kallend 2,148 #76 February 5, 2004 QuoteJohn -- Companies are -far- more intrusive into the lives of their employees than the government could ever hope to be. I never heard of a company imprisoning a worker indefinitely without access to the courts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #77 February 5, 2004 Well, I can think of one Company that has. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #78 February 5, 2004 and I bet a lot of foreign countries/citizens would say this Company is worse than The Company.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #79 February 5, 2004 QuoteWhy don't I "get it"? I am fully supportive of this as a personal right. I haven't written anything anywhere at variance with that. In fact, I don't see that assault weapons, RPGs and mortars should be exceptions under the 2nd Amendment as written, pertaining to militias. A mortar would make a damn good militia weapon. Just because I disagree with John Rich's "statistics" and "logic" on the working or otherwise of gun laws, doesn't in any way imply that I don't support the right of the people to own firearms. Or not to, as they wish. I just don't like bogus arguments. Heaven help me for saying this, but I agree with kallend. Not entirely mind you, but still. I don't go along with his precise militia interpretation, but it bears consideration. And while I question John's stats less ...vigorously... than kallend, there's nothing wrong with questioning things. [it is how we learn afterall] I do think kallend should come out and say full-auto or select-fire guns, rather than 'assault weapons,' simply because people fail to grasp the difference. [he is using the term correctly if applied to select-fire rifles/carbines/handguns]witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #80 February 5, 2004 I think that the average person, when he uses the term "assault weapons" in regards to political legislation is referring to the weapons as outlined in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. No further definition is required.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #81 February 5, 2004 QuoteI think that the average person, when he uses the term "assault weapons" in regards to political legislation is referring to the weapons as outlined in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. No further definition is required. Well, see, that's the problem. Militias don't use those. The weapons covered by the 1994 AWB are semi-automatic. The weapons used my the military, and "assault weapons" as defined by the DOD, are select-fire. Select Fire means you flick a switch to change from semi-auto to burst or full-auto. And since militias should be armed like the military [like the infantry anyway], I thought asking him to clarify might be prudent. Besides, I respect kallend far too much to call him "the average person." As far as I can tell, the average person is a friggin idiot.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #82 February 5, 2004 QuoteAs far as I can tell, the average person is a friggin idiot. *drool* - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #83 February 5, 2004 I think it's odd that NY is still lagging on Right-To-Carry legislation. There are 37 states with such laws now, and it seems like most of the others have legislation sponsored or pending. Having moved from there years ago I am not current on what's been going on. The state is a hodgepodge of county regulations on permits. Many do not allow concealed carry in general. I lived in Suffolk County. The police commissioner there is a piece of shit. True story: A Suffolk County legislator went to the SCPD to get his paperwork started for his permit. Suffolk requires a background check, names of three non-related references, big fees, etc. and a SIX MONTH WAIT until you get your permit -- and they can deny it for just about anything they wish. This legislator was aghast at all the bullshit legal hoops to jump through only to get a permit that did NOT even allow concealed carry! So he wrote a county law, which got passed. It said that the SCPD, when it issues permits, must issue them with only those restrictions provided for in the STATE law -- which allows concealed carry. The legislator's name and the commissioner's name both escape me. This was in '95, remember. The commissioner REFUSED to comply with the law. That was the last I heard of it. Don't know if the legislator got recourse. The commish just said NO, I'm not gonna issue carry permits like the law says. He continues to issue permits, I imagine, but they have the same old "only to and from the range, in a locked box" restrictions. Of course, a permit holder IS licensed to have the weapon, so if someone with a permit was carrying concealed, it is not a CRIME, just an administrative no-no, and he might lose his permit (and therefore his legal ability to keep his handguns) but not be charged and tried with any kind of felony or misdemeanor. And yes, you read that right: you can't even OWN a handgun in NY without first getting a permit. You want to talk about restrictions on liberties? This is not a case of you can buy a gun but simply can't carry it like you want to. This is a case of they won't let you BUY one until they make you wait six months for a permit they don't even have to give you. It's a fuckin' sick situation, compounded by a shitwad police commissioner who won't even obey the fuckin' county laws he is sworn to enforce. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #84 February 5, 2004 Just remember, unless it's Right To Carry process, it doesn't change a thing. Kings County [home of NYC] actually does have a set up for concealed carry permits. It's just that they only issue them to celebrities and other back scratchers/favor traders. Right to carry institutes a fair process by which anyone meeting clearly defined criteria is issued a CCW permit. Anything else just doesn't cut it.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #85 February 5, 2004 I appreciate the info, but I'm the last guy you'd find who didn't know that stuff. I'm just sayin' I'm glad I don't live in NY anymore. Did you all know that even as out-of-staters, you can obtain a Florida CCW permit? It's not very expensive and lasts five years. Plus, I think that it entitles you to the reciprocity that Florida permits enjoy with other states. You should check into it. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #86 February 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy don't I "get it"? I am fully supportive of this as a personal right. I haven't written anything anywhere at variance with that. In fact, I don't see that assault weapons, RPGs and mortars should be exceptions under the 2nd Amendment as written, pertaining to militias. A mortar would make a damn good militia weapon. Just because I disagree with John Rich's "statistics" and "logic" on the working or otherwise of gun laws, doesn't in any way imply that I don't support the right of the people to own firearms. Or not to, as they wish. I just don't like bogus arguments. Heaven help me for saying this, but I agree with kallend. Not entirely mind you, but still. I don't go along with his precise militia interpretation, but it bears consideration. And while I question John's stats less ...vigorously... than kallend, there's nothing wrong with questioning things. [it is how we learn afterall] I do think kallend should come out and say full-auto or select-fire guns, rather than 'assault weapons,' simply because people fail to grasp the difference. [he is using the term correctly if applied to select-fire rifles/carbines/handguns] Well, I don't see that a full automatic weapon would be cost effective for much of anything legal that an "average person" might want to do (except play with it at the range) but I don't see why it should be forbidden. After all, I don't have much use for a fire engine either, but I see no reason I should be banned from owning one. I don't see a whole lot of difference. I don't own any guns by choice. But it is my choice, not the government's. My 58 years of life experience has included no occasion I've ever needed one, nor do I forsee such a need. I'd rather spend my leisure time and money on other things, like my plane and skydiving. And should my neighborhood take a significant turn for the worse, I'd move out rather than buy a gun for defense (and it would be a shotgun with a very noisy action), I simply don't want to live anyplace that a gun would be a necessity. But over and above all that I don't think the government should be telling adults what they can and can't own, ingest, grow, say... as long as they respect the rights of others.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #87 February 5, 2004 Well said. ---Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #88 February 5, 2004 QuoteI appreciate the info, but I'm the last guy you'd find who didn't know that stuff. I realize that, but I wanted to put it on the record, and make it clear to antone else reading. Right now I'm looking into Alabama reciprocity and seeing what the cheapest way to cover the states that I see myself visiting. It may actually be cheaper to get two out-of-state permits and go that route than it would to be get AL CCW and different out-of-state to cover the gaps.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #89 February 5, 2004 QuoteI am fully supportive of this as a personal right. I haven't written anything anywhere at variance with that... Just because I disagree with John Rich's "statistics" and "logic" on the working or otherwise of gun laws, doesn't in any way imply that I don't support the right of the people to own firearms. Or not to, as they wish. I just don't like bogus arguments. The problem I have with this statement is that every time you speak up in a gun forum, it is to criticize and question pro-gun messages. You never, ever, do the same thing with anti-gun messages. So your claim to be posting only to disagree with "bogus arguments" rings hollow. You have demonstrated a very one-sided participation. Your actions speak louder than your words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #90 February 5, 2004 QuoteI think that the average person, when he uses the term "assault weapons" in regards to political legislation is referring to the weapons as outlined in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. No further definition is required. Yes, further definition is required, because most people don't have a clue what that law is really all about. Jeffery has explained it in detail. If you don't dig down and find out what people think that law covers, then you end up having a whole bunch of false beliefs about it. And this country deserves better than to have legislation passed based upon false beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #91 February 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteI am fully supportive of this as a personal right. I haven't written anything anywhere at variance with that... Just because I disagree with John Rich's "statistics" and "logic" on the working or otherwise of gun laws, doesn't in any way imply that I don't support the right of the people to own firearms. Or not to, as they wish. I just don't like bogus arguments. The problem I have with this statement is that every time you speak up in a gun forum, it is to criticize and question pro-gun messages. You never, ever, do the same thing with anti-gun messages. So your claim to be posting only to disagree with "bogus arguments" rings hollow. You have demonstrated a very one-sided participation. Your actions speak louder than your words. Ha ha! You make about 99% of the gun posts here (as others have observed), so I really only get an opportunity to respond to you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #92 February 5, 2004 QuoteDid you all know that even as out-of-staters, you can obtain a Florida CCW permit? It's not very expensive and lasts five years. Plus, I think that it entitles you to the reciprocity that Florida permits enjoy with other states. You should check into it. That is correct. And some other states will issue to non-residents also. There are a few people who collect CCW licenses as a hobby, and with the combined reciprocity rights from all those licenses, they collectively have the right to carry a gun in almost all states in the U.S. I travel back and forth between Texas and Florida a lot, and had CCW licenses in both states. But once Texas finally entered a reciprocity agreement with Florida, I didn't need the one from Florida anymore, so I let it expire. Now, my Texas CCW is good in Florida too. Maybe someday one state's CCW, will be recognized by every other state, just like driver's licenses. The Constitution, after all, says that each state is to recognize the official acts of other states. That's why a marriage in one state, is recognized nationwide. That's way a driver's license from one state, is recognized nationwide. Only when it comes to guns, do some states seem to think that this constitutional principle no longer applies... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #93 February 5, 2004 QuoteRight now I'm looking into Alabama reciprocity... Alabama has been a thorn in my side for some time. I often travel between Texas and Florida, passing through LA, MS and AL. With my Texas CCW, or regular state laws, I'm legal with a gun in my car in all of those states, except Alabama. Alabama does not allow guns in cars, without a CCW license. And they issue CCW licenses only to state residents. So, when I make that 1,000 mile drive, I have to stop just before the Alabama border, take my gun out of my console, unload it, and store the gun and ammo separately, in back of the vehicle somewhere, out of reach. Simply by driving across that imaginary line in the road, I would transmogrify from a law-abiding citizen, into a criminal. If I ever forget, I am subject to arrest and a night or two in an Alabama jail. All that for something that is perfectly legal for the other 960 miles of my trip, but not in the 40 miles across the southern tip of Alabama. State CCW Reciprocity State Gun Laws Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #94 February 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe problem I have with this statement is that every time you speak up in a gun forum, it is to criticize and question pro-gun messages. You never, ever, do the same thing with anti-gun messages. So your claim to be posting only to disagree with "bogus arguments" rings hollow. You have demonstrated a very one-sided participation. Your actions speak louder than your words. Ha ha! You make about 99% of the gun posts here (as others have observed), so I really only get an opportunity to respond to you. This very thread proves otherwise, both about your claim of "99%", as well as your suggestion that you respond mostly only to me. One has only to look back through these messages to see otherwise. You are ringing hollow again... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #95 February 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem I have with this statement is that every time you speak up in a gun forum, it is to criticize and question pro-gun messages. You never, ever, do the same thing with anti-gun messages. So your claim to be posting only to disagree with "bogus arguments" rings hollow. You have demonstrated a very one-sided participation. Your actions speak louder than your words. Ha ha! You make about 99% of the gun posts here (as others have observed), so I really only get an opportunity to respond to you. This very thread proves otherwise, both about your claim of "99%", as well as your suggestion that you respond mostly only to me. One has only to look back through these messages to see otherwise. You are ringing hollow again... Your original statement is false.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #96 February 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteJohn: The problem I have with this statement is that every time you speak up in a gun forum, it is to criticize and question pro-gun messages. You never, ever, do the same thing with anti-gun messages. Your original statement is false. I dunno kallend, I haven't seen you speak up against anti-gun positions too often. He has a point. ps - I was wondering what you had to say about the little spat I had with quade over your post.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #97 February 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteJohn: The problem I have with this statement is that every time you speak up in a gun forum, it is to criticize and question pro-gun messages. You never, ever, do the same thing with anti-gun messages. Your original statement is false. I dunno kallend, I haven't seen you speak up against anti-gun positions too often. He has a point. ps - I was wondering what you had to say about the little spat I had with quade over your post. I'm not sure which particular spat that was! However, I am a literalist when it comes to interpreting the 2nd amendment. Not that my opinion counts any - Scalia doesn't consult me very often... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #98 February 5, 2004 >>But over and above all that I don't think the government should be telling adults what they can and can't own, ingest, grow, say... as long as they respect the rights of others. << Well said, my closet libertarian compatriot. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #99 February 5, 2004 QuoteWell, I don't see that a full automatic weapon would be cost effective for much of anything legal that an "average person" might want to do (except play with it at the range) but I don't see why it should be forbidden. After all, I don't have much use for a fire engine either, but I see no reason I should be banned from owning one. I don't see a whole lot of difference (snipped)... as long as they respect the rights of others. actually here is the part where i DO agree with you. Despite their usefulness to a militia if required, fully automatic weapons provide far to much opportunity for a single individual to terminate the rights of others. even if everyone had one under their coat for 'defense', the potential carnage from a single incident (as so well illustrated in the media and used to demonize and ban semiautos) with a fully automatic weapon is significant enough to the lives and rights of others that the government should make some effort to control them.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #100 February 5, 2004 Quotefully automatic weapons provide far to much opportunity for a single individual to terminate the rights of others... the government should make some effort to control them. They've been doing it since 1934. However, the anti-gun folks make the same argument for handguns too. How far are you willing to go with this "danger/control" scheme? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
