadian criminal activity
are guns that are smuggled up from the USA or stolen from their legal
owners. As far as as the legal owners go, if they mostly didn't adhere to
proper safe storage, there would be more guns on the street. Belittle it as
much as you want, but the fewer guns there are on the street, the safer it
is.

J. Clarke wrote:

On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student,
it's my right to do so!"

On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which
school they can send their kids - the government school is the only
one available. Further, the law mandates school attendance.

The call is really "did the teacher act according to the disciplinary
rules that he or she has been provided by her employer". If so and if
the rules do not require an unlawful act or one that might constitutie
"cruel and unusual punishment", then the teacher shouldn't be fired
for following the rules no matter how much the parent objects.


The discipline may very well be "cruel" and be legal. The Constitution says
"cruel AND unusual", not "cruel OR unusual." The courts have held that where
a particular punishment is codified into law or rule, such as public
whipping in Maryland, the punishment is not "unusual" and, hence, legal.

Upscale wrote:

We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same
thing without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only.
You can't realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many
Americans see a gun as just another simple possession. I do
understand that, but you have to see I don't. I accord it a different
perspective and I always will. And, that's where our opinions will
always clash. The only thing to do is agree to disagree. Can't offer
you anything else.

And just what is that one, single, purpose? Investment? Historical artifact?
Collecting? Psychological comfort?

I know! It's to KILL people!

So what is the alternative when you run across someone that needs killin'?

Hit 'em with a rolling pin?

Gouge out their lungs with an ice cream scoop?

I've run into very few people in my life that needed killin'...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:59:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:14:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?

I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
them.

If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
to what purpose are you saying this?

Why not?

I'm sorry but "why not" is not a statement of purpose.


This from someone who jumps in just to be arguing.

Mark

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If they should not what do you propose to do about it?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

And you are blinded by having no real point to make.

No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
always wins?

Upscale wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
How does registering anything make its use more safe? That's the
crux of one of the points in this discourse Upscale. Registering
does absolutely nothing to increase safety.

And that is something I refuse to believe. You might have put a
little more thought into it before you replied Mike. Since I'm
Canadian, I'll use my local gun experience as an example to show you
why I feel registration makes it safer. I had to go through training,
licensing and registration to own my pistol. That cost me time,
effort and a not exorbitant amount of money. Because I don't want my
time, effort and money to be wasted and my pistol confisgated, I
adhere to the safety procedures laid out. These requirements include
proper safe storage, maintaining of my licensing and safe
transportation should I want to go target shooting. Does any of this
answer your question? Do these actions tell you that I take my gun
ownershop seriously and want to protect the effort I put into owning
a gun? Obviously, many Americans might find our gun laws draconian in
nature. I earned the right to own a gun and take pride in that right.
Am I wrong to think this way?

I appreciate your experience. The gun laws the continue to be propogated on
us though, are not focused on that. Nor are the suggestions from some that
have risen in this thread. They are propogaed on the idea of making it more
and more difficult to get and keep guns, so as to discourage people from
wanting to do so. I grew up with guns so gun safety, and responsible
ownership/use of guns was drilled into me from I don't know how far back -
forever, it seems. For those who did not come from that kind of a
background then some form of training is necessary - gun safety does not
just happen, we agree on that. I don't think you are wrong to think the way
you do, in any respect. I want to emphasize that the only reason I get into
this kind of conversation, is not to convince a guy like yourself that he's
wrong, but to bring into discussion, some of the things that seem to serve
noble purposes, but are really an attempt to institute more gun control, and
limiting the rights of legal gun owners. I'm not accusing you of those
motives - but those motives have been expressed by some who have posted in
this thread.

Whatever I have to say isn't going to change a shred of American
views. I realize that. But, I still have the right to state what I
believe to be true. Of all the rights people have in the USA, one of
if not the most important right is free speech. Are you going to
argue or refute my right to free speech?

Nope. And, I'd hope you've not seen anything in what I have contributed to
this thread that would suggest I would do such a thing.

--

-Mike-

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:59:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:14:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 14:17:02 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

The problem is that you can't just say "some people should not own
firearms" without defining which people in a manner that is legally
enforcable. So how would you define this prohibited class?

I am not prohibiting anyone, just say some people should not have
them.

If you're not in favor of preventing such persons from having them then
to what purpose are you saying this?

Why not?

I'm sorry but "why not" is not a statement of purpose.


This from someone who jumps in just to be arguing.

Why are you getting defensive?

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If they should not what do you propose to do about it?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

And you are blinded by having no real point to make.

No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
always wins?

I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
hypothesis is not "arguing". And there is nothing to "win". Either you
have some action in mind or you don't. If you don't have any action in
mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? If
you do have action in mind what action is it?

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
noble purposes, but are really an attempt to institute more gun control,
and limiting the rights of legal gun owners. I'm not accusing you of
those motives - but those motives have been expressed by some who have
posted in this thread.

In all honesty then, maybe you should be accusing me of those motives.
Because, my view of Canadian firearm registration would if applied in the
US, be very likely viewed as severe gun control. Please understand, my view
on guns is not out of fear or other similar mitigating factors, it's just a
healthy respect for what guns represent to me. If I'd grown up in Texas for
example, I'm sure I'd view guns a little differently. Hell, I've even
considered moving down to Texas. Should it ever happen, I'll probably want
more guns too, just because I can.

Actually, I was thinking of moving beside Leon or Carl so I can borrow some
of their Festools. GRIN

On Mar 6, 9:49*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...







On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Markem" *wrote in message
.. .

I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If they should not what do you propose to do about it?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

And you are blinded by having no real point to make.

No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
always wins?

I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
hypothesis is not "arguing". *And there is nothing to "win". *Either you
have some action in mind or you don't. *If you don't have any action in
mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? *If
you do have action in mind what action is it?

ROTFLMAO

In article ,
says...

J. Clarke wrote:

On the one hand, "It's my school and if I want to whip a student,
it's my right to do so!"

On the other hand, parents generally have no choice as to which
school they can send their kids - the government school is the only
one available. Further, the law mandates school attendance.

The call is really "did the teacher act according to the disciplinary
rules that he or she has been provided by her employer". If so and if
the rules do not require an unlawful act or one that might constitutie
"cruel and unusual punishment", then the teacher shouldn't be fired
for following the rules no matter how much the parent objects.


The discipline may very well be "cruel" and be legal.

Please show where in the post to which you were responding any statement
to the contrary.

The Constitution says
"cruel AND unusual", not "cruel OR unusual." The courts have held that where
a particular punishment is codified into law or rule, such as public
whipping in Maryland, the punishment is not "unusual" and, hence, legal.

Another one of your ancient rulings? I can't find anything that
suggests that such a case has ever been before the Supreme Court.

Further Justice Blackmun for one does not make your fine distinction
that the punshment must be both cruel and unusual. The law does not
apply Boolean algebra.

And the Federal courts _have_ ruled that a convicted felon cannot be
whipped however it was an eighth circuit ruling which was not appealed.

There appears to be a multipart test--codification is one part but it is
not the whole.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 03:30:32 -0700, Upscale wrote
(in article ):


"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
How does registering anything make its use more safe? That's the crux of
one of the points in this discourse Upscale. Registering does absolutely
nothing to increase safety.

snip

Whatever I have to say isn't going to change a shred of American views. I
realize that. But, I still have the right to state what I believe to be
true. Of all the rights people have in the USA, one of if not the most
important right is free speech. Are you going to argue or refute my right to
free speech?



But by that argument, all rights are subject to some form of registration.
Would it not be prudent to gag all movie goers so they don't shout 'fire!' in
the theater?

In article ,
says...

Upscale wrote:

We keep getting back to the same argument and I keep saying the same
thing without you acknowledging my view. A gun has one purpose only.
You can't realistically compare it to anything else. I know that many
Americans see a gun as just another simple possession. I do
understand that, but you have to see I don't. I accord it a different
perspective and I always will. And, that's where our opinions will
always clash. The only thing to do is agree to disagree. Can't offer
you anything else.

And just what is that one, single, purpose? Investment? Historical artifact?
Collecting? Psychological comfort?

I know! It's to KILL people!

So what is the alternative when you run across someone that needs killin'?

Hit 'em with a rolling pin?

Gouge out their lungs with an ice cream scoop?

I've run into very few people in my life that needed killin'...

The thing is that anything you do with a gun, to a person such as
Upscale, is some kind of symbolic killing. Even using it for a
paperweight would be symbolic killing of papers to such people.

They are as irrational as the radical feminist who lit into a friend of
mine at an S&M club for allowing herself to be "raped" by the guy who
she had bound, gagged, and on the recieving end of a bullwhip at the
time.

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:49:56 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If they should not what do you propose to do about it?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

And you are blinded by having no real point to make.

No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
always wins?

I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
hypothesis is not "arguing". And there is nothing to "win". Either you
have some action in mind or you don't. If you don't have any action in
mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? If
you do have action in mind what action is it?

Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.

Mark

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 09:49:56 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:48:05 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , markem618
says...

On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 13:33:07 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Markem" wrote in message
.. .


I am not
going to define this anymore it is really just a fact.

You seem to have trouble telling the difference between something that is
fact and something that is just your opinion--they are not interchangeable.
However many millions of people have the same problem.

You also haven't addressed the issue of why someone who in your opinion
doesn't "need" to own a gun is therefore "nuts".

Of course you have the right to express whatever opinion you please, but in
future it might be worth thinking it through a bit before posting.

So everyone who owns a gun legally should?

If they should not what do you propose to do about it?

If your answer is yes you are blinded by having to be right.

And you are blinded by having no real point to make.

No but you are blinded just to be arguing, whats a matter your wife
always wins?

I'm sorry, but asking you what action you propose with regard to your
hypothesis is not "arguing". And there is nothing to "win". Either you
have some action in mind or you don't. If you don't have any action in
mind then why should anyone care whether your hypothesis is correct? If
you do have action in mind what action is it?

Sorry I do not have to fit within any of what you seem to think.

So you are saying that there is a third alternative? That you neither
have an action in mind nor do you not have an action in mind? If so
then what do you have in mind?