davjohns

I agree. He's not recognizing that he is in competition with the government which he pays for. So, he's subsidizing his competition and can not win. Thus, the end of small business...the largest employer of Americans. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

If I was being an intellectual purist, I'd say that any licensing fee to lawfully own personal arms is unconstitutional. I do feel that way about voter registration, and I also feel that way about fees and permits for First Amendment-protected activity, such as public demonstrations. I think a single dollar to exercise those rights is de facto unconstitutional, and I disagree with the (majority of) judges who think that I'd have the burden of production to show that such fees are burdensome. But unlike speech, and probably voting (caveat re: voting: felons? record checks?), I do think that it's reasonable for the government to assure that certain types of felons and people with certain types/severity of confirmed mental illnesses are denied access to guns. As a judge, the most I'd allow in that regard is a reasonable fee to cover the administrative cost, but not so high, regardless of the actual pro rata cost, as to amount to a de facto denial. It's obviously a floating scale, but, putting myself in the shoes of a federal judge, my gut tells me that $340 in 2012 dollars is stiff enough to infringe on some lower-income people's 2nd Amendment rights. I'm with you on your analysis. Just want to point out that felons are also inelligible to vote. We don't do anything to screen them... I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Good point, Jerry. A $20 ID card would prevent voter fraud and is certainly useful for many things. However, people decry what it would do to the poor if it was required. But the poor would gladly spend $340 for a pistol permit according to this judge. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I agree. That's why everyone has to respond from their own point of view. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

How much sex do you think is appropriate in a healthy, committed relationship? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/city-340-gun-permit-fee-upheld-manhattan-federal-court-article-1.1051200 Perfectly fair if they charge a similar fee for voting, free speech, religious expression, etc. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Recent arguments on here indicate that it depends on the races of those involved. Could you please provide that information? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Maybe. Hard to say. But it's the system we have to go with right now. All these opinions without facts are very disturbing. New Black Panthers offering bounties; people declaring facts when eye witnesses say something different; people claiming the police aren't doing their job because the young man is black while the shooter is hispanic...it's concerning. And then I read this in the Sentinal article: "Rev. Al Sharpton, who led a rally last week that drew 8,000 to downtown Sanford, said the media was missing the point. "Why are we asking what Trayvon is capable of, when you have records of Zimmerman's past?" Sharpton asked the crowd of reporters. "He has the record of violence, so why are we going out of our way to create stuff in Trayvon's background when you have documented stuff in Zimmerman's background?" If he has documentation, why am I sitting here with a dirth of information? Lots of talk by people who weren't there and don't know the facts. I'm pretty happy acknowledging that I don't know what happened and will wait to see what comes to light. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Dave: The key to me was that he followed the kid. The kid therefore, in my mind, could both subjectively and objectively believe that he was in danger and attack to defend himself. I don't see evidence that the shooter made the first physical contact (nor do I have anything ruling it out. Last time I was in a fight a guy was threatening to kick my ass. When he gave a light shove to my shoulder I clocked him and was right in doing it. He was instantly neutralized). I have two probem with the shooter: (1) he followed the kid, therefore constituting provocation in my mind. The kid was retreating continually and I can see good reason for him stopping to defend himself; and (2) the shooter escalated to deadly force. I just saw something that suggests the kid was goin for his gun. That's a double-edged sword, too. Put yourself in the mindset of the kid and he's being followed and accosted/menaced by some guy and he sees that the guy has a gun. What now? All of these facts caqn be read entirely differently from the points of view of the shooter and the kid. I haven't seen a fact yet that I cannot see a reasonable interpretation that the kid was put in an honest and reasonable fear for his own safety. I'm still confused by the facts. Someone else posted some stuff from the Sentinel that says something different from what you are saying. And I'm real confused by your contention that the young man (not a child or kid) "attacked to defend himself" or was "retreating constantly". If you have a link to anything that gives these facts, please share. I haven't found anything from eye witnesses. I have NO evidence of what was said, distance between the people, directions they were facing, tones used, body language, etc. To conclude either of them was right or wrong is to make huges leaps of inference. All I know is that the police have more facts than I do, and they chose not to detain the shooter. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That's my problem, Wendy. The shooter was, it seems, the attacker. The provoker. He provoked a confrontation, received a confrontation, then escalated to the use of deadly force. I find that unacceptable. I can't find anything that says the shooter was the attacker. Where is that? Everything I found says he claims self defense. I know he was neighborhood watch, called the police, and followed the guy. Then, he claimed something happened that caused him to defend himself. I haven't been able to find what his story is or eye witness accounts. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

"The latest demand came from the New Black Panther Party, which on Saturday offered a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman's capture. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," New Black Panther leader Mikhail Muhammad said when asked whether the offer could incite violence, the Orlando Sentinel reported. At rallies held in solidarity with Martin's family, people have sold T-shirts featuring pictures of Zimmerman below a large "WANTED" sign. And Sonner said he and Zimmerman have received death threats." http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-20120325,0,768039.story I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I tried to do some research on this over the weekend. Very few facts. Lots of talk. I can't even find the shooter's story. The background of the young man is unknown. We have no idea what happened, that I can tell. Yet, there are so many conclusions out there (and on here). I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

The answer to your question is an unmitigated "YES". Illegal aliens are criminals. It's in the name. That's why some people want to pretend they are really 'undocumented immigrants'. Therefore, IF it is legal to shoot all criminals on sight, it is legal to shoot illegal aliens on sight. However, in the real world, I do not know of a place where it is legal to shoot criminals on sight. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I did a little research this weekend. I couldn't find the actual wording of the so called, 'castle doctrine' law. Just lots of rhetoric about what someone's interpretation of it is. The Castle Doctrine theory says that a person's home is their castle. They do not have to try to flee their home to avoid an intruder. That's all. You must still have reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury to yourself or another before using deadly force. I have seen rheotric that says the WI law is just that. I have seen rhetoric that it is something different. I couldn't find a link to the actual wording. I will reserve judgment on the WI law until I can see the facts. If it is a true castle doctrine, it is perfectly just. It puts the responsibility for creating a bad situation on the criminal. It has been the law in most states for most of this country's existance. I suspect this is another anti-gun owner attack based on the unsubstantiated claims. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

This is a good point. We allow children to drive at 16. They are not legally responsible for their actions until 18. They can vote at 18, but are not responsible enough to drink until 21. In Alabama, they can have sex and create a baby at 16...don't get me started. I have issues with government drawing all these lines that don't make sense. It seems to remove the parent as the decision maker, but leave the parent with responsibility. Personally, if we are going to draw a line, let's make one line and call it quits. At 18, you can make babies, drive, vote, drink, whatever. You are also absolutely responsible for your own actions. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Of course it was You did. OK. Thanks for clarifying for me. Sorry about the miscommunication. dwj I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I hope this was sarcasm and I missed it. Two boys doused him in gasoline and set him on fire while telling him it is because he is white. He avoided serious injury or death by quicly extinguishing the flames...and you make light of it? So, attempted murder isn't a problem. Only if they succeed is it an issue. I REALLY hope I missed your point. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think the reference to the need for a militia to keep a state free just explains the overarching importance of the amendment. Keep in mind that these guys just waged eight years of war against an unjust government. They understood that the people had to be able to start over by force if necessary. I think the original intent was for every man to have the means at his disposal to wage war against an unjust government if needed. Try to argue that a legislature that had a little fear of violence from the people wouldn't pay close attention to their work. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Nobody here has claimed the judge is a racist. The very first post said, "But I'm no racist". The clear implication is that he is. Since then, several have argued that he is. Have you read any of this thread??? Another typo. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

So the judge put his career before the truth? Now we have a judge with poor judgement, who is a liar and puts his career before the truth. You guys just keep adding reasons why the man should resign his position. Judges are elected or appointed. They are political creatures. They quite often put their careers before the truth. I don't care whether he resigns or not. I would like to see the entire congress and all political appointees resign and start over. I just said I don't see how the joke is racist. And still nobody has argued my logic. Edited for typo. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I think the judge did what he determined would be in the best interests of his career. I have know idea what he actually thinks about the matter. I also think I have a perfectly good mind and figure things out for myself. Nobody has disputed by logic as yet. Nobody has even tried. Including you. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I take issue with the Judge using federal property to forward jokes during work hours. But then, I took issue with a federal employee getting blowjobs from his subordinate federal employee in the workplace during work hours and lying about it. Not everyone did. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Suggesting that when your drunk and fucking anything, fucking a black is just slightly better than fucking a dog. Try this: "A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm short and you're tall?' " "His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Eddie! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!' " Still funny to me. Did I just insult short people? Insert whatever difference between a son and mother could incite the question. Race is just an easy difference to pick up on for a kid. So, let's try this: "A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm white and you're black?' " "His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Rush! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!' " Still racist? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Suggesting that when your drunk and fucking anything, fucking a black is just slightly better than fucking a dog. Sorry. I still see no comparative analysis or valuation of one over the other. I saw the dog reference as a veiled reference to a sexual position. I see it as impugning the moral character of his mother; one who attends orgies. The race thing was just incidental to show there was a reason to question his origins. I consider this something you have to go out of your way to see as racial. McCarthy saw commies everywhere. Salem saw witches everywhere. Keep drawing the lines darker and wider and there will never be unity. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I missed it. How was that racist? It pointed out the obvious difference between them and used it to say mom was at a crazy party. I didn't see anything disparaging against him because of his race. It did malign his mother's values. But she's caucasian. Maybe it was racist against caucasians? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.