Debate : 4870


Off-Topic / Debate / 4870

Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

I heard something on the news yesterday that puzzled me, and I hoped a few of the more politically-savvy around here might help me to comprehend it. It seems George Pataki of New York favors certain measures of gun regulation including, among other (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Dave!, (...) Ballastic fingerprinting? Well, I don't know what that is, so you need to tell me that first. I think before we need *ANY* more gun laws, we need to start enforcing the *22,000+* laws that are on the books, which, BTW, won't solve any (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Susan Hoover

(...) (a question about gun registration and ballistic fingerprinting) (...) I think we should start licensing parents instead. It would solve a lot of problems. (Only half joking...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) In Parenthood, Keanu Reeves (who gets my vote for the finest actor of all time on stage or screen (ugh—I can’t believe I even typed that!)) observed that you need a license to catch a fish, but anyone can have a child… Dave! (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I know *I'd* fail the test more than once... (...) Yes, but do you need a license to catch a child? In all honesty, Keanu Reeves isn't that bad of an actor, as long as he gets parts that are compatable with him. (Kinda like Meg Ryan, I guess.) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Karim Nassar

(...) Hehehe, Or "Much Ado About Nothing" :) Of course, it does seem that good ol' Billy Shakespear wrote a couple of John the Bastard's lines just for Keanu... :) "I cannot hide what I am" "I am not of many words..." :) Just kidding to any KR fans (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) It all depends if they're in season or not, and if they're on state game lands. (...) Or Little Buddha or My Own Private Idaho or even Johnny Mnemonic (though he wasn't the only thing wrong with that film...) Dave! (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Frank Filz

(...) ObRef: cows were out of season and one of the hunters wasn't insured.... (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Susan, (...) LOL! Sometimes I wonder.... ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

Scott: (...) I’m not sure if that’s the "actual" term or the term that I heard on the news. In either case, it refers to a method of gun registration in which every gun is fired before sale, and the slugs and/or casings are laser-scanned so that the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) I *believe* that this refers to test firing the gun and keeping the captured bullet for a ballistic cross reference against bullets found at the scene of a crime. Similar to the human fingerprinting system in place. (...) ^^^...^^^ That's (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That explains a lot. But I thought you lived on the other side of Denver? What if sex education included a practical exam? Now there's an idea. (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Kevin Wilson

(...) Gosh. Imagine the logistics of who goes with whom (and to do what). The possibilities for disaster boggle the mind... Kevin (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) This is seriously colliding with my memories of being the last kid chosen for the baseball team. "Aw, mom! School really sucked today! We had Practicals in Health today, and I was the last one picked. I had to team up <insert hated name here>! (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) And what about that place on the report card evaluating how well the child works "independently or in groups"? Dave! (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) I'm just wondering how the lab fees would be explained to the judge. :-, Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) I do live on the other (north) side of town. I went high school on the north side too. I was just a teenage observation that I had while in school. No concubines there that *I* could find. Believe me, I was looking. :-) (...) -Duane (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Oh man, where is this Concubine High?!? Why wasn't it around when I was a teenager? I hope this wasn't just some Freudian slip... ;-) Bruce (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

To All, (...) It was a bad one, I am known for good slips. At least it would have been an interesting high school challenge. ;) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

Generally the more laws you have, the more selectively you can enforce them, if you so choose. 22,000 gun laws are about 21,853 (Plus or minus 12) too many. How about reducing to the following: - if you allow your gun to be misused, you're liable (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —James Simpson

(...) I agree with your points. Regarding the besmerching of reputations, I find the recent lawsuit ploys by city governments to sue gun manufacturers a farce. Gunmakers have a legal, constitutional right to exist, and they have a legal, (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well said. Would that everyone were as reasonable as you. My theory is that in many issues we see convolution being used as a tool to usurp, because proponents on one side or another fear that a straight up and down question might: - resolve (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Frank Filz

(...) The reason for opposition of gun registry comes down to what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is presumed to be, that of assuring that the populace can be armed as a defence against an out of control government (an understanding which I agree (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz answers: (...) Okay, that makes sense. My error was that I was perceiving an analogy between gun registration and, for instance, dog licensing or car registration. The difference, if I understand it now, is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Rereading this, I'm not quite sure where I agree with your stated purpose of the 2nd (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Mike Stanley

(...) It may say that to you now, looking back on things from a modern high school American history perspective, but it didn't mean just that when it was written. Think about the people involved in writing the first batch of ammendments and what (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) Very true. In addition, the 2nd Amendment was written when the latest in firearms technology took quite a while to reload. Even today, I understand the concerns of some citizens who feel they must have their guns to protect themselves (against (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Susan Hoover

(...) Assuming you really *aren't* trolling, have you tried visiting (URL) and following a few links? You might particularly look at (URL) and (URL).[1] [1] IANTNRA, but I have friends who are. (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Mike Stanley

(...) Dunno, I've never belonged to the NRA and never will. I personally believe most of the people who spout NRA rhetoric like it is gospel about as discriminating as people who believe Rush Limbaugh speaks nothing but the truth. Speaking of Rush, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Mike, (...) Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Hedonist and Libertarian Tom Leykis is #1 in LA area (that includes far right Orange County). Not that I'd know either way - my 8 year old likes Radio Disney over either of those two. ;-) Bruce (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —James Brown

(...) Only radio I ever listen to is CKUA(1). Good mix of music, and a stunning lack of talk shows... I wonder if that has anything to do with 50+% of their budget coming from listeners? <grin, duck> James (URL) getting paid for this --> (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —James Brown

(...) Well, that came out wrong... :/ Next time I'll put the footnote *after* the sig, instead of in it. (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) In what sense? I could name off a number of things but shan't. (...) Ouch. I've listened to that, it's mind rotting even in small doses. (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) (the following is not intended to slight Bruce's child, or an 8 year old's taste in radio entertainment) Blech. We used to listen to Radio Aahs, which was a very cool station for kids, small and large. We even toured the Radio Aahs broadcast (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Todd Lehman

(...) Hey, I remember that station! About 5 years ago I heard a great song -- it sounded really really old, maybe from the 50's -- and the lyrics went something like, "Don't play with Bruno...Bruno is a dweeeeeb!" I never figured out whether it was (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) Hmm. That sounds familiar. Had a 50's sound, recommended against playing with that dweeb, Bruno. It rings a bell, but I can't remember for sure. I'd be willing to bet the song was pro-tolerance. (...) Oops, my bad. I assumed Disney snarfed (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Ed Jones

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes: [snip] (...) Ah, I can see it now, Todd blaring Kermit's the Rainbow Connection while sorting Auczilla for shipment. Or programming to it. I see new hues in the future for Lugnet. :') (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Trying to understand —Ravi Mohan

(...) Let me guess my crisal ball tells me lime green-or was that the sandwhich i left in my pocket last week 8-) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) Ugh! Good heavens that "Friends" theme is an awful song! The Rainbow Connection, however, is pure brilliance, far in excess of the current Muppets tripe (in my view, at least!) Dave! (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) It's better when you're listening to it with small children. You just ignore the lyrics and dance around. Or is it the music you don't like? Whatever. I never *claimed* that my taste in music was well-aligned with anyone else. (...) They never (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) My apologies--I wasn't attacking your taste, just expressing (a little sharply) my own. Perhaps the fact that the song was played 40 or 50 times an hour during its peak has soured me on it... (...) 'Nuff said! Dave! (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) Doncha hate that? When MTV first started, I used to be a continual watcher. It was something new, they (mostly) played really cool music, whatever. The beginning of the end (for me) was when they first thought "heavy rotation" would be a good (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) I think I started to lose interest when their programming day consisted of Yo! MTV Raps interspersed with episodes of Club MTV. Not my type of music, if such it may be called... Dave! (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —John Neal

(...) I live about a mile from where the studio used to be. (...) Yes, it was a fantastic radio station. We used to get up every morning to that song "G-Good Morning" (I wish I knew who sang that and how I could get a copy of it). My kids were at (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) What is the building used for now? Is it still owned by CBC, or is it serving a different master? (...) Was that song with the rooster crowing? It had a great mix of stuff. Sophie B. Hawkins, the Rembrandts, Yacko, Wakko and Dot. Something for (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Mike Stanley

(...) Yeah, well, all that really proves is that just like people will watch trash on television they'll listen to it on the radio. (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Mike, (...) OK, Mike, what do you think is non-trash? Just curious. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Todd Lehman

(...) Rush Limbaugh's evil twin cousin Lush Rimboy is always good for a laugh or two. --Todd (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) two. (...) Oh, I'm sorry, I was about to say that Lush Rimboy's evil cousin Rush Limbaugh is always good for a laugh or two. ;-) Bruce (admittedly, I have a low opinion of all talk radio, not just Rush) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Well, I don't know who Lush Rimboy is, but some people here at Lugnet give me a laugh or two, at their interesting comments. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Mike Stanley

(...) Music. I like music on the radio. Or useful advice shows, like the Money Game. I can do without the pseudo-preaching Dave Ramsey does, but I respect that he has his beliefs and a hugely successful syndicated show, so he can do what he wants. I (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Mike, (...) I don't listen to music on the radio anymore. I have around 85 minidiscs full of the music I like, since I can't stand most secular music nowadays. (...) Well, with all the bashing I received lately, it isn't a big deal. I am tired of (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) the (...) of (...) Hmmmm, well, I would have thought that the High School perspective would be that we needed guns to overthrow existing governments that got out of hand, so what do I know? :-) I was actually responding from what I perceive to (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

This point has been debated here before. It turns on the intent of the authors. I can't cite the particular Paper, but the Federalist papers speak to this point. It also turns on the meaning of "well regulated" (and of Militia) which many hold not (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I'll clarify my point if it was a little murky: Frank stated the purpose of the 2nd amendment was for the populace to keep the government in check (or words to that effect). That may have have been in part what the 2nd amendment is about, but (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll again go back to what was written in the federalist papers. I plowed through them a few months back, so it's a fairly recent memory... I can't deny that there may have been other motives than the final check but that was the biggie, by a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) There's also that "hostile foreign Powers" thing too, considering that the early United States simply didn't have the money to maintain a large standing army or navy, and wouldn't until the 1850s. Until the 1830s, invasion from Canada was a (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) Technological superiority would not necessarily guarantee victory in a "Red Dawn" type scenario - whether the aggressor were foreign or our own gov't. Afghanistan/Russia demonstrates that (Viet Nam also). If a people have the will to fight (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) While I am convinced Janet Reno is a murderer, and I can easily and with a clear conscience condone firing back when I am fired upon first, by men hiding in a hiding place within my own compound, with no warning or prior notice (Waco and Ruby (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Karim Nassar

(...) Actually, this is one that I can't understand at all.... I can't figure out how ANYONE could object to mandatory trigger locks... How in the world would something like that impinge on your rights? Now, granted, it most likely would not do a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Susan Hoover

(...) (I can't believe I'm entering this debate, but...) How, exactly, would trigger locks save lives? Parents who leave loaded guns lying around are likely to leave the same loaded guns lying around with the keys in the trigger locks. Children who (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Karim, (...) Well, one could argue that when you are in a situation where you would need your gun (A.k.a. late night break in) trying to find the key to a trigger lock could result in your death, or your property being stolen, etc. Secondly, why (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Karim Nassar

(...) Look, I understand all of this... the point I was trying to make is that the trigger lock thing only says that the gunseller must provide a triggerlock.. NOT that everybody has to walk around with their triggers locked! If you don't want to (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) how (...) would (...) by (...) little (...) (URL)Secondly, why isn't little Johnny not taught about the gun? Go out (...) It's not little Johnny that I worry about, it's little Johnny's friends. (...) I could see my commute getting uglier yet. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Duane, (...) Well, here is a gut wrencher for all of you non violent types: teach this in school. (The sound of alarms going off, leftists kicking in their screens, mass rioting and hysteria result!) I have told this in the last round of gun debates (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dan Boger

On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:27:57 GMT "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Trying to understand': (...) I agree that there should be better education - but as long as guns are around, accidents will happen. IDF [1] makes (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Update: Billy boy just said "Kids are dying everyday (Unless Congress passes new gun control laws), they don't know it's an election year." Al Gore was babbling about campaign finance reform, he is the one who can't even follow the laws in the first (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) wrote (...) I don't see how a trigger lock is an attempt to get rid of guns. A trigger lock is SUPPOSED to help prevent an accidental discharge from a gun, over and above what the safety switch is for. Do you think there was this much debate (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dan Boger

(...) how is this "trying tog et rid of guns"? solve problems like kids shooting themselves when they "just wanted to look at it"... hurt others? like not being able to shoot fast enough? well, if you keep your gun under your pillow, you probably (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Dan, (...) How can requiring gun manufacturers, providing this gun lock, making the consumer pay more (I don't care how "cheap" it is, this is used for taxes as well, and I don't buy it), and them going in the trash, going to solve anything? Bad (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) gun (...) It's not the solution to the bigger problem, but I don't see how it's a bad idea. Are you railing against the seatbelts in your car because they impede your movement when you're driving and trying to change the radio station? It's a (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —James Simpson

(...) I mostly agree with you. A dominant political philosophy of the last 8 years has been that government can & should solve all social problems. There is an inordinate amount of faith in the power of legislation, and a belief that the ends (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

James, (...) Oh, I know it is the parents whose ultimate responsibility to teach the children, but I would rather have the NRA teach about guns to my children then any government agency. (...) Indeed. Schools should not be allowed to teach that (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Today. Seat belts were once required equipment on cars but not required to be worn by passengers. Flawed analogy but the principle holds. It is not a large leap from "all A will be supplied with X under penalty of law" to "all citizens with A (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Another News Update on this horrendous issue: Bill C. is still going on about how these new laws will somehow save children, but the real kicker is Janet Reno, on how Bill Clinton has made the children safest of any presidents, he is the greatest (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dan Boger

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:12:37 GMT "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Trying to understand': (...) just a side note - if nuclear weapons were used, I really am not going to worry about the pets and trees killed... :/ Dan (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) I know, I was throwing in some liberal sentiments for diversity's sake, environmentalism and animal-rights. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "A well regulated Militia...", not "A completely unregulated Militia..." :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) My gun is kept locked in a box with a combination lock I can silently work by feel. It's not loaded, but the bullets are in a speed loader in the box. Trigger locks increase the time it takes (me, anyway) to get my gun ready to use, when I am (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) how (...) would (...) by (...) little (...) Thank you Larry. I'm glad that I know of at least one individual who has a relatively safe storage method. I understand the need for speed and the need for safety as well. It sounds like you have (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) My issue there is the slippery slope. Just as with seatbelts. Note well that I support seat belt usage and I've even come to terms with mandatory seat belt usage. But once locks are required to be shipped, it's not much of a stretch to (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) to (...) I have this silly picture in my mind of a western showdown at high noon, where the two participants square off. Crowds gather. Sweat drips down their faces. Steely eyes glare unblinkingly. Fingers twitch, waiting for the other guy to (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) faces. (...) the (...) That IS rather an amusing tableaux! Thanks. As to why you wait for the other guy, according to all the western lore I absorbed from all those movies, it's so that you are acting in self defense, he started it... seems (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) where (...) me, (...) he (...) Hey,...isn't that from the Bible? :0) Sorry...couldn't help it. Bill (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Indeed. I was thinking of you when I used the aphorism. :-) Please quote me where I said the bible wasn't an interesting piece of literature, worthy of being read by all who would style themselves well read... :-) Where we differ is that I (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) Ahh! Now I see what you're saying. That is a valid fear. I don't see that particular scenerio coming about though. It's too hard to enforce a law like that as a primary infraction. In order to enforce it, enforcement agencies would have to (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) Oh, I can imagine what police officers would have to go through, I am sorry, sir, I need to get my target lock key out first, before we can have an exchange of gunfire, ok? Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) We'd have four dead cops gunned down by a wallet! :-0 Bruce (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) Of course, the assailant would be likewise delayed in unlocking his own gun, unless he'd stolen the key, too! 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) One reason the gov't is so rabid about seatbelts is because a lot of the medical treatment provided to accident victims (often greatly in excess of existing insurance coverage) comes from public funds. Likewise, the argument goes, since a (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't have to pay the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) seen (...) tell (...) So those without the means to pay the bills suffer? Not very humanitarian. (...) -Duane (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) That's still not the business of the federal gov't. They are there to provide a framework which protects our liberties - not to dole out compassion. That argument doesn't hold water anyway, anyone can go to the emergency room regardless of (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) a (...) I agree, but to nitpick, that service isn't done out of the goodness of the hospital's collective heart; it's subsidized. Dave! (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) Right, but I just meant that people will be treated when needed. Besides, federal medical care makes HMO's look divine. Bill (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Today it is, because bad money (gov't charity) has driven out good (private charity). It used to be a pure charity decision, the hospital (if for profit) took a deliberate margin hit, or raised the money by charity drives. (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) So who picks up the tab? Would I as an uninsured person who walked into an emergency room, get the treatment that I needed if it weren't subsidized? I doubt it. I would get the amount of care where the hospital knew it would be able to recoup (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) But this is not a socialist country. It's not right for the gov't to take my money and force me to make charitable contributions as it sees fit. This is mandatory benevolence and as such ceases to be so. Beides, the gov't is so inefficient (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

(...) It's interesting that the biggest union in the country is the Union of Federal Workers. It gives a good hint of why government never gets smaller. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) I think you need to recheck things a bit. The US has a number of Socialist features. 'Socialist' isn't a black-and-white, yes-or-no thing. Steve (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand Socialism —Scott Edward Sanburn

Steve, (...) Well, maybe what Bill is saying that this county wasn't started out socialistic, but it seems to be getting there. Socialism is a black and white definition, however. Any Political Science / Government class will tell you. Scott S. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) A country can have socialist features and still not be Socialist. It's sort of like "Space" vs. "space"...capital-S has a very specific meaning, while small-s is more malleable. Semantics...with a small s. ;) <dredge...dredge...> best LFB (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) And that would mean that 'Socialist' is just a descriptive label, without much specific meaning. Sort of like calling the leader of a country 'President' doesn't mean the country is a Democracy based on inalienable human-rights and personal (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

Well plowed ground alert. (...) You do. Or you should. It's not my problem if you didn't manage your affairs correctly. Maybe I'll decide to help, but it should be my decision. Medical care is a good, that is, a form of property. There are no rights (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) I guess I was out smelling the roses when the ground was plowed. :-) (...) Ouch! With that one sentence you hit a nerve. You have a point that I'll have to ponder some more. If I can come to a conclusion anytime soon, I'll get back to you. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Michigan has switched from secondary to primary, you can be stopped for just a seat belt infraction instead of the collateral damage (Has to be a second ticket) that CO uses. (...) Right... and that's one reason I support seat belt use, (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Smallbeck

(...) Funny this conversation is going on right now. I just got a ticket for my son having his shoulder strap looped around the back of the seat. I just looked up the regs and this law is not enforceable unless I was pulled over for some other (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Susan Hoover

(...) You should also research your locality's seat belt laws. In some states, the seat BELT is required, but not the shoulder strap. Maybe in yours too? (IMHO, a lot of shoulder straps are dangerous if you are shorter than the average male. Mine (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

Law just changed. A seat belt infraction, if spotted, is enough reason for you to get pulled over in Michigan now. Sorry about that (I think it may have been March 1 that it changed) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Peter Callaway

(...) So if I read this correctly, the wearing of seatbelts is not mandatory in all US states? This is mandatory in all states and territories of Australia (putting on my seatbelt is second nature to me when I get in the car). I can't understand (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It is mandatory, on pain of losing federal highway funds (a case of using the purse power to get a state to pass a law instead of passing a federal law. I personally feel it's wrong to do that, but I digress). What is not mandatory is the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Matthew Wilkins

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <schnip!> (...) If I may expand on what Larry has said here; In some US states, drivers are supposed to ensure that they themselves, and their passengers are belted at all times while the vehicle (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

<snip> (...) Definitely agree here. And if you think I've got an opinion on this, you should hear my wife's comments when she sees someone else's unbelted kids in a moving car. In some ways I'm glad the other car is moving, so she can't completely (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss

(...) But would it work if some participants refused to recognize the validity of evolution? Steve (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

(...) to (...) Sure--just like biological evolution. Dave! (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) This is so typical of liberals: to impinge on the rights of all, supposedly for the protection of all. The problem is that laws are made to be efficacious only after they've been broken; and in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) for (...) only (...) at (...) defense (...) yourself (...) Simple solution here. Buy a holster, remove the trigger lock and keep the weapon at your side at all times when at home. When it is not at your side, re-apply the trigger lock. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Arthur

(...) for (...) only (...) at (...) These sort of stats add nothing to the debate, your are comparing apples and oranges. I remember reading that a person is shot every 30 seconds in the US, that may well equate to 0.2% of gun owners, but is still (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) locks, (...) has (...) seemed (...) To actually try and answer your question, the real reason the NRA opposes this is because they are afraid of being nibbled to death. A regulation here, a restriction there, a warning label that gets worse (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) locks, (...) has (...) seemed (...) Clinton was just on TV not 15 seconds ago (11:20PM EST) saying how we need these measures so that no more children need to die like that six year old girl. Look, I have a six year old son and a four year old (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) gun (...) If the gun had a trigger lock when the thief found it, would he have stolen it? He probably would have. It sure would have taken a lot more effort on his part to remove the lock and get the gun into working condition. I'm also (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) these (...) it? (...) a (...) of (...) the (...) on (...) killed (...) No need to be so smug. For one, we lose the liberty of choosing what to do with the additional money we are required to shell out - regardless of how small the amount. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: Look at tobacco. It started with (...) At the same time, though, the supposition of courtesy is inadequate against the average smoker in my experience--sufficiently so that "no smoking" areas in (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) As a non-smoker, I agree. Yet if a private property owner wants to have only smokers in his establishment, that should be up to him. (...) I think it was from the FDA, not an individual. I hear these things on the radio news while I'm driving (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Due Process —Dave Schuler

(...) Certainly, as a privately-owned entity it should be allowed to admit or refuse smokers as it sees fit, without being subject to federal heavy- handedness (any more than I as a private citizen should be legally required to lock my guns in my (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Frank Filz

Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) to (...) I agree BUT... The problem I have with smoking, and what leaves me with little sympathy for smokers is the continued disdain many smokers show for the rest of us. I have had smokers refuse my request (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Scott Edward Sanburn

To All, I read a fascinating article in Design Systems about how restaurants handle smoking / non smoking areas. Since I work in the Architectural / Mechanical Engineering realm, most engineers design for certain CFM's for certain areas, the smoking (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I've always wondered if this was something that was implemented in the design phase or after the fact--it's interesting to hear the reality. My uncle is an architect in A^2 and has built or remodeled private residences and public buildings (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Bill Farkas

(...) "Aaahh yes, the o l d cone of silence trick!" (...) I was in Amsterdam in 89 and they have two Hard Rock Cafes - one for smokes and one for drinks. My friends and I walked into the wrong one by mistake - which being on active duty at the time (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Scott Edward Sanburn

Lindsay, (...) Ann Arbor, MI? Which one? (...) It depends on the contractor, some are good, some are bad, just like anything else. I know some of the projects here at AEI, we ran into problems with contractors short cutting. The process of building (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Lindsay Frederick Braun

Job talk! (...) I think there's only one A^2. ;) He has his own firm--F. H. Herrmann & Assoc., I think, is still its name. (...) For the subdivision my uncle built, people from the architectural firm had to physically be on-site almost every (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Scott Edward Sanburn

Lindsay, (...) Yes, indeed! I am at AEI right now, working on a funky Auburn Hills public Safety building, it looks like a house, divided up into a police and fire station, on a 120 degree angle! (...) Hmmm... there are many...100 or so, ah here it (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Dave Schuler

(...) Certainly, but that sticker seemed like Judge, Jury, and Excecutioner all in one shot, and its effects lingered long after it was removed. I understand your analogy about the suspected murderer, in that imprisonment removes a potentially (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Due Process —Larry Pieniazek

Good example! (...) This sounds like a massive usurpation. (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) part (...) Smug? I didn't see any of my liberties being threatened. That was why I was asking. (...) The increase in price of a gun with a trigger lock would more than likely go towards defraying the gun manufacturers added cost of making or (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Scott Edward Sanburn

Duane, I have to nitpick here a little. (...) No, the government is going after money. The smokers are the reason why they have health costs, they should be responsible. They don't give a whit about the children, or people's health, or that money (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Bill Farkas

(...) Yeah, and they said that the lawsuit money was going to go toward repaying the states for medical costs. Guess what, it aint happenin'! The money's going to be spent where they (the feds) wish. It's all about the money, if they were really (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess

(...) the (...) in (...) They are making the smoker responsible by hiking the prices to cover those costs. Think of it as medical payments in advance for procedures that you will need in the future because of the habit. (...) Now remember that the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)