Judge blocks law allowing guns in bars
Lookout
"NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) � A judge on Friday blocked a
Tennessee law that allowed people to bring handguns into restaurants
and bars.
The law that took effect in July allowed handgun owners with permits
to pack their pistols in places serving alcohol, providing the
establishments made more than half their profits from food.
Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was "fraught with
ambiguity" and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners
who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an
establishment met the criteria.
"We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy
Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the
law.
Supporters were considering a possible appeal, or new legislation."
The tide is turning. And with Obama appointing judges for the next 7
years there will be more common sense laws upheld.
More proof that the tide is turning.
Fred B. Brown
"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34lmg5d5g7sn9lope...@4ax.com...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>
> "NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - A judge on Friday blocked a
Bonnyman is a state judge, Dumbo. The president does not appoint
state judges.
The ruling will be appealed and overturned.
You lied again!
slate_leeper
wrote:
>argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an
>establishment met the criteria.
Yeah, that was real difficult. There was either a sign saying "no
firearms" or there wasn't.
How can a law that REDUCES restrictions on a Constitutional right be
unconstitutional? Only in the minds of the far left....
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotle
Peter Franks
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>
> "NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) � A judge on Friday blocked a
Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
weapon for their personal defense or not?
edi...@netpath.net
> The tide is turning. And with Obama appointing judges for the next 7
> years there will be more common sense laws upheld.
Dream on. Most-likely-to-croak Justice is Ruth Bader Ginsburg - the
furthest-left and diagnosed with guaranteed-fatal pancreatic cancer,
plus already has been seen falling asleep during public Court
sessions; it's a sure bet that any CONFIRMABLE nominee will be to her
right!
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>
>> "NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) � A judge on Friday blocked a
On their own property? Sure.
RD (The Sandman)
news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
Or in public or on other private property with the permission of the
owner.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sid Vicious
> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>asked:
>>>Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>>weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>On their own property? Sure.
Do you have rules against what can be done on YOUR property?
I do!
For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal activities,
and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
> Or in public or on other private property with the permission of the
> owner.
Dearest "Lookout."
You said that I can carry a firearm on my own property, right?
Yes, you just did agree!
But at my discretion?
Yer damned right I have a say!
You and your butt buddy "TMT" will be shot on sight when you attempt to
gain illegal entry into my house.
(still waiting for you two fags to show up)
That's why my entries have stone entry walkways, so that your blood and
limited brain splatter doesn't stain the hard wood floors.
Bert Hyman
<Sexpi...@bass.gov> wrote:
> For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
> activities, and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
As a landlord, why is there any need for you to "prohibit illegal
activities?"
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Sid Vicious
> In news:4b0d7d56$0$31276$607e...@cv.net Sid Vicious
> <Sexpi...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
>>activities, and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
> As a landlord, why is there any need for you to "prohibit illegal
> activities?"
What a stump stupid question!
Why not indeed?
Because as a respectable human (aka landlord), if I KNOW of any "illegal
activities" happening on my properties, and do nothing about it, said
property WILL be taken away by the courts if I don't act swiftly.
I like my properties.
They cost money after all!
I want to keep them, so that other respectable people can use them.
Do you promote and knowingly want crimes commited on your property?
Do you even OWN property?
I do criminal and other back ground checks on each and every tenant
_before_ they sign a lease.
They willingly have to agree to my rules, or they can piss off.
I also do inspections whenever I feel like it, as agreed!
No complaints so far, as I normaly tend to get the best people that
don't complain, except for one dirty rat bastard that was caught
stealing cable TV transmissions from my neighbor, and had a bag of weed
in MY HOUSE!
They were eliminated (and arrested) the next day after I called the police.
My property was saved, and I was seen as a HERO by all the neighbors who
saw she was getting ripped off by a yutz who also sold drugs!
Got a problem with that?
Bert Hyman
<Sexpi...@bass.gov> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>> In news:4b0d7d56$0$31276$607e...@cv.net Sid Vicious
>> <Sexpi...@bass.gov> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
>>>activities, and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
>
>> As a landlord, why is there any need for you to "prohibit illegal
>> activities?"
>
>
> What a stump stupid question!
>
> Why not indeed?
>
> Because as a respectable human (aka landlord), if I KNOW of any
> "illegal activities" happening on my properties, and do nothing about
> it, said property WILL be taken away by the courts if I don't act
> swiftly.
If you know of illegal activities, you call the police. Your
"prohibition" is meaningless.
RD (The Sandman)
$607e...@cv.net:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>asked:
>
>>>>Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>>>weapon for their personal defense or not?
>
>>>On their own property? Sure.
>
> Do you have rules against what can be done on YOUR property?
Yep. And I would if I had a business. However, carrying of a gun (as
long as it was in a safe manner) is not one of them.
> I do!
> For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
activities,
> and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
As does my brother.....he is the slum lord in the family. ;)
>> Or in public or on other private property with the permission of the
>> owner.
>
> Dearest "Lookout."
> You said that I can carry a firearm on my own property, right?
> Yes, you just did agree!
>
> But at my discretion?
> Yer damned right I have a say!
>
> You and your butt buddy "TMT" will be shot on sight when you attempt to
> gain illegal entry into my house.
> (still waiting for you two fags to show up)
>
>
> That's why my entries have stone entry walkways, so that your blood and
> limited brain splatter doesn't stain the hard wood floors.
Although it may be easier to clean up from the hardwood floor if it has a
good wax than from a stone entryway with porous cement. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
216.250.188.140:
> In news:4b0d7d56$0$31276$607e...@cv.net Sid Vicious
> <Sexpi...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>> For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
>> activities, and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
>
> As a landlord, why is there any need for you to "prohibit illegal
> activities?"
>
Possible threat of loss of property via RICO.
Matt
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Sid Vicious <Sexpist...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4b0d7d56$0$31276
> $607ed...@cv.net:
>
> > RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
> >> Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >>news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >>>asked:
>
> >>>>Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
> >>>>weapon for their personal defense or not?
>
> >>>On their own property? Sure.
>
> > Do you have rules against what can be done on YOUR property?
>
> Yep. And I would if I had a business. However, carrying of a gun (as
> long as it was in a safe manner) is not one of them.
Much like serving alcohol can lead to a lawsuit against you for damage
done by drunk driving, I would ban guns for the same reason. And
knives.
And pretty much anything that would lead to a lawsuit, but I would
explain
EXACTLY why, and offer a waiver that you could sign that would absolve
me
from all guilt.
>
>
>
> > I do!
> > For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
> activities,
> > and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
>
> As does my brother.....he is the slum lord in the family. ;)
We all have our problems. I had apartments for years with my
ex-wife, we had numerous rules that, I'm sure, wouldn't have been
considered "reasonable" here, such as having a gun on the premises.
Then again, we also required that you pay your rent on time, which
eliminated more or less all right-wingers.
Matt
Lookout
wrote:
HAHAHAAHAH You fucking little lonely nym shifting twerp.
Welcome to my filter.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@cv.net
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Sid Vicious <Sexpi...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4b0d7d56$0$31276
>$607e...@cv.net:
>
>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>
>>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>asked:
>>
>>>>>Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>>>>weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>
>>>>On their own property? Sure.
>>
>> Do you have rules against what can be done on YOUR property?
>
>Yep. And I would if I had a business. However, carrying of a gun (as
>long as it was in a safe manner) is not one of them.
The law says differently.
Nobammer
If it is lookout, the brain splatter would be very, very, very limited,
little to none at all.
Peter Franks
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>
>>> Tennessee law that allowed people to bring handguns into restaurants
>>> and bars.
>>>
>>> The law that took effect in July allowed handgun owners with permits
>>> to pack their pistols in places serving alcohol, providing the
>>> establishments made more than half their profits from food.
>>>
>>> Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was "fraught with
>>> ambiguity" and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners
>>> who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an
>>> establishment met the criteria.
>>>
>>> "We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy
>>> Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the
>>> law.
>>>
>>> Supporters were considering a possible appeal, or new legislation."
>>>
>>> The tide is turning. And with Obama appointing judges for the next 7
>>> years there will be more common sense laws upheld.
>>>
>>> More proof that the tide is turning.
>> Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>> weapon for their personal defense or not?
>
> On their own property? Sure.
Not what I asked.
RD (The Sandman)
news:uigrg5pjvc0idvkdu...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:50:14 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Sid Vicious <Sexpi...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4b0d7d56$0$31276
>>$607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>asked:
>>>
>>>>>>Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>>>>>weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>>
>>>>>On their own property? Sure.
>>>
>>> Do you have rules against what can be done on YOUR property?
>>
>>Yep. And I would if I had a business. However, carrying of a gun (as
>>long as it was in a safe manner) is not one of them.
>
> The law says differently.
No, it doesn't. Take all the screens you need to show me the error of my
ways.......or your misunderstanding of what I said. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
13841a...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 25, 2:50�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Sid Vicious <Sexpist...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4b0d7d56$0$31276
>> $607ed...@cv.net:
>>
>> > RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>
>> >> Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >>news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
>> >>>asked:
>>
>> >>>>Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>> >>>>weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>
>> >>>On their own property? Sure.
>>
>> > Do you have rules against what can be done on YOUR property?
>>
>> Yep. �And I would if I had a business. �However, carrying of a gun (a
> s
>> long as it was in a safe manner) is not one of them.
>
> Much like serving alcohol can lead to a lawsuit against you for damage
> done by drunk driving, I would ban guns for the same reason.
Hmmmmm, I don't recall saying that I would be serving either guns or
alchohol. I simply stated that I would not have a rule against carrying
a gun on my property (as long as it was done in a safe manner). IOW, if
you have a CCW (or open carry where allowed by law) I would not refuse
entry to you.
And
> knives.
> And pretty much anything that would lead to a lawsuit, but I would
> explain
> EXACTLY why, and offer a waiver that you could sign that would absolve
> me
> from all guilt.
You run your business as you see fit, I will run mine the same. ;)
>> > I do!
>> > For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
>> activities,
>> > and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
>>
>> As does my brother.....he is the slum lord in the family. ;)
>
> We all have our problems. I had apartments for years with my
> ex-wife, we had numerous rules that, I'm sure, wouldn't have been
> considered "reasonable" here, such as having a gun on the premises.
A gun on the premises is a question that doesn't even come up in Arizona.
My brother is NOT pro gun and he never asks. Doesn't feel it is any of
his business.
> Then again, we also required that you pay your rent on time, which
> eliminated more or less all right-wingers.
You were doing quite well until your bias showed up.
Matt
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in news:86a9b6c3-393a-4a37-a3c9-
> 13841a323...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 2:50 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> > @comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Sid Vicious <Sexpist...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4b0d7d56$0$31276
> >> $607ed...@cv.net:
>
> >> > RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
> >> >> Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> >>news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >> >>>asked:
>
> >> >>>>Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
> >> >>>>weapon for their personal defense or not?
>
> >> >>>On their own property? Sure.
>
> >> > Do you have rules against what can be done on YOUR property?
>
> >> Yep. And I would if I had a business. However, carrying of a gun (a
> > s
> >> long as it was in a safe manner) is not one of them.
>
> > Much like serving alcohol can lead to a lawsuit against you for damage
> > done by drunk driving, I would ban guns for the same reason.
>
> Hmmmmm, I don't recall saying that I would be serving either guns or
> alchohol. I simply stated that I would not have a rule against carrying
> a gun on my property (as long as it was done in a safe manner). IOW, if
> you have a CCW (or open carry where allowed by law) I would not refuse
> entry to you.
They can, and probably will, make the case that combining the alcohol
and
guns had led to a shooting. I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying I
would
avoid the issue, for the same reason I would take the car keys of
anyone that
had too much to drink. A purely liability issue, not one related to
guns or
cars.
>
> And
>
> > knives.
> > And pretty much anything that would lead to a lawsuit, but I would
> > explain
> > EXACTLY why, and offer a waiver that you could sign that would absolve
> > me
> > from all guilt.
>
> You run your business as you see fit, I will run mine the same. ;)
To each their own, I wouldn't run a bar these days. Too many drunks,
too many
in lousy moods. A bad combination when you add alcohol to the mix.
When I was
a bartender lo those many moons ago, I found most drunks were just
falling asleep.
Now they are starting fights.
>
> >> > I do!
> >> > For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
> >> activities,
> >> > and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
>
> >> As does my brother.....he is the slum lord in the family. ;)
>
> > We all have our problems. I had apartments for years with my
> > ex-wife, we had numerous rules that, I'm sure, wouldn't have been
> > considered "reasonable" here, such as having a gun on the premises.
>
> A gun on the premises is a question that doesn't even come up in Arizona.
> My brother is NOT pro gun and he never asks. Doesn't feel it is any of
> his business.
That seems reasonable, for the same reason that not asking if they
have a
knife, or a bomb, or anything else does. You don't want to annoy your
customers.
That said, you know it is only a matter of time until metal detectors
exist in
places like bars and bowling alleys. Sad commentary on our lives.
>
> > Then again, we also required that you pay your rent on time, which
> > eliminated more or less all right-wingers.
>
> You were doing quite well until your bias showed up.
It was fun, though :)
Happy Thanksgiving, sir, have a wonderful holiday with much food and
drink.
Matt
Lookout
In public or on public property? Only if the gun is registered and the
owner is licensed. IT will be the law.
The tide is turning.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:uigrg5pjvc0idvkdu...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:50:14 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Sid Vicious <Sexpi...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4b0d7d56$0$31276
>>>$607e...@cv.net:
>>>
>>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:kihqg5dn0bq28g2uv...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>>asked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>>>>>>weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>>>
>>>>>>On their own property? Sure.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have rules against what can be done on YOUR property?
>>>
>>>Yep. And I would if I had a business. However, carrying of a gun (as
>>>long as it was in a safe manner) is not one of them.
>>
>> The law says differently.
>
>No, it doesn't. Take all the screens you need to show me the error of my
>ways.......or your misunderstanding of what I said. ;)
Many businesses already have signs that say no guns allowed.
Only took one sentence.
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>>
>>>> "NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) � A judge on Friday blocked a
>>>> Tennessee law that allowed people to bring handguns into restaurants
>>>> and bars.
>>>>
>>>> The law that took effect in July allowed handgun owners with permits
>>>> to pack their pistols in places serving alcohol, providing the
>>>> establishments made more than half their profits from food.
>>>>
>>>> Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was "fraught with
>>>> ambiguity" and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners
>>>> who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an
>>>> establishment met the criteria.
>>>>
>>>> "We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy
>>>> Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the
>>>> law.
>>>>
>>>> Supporters were considering a possible appeal, or new legislation."
>>>>
>>>> The tide is turning. And with Obama appointing judges for the next 7
>>>> years there will be more common sense laws upheld.
>>>>
>>>> More proof that the tide is turning.
>>> Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>> weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>
>> On their own property? Sure.
>
>Not what I asked.
Ask a more specific question then.
RD (The Sandman)
news:6onvg59dcoqtv5srf...@4ax.com:
I doubt that registration will become the law or a requirement for CCW,
although it is, apparently in a couple of states where the gun you
qualified with is on your permit. I don't know if that is still true,
however.
> The tide is turning.
RD (The Sandman)
news:1snvg5thdil400hf2...@4ax.com:
That isn't a law, you moron. Nor does it negate what I said. I stated
that I would not restrict the carrying of arms in my business....that
means no sign. Now, what part of that do you have trouble
understanding?
RD (The Sandman)
news:d164b6d6-c350-49ea...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Which wouldn't apply in my case since I don't serve alcohol. I can
understand it in the title case for this thread but that wasn't the
current part you were replying to.
> I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying I
> would avoid the issue, for the same reason I would take the car keys of
> anyone that
> had too much to drink. A purely liability issue, not one related to
> guns or cars.
In Arizona, guns in restaurants that serve alcohol are perfectly legal
unless the owner has posted no guns. Seems fair to me. Both sides have
their rights respected.....
However, I have a problem in the public sector. In the private sector,
there is choice of where to go. Therefore, if one restaurant doesn't
want my business because I carry a firearm, the one down the street will.
However, in the public sector that isn't true. I can only go to DMV to
get my plates, I can only go to court in certain buildings, etc.. I do
think that public buildings ought to have a place for me check my firearm
while in court and pick it up again on the way out. Arizona is supposed
to have that but some places make it very onerous to do so. Like in the
County courthouse, it needs to be checked in at the local police station
which is a couple of blocks away. Not really convenient like the intent
of the law would have.
>> And
>>
>> > knives.
>> > And pretty much anything that would lead to a lawsuit, but I would
>> > explain
>> > EXACTLY why, and offer a waiver that you could sign that would
>> > absolve me
>> > from all guilt.
>>
>> You run your business as you see fit, I will run mine the same. �;)
>
> To each their own, I wouldn't run a bar these days.
I wouldn't either.....one reason why I stipulated upfront that I didn't
serve alcohol in my imaginary business.
Too many drunks,
> too many
> in lousy moods. A bad combination when you add alcohol to the mix.
So far, here the only shootings where before the law let the good guys
carry in there. Only the bad guys had the guns. Under your conditions
that would still be true.
> When I was
> a bartender lo those many moons ago, I found most drunks were just
> falling asleep.
> Now they are starting fights.
>
>>
>> >> > I do!
>> >> > For instance, as a landlord for 20 years, I prohibit illegal
>> >> activities,
>> >> > and haved turned in criminals when I become aware of it.
>>
>> >> As does my brother.....he is the slum lord in the family. ;)
>>
>> > We all have our problems. I had apartments for years with my
>> > ex-wife, we had numerous rules that, I'm sure, wouldn't have been
>> > considered "reasonable" here, such as having a gun on the premises.
>>
>> A gun on the premises is a question that doesn't even come up in
>> Arizona.
> �
>> My brother is NOT pro gun and he never asks. �Doesn't feel it is any
>> of his business.
>
> That seems reasonable, for the same reason that not asking if they
> have a
> knife, or a bomb, or anything else does. You don't want to annoy your
> customers.
> That said, you know it is only a matter of time until metal detectors
> exist in
> places like bars and bowling alleys. Sad commentary on our lives.
Yep. Perhaps more time should be spent on the real causes of angst and
vilence instead of all these efforts against inanimate objects. Ya'
think?
>> > Then again, we also required that you pay your rent on time, which
>> > eliminated more or less all right-wingers.
>>
>> You were doing quite well until your bias showed up.
>
> It was fun, though :)
>
> Happy Thanksgiving, sir, have a wonderful holiday with much food and
> drink.
I did but couldn't drink.......just out of surgery.....
RD (The Sandman)
news:gtnvg55nqqv7ppm58...@4ax.com:
His question was quite specific. It could have been answered by a simply
yes or no.
Peter Franks
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>>>
>>>>> Tennessee law that allowed people to bring handguns into restaurants
>>>>> and bars.
>>>>>
>>>>> The law that took effect in July allowed handgun owners with permits
>>>>> to pack their pistols in places serving alcohol, providing the
>>>>> establishments made more than half their profits from food.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was "fraught with
>>>>> ambiguity" and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners
>>>>> who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an
>>>>> establishment met the criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>> "We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy
>>>>> Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the
>>>>> law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Supporters were considering a possible appeal, or new legislation."
>>>>>
>>>>> The tide is turning. And with Obama appointing judges for the next 7
>>>>> years there will be more common sense laws upheld.
>>>>>
>>>>> More proof that the tide is turning.
>>>> Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>>> weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>> On their own property? Sure.
>> Not what I asked.
>
> Ask a more specific question then.
The question is specific enough.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
You "doubt" but then you admit it already exists in some states. It
will become federal law.
The tide is turning.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
SOME businesses already do. Take the OutBack chain in Tenn for
example. There is no state or federal law against it however the
company rules make it so.
Lookout
No it isn't specific and I did answer it.
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) � A judge on Friday blocked a
>>>>>> Tennessee law that allowed people to bring handguns into restaurants
>>>>>> and bars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The law that took effect in July allowed handgun owners with permits
>>>>>> to pack their pistols in places serving alcohol, providing the
>>>>>> establishments made more than half their profits from food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was "fraught with
>>>>>> ambiguity" and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners
>>>>>> who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an
>>>>>> establishment met the criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy
>>>>>> Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the
>>>>>> law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Supporters were considering a possible appeal, or new legislation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tide is turning. And with Obama appointing judges for the next 7
>>>>>> years there will be more common sense laws upheld.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More proof that the tide is turning.
>>>>> Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>>>> weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>>> On their own property? Sure.
>>> Not what I asked.
>>
>> Ask a more specific question then.
>
>The question is specific enough.
Then my answer is specific enough.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
@comcast.net> wrote:
Wait, what? Are you okay?
Peter Franks
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:05:03 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tennessee law that allowed people to bring handguns into restaurants
>>>>>>> and bars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The law that took effect in July allowed handgun owners with permits
>>>>>>> to pack their pistols in places serving alcohol, providing the
>>>>>>> establishments made more than half their profits from food.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nashville Judge Claudia Bonnyman said the law was "fraught with
>>>>>>> ambiguity" and ruled in favor of a suit brought by restaurant owners
>>>>>>> who argued gun owners would not be able to determine if an
>>>>>>> establishment met the criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "We will have vigilantes shooting up bars all over," said Randy
>>>>>>> Rayburn, the owner of three upscale cafes, who led opponents of the
>>>>>>> law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Supporters were considering a possible appeal, or new legislation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tide is turning. And with Obama appointing judges for the next 7
>>>>>>> years there will be more common sense laws upheld.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More proof that the tide is turning.
>>>>>> Do you believe that a law abiding citizen has the right to carry a
>>>>>> weapon for their personal defense or not?
>>>>> On their own property? Sure.
>>>> Not what I asked.
>>> Ask a more specific question then.
>> The question is specific enough.
>
> Then my answer is specific enough.
It isn't.
We then infer that you believe that a law abiding citizen does not have
the right to carry a weapon for their personal defense off of their
property.
How the does a law abiding citizen defend themself off of their property?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>>The tide is turning.
>>
>And will eventually swell up and drown you one way or another. Either
>it will turn in the opposite direction you hope and all restrictions
>against law-abiding people will be removed, or we'll have your total
>ban. In that case you'll be left to your own devices and die at the
>hands of a predatory criminal anyhow.
>
>For you it is only lose - lose.
Lookout would prefer the total ban. That way he can exercise his
Constitutional "right to feel safe." chuckle]
RD (The Sandman)
news:fuf0h516iqn7n3e3o...@4ax.com:
I said it used to exist in a couple states. I didn't know if it still
did. Try checking Oklahoma and see if the gun used to qualify is on the
permit. This obviously is more important to you than it is to me.
> It will become federal law.
>
> The tide is turning.
Yep.
Should gun laws be more strict?
1990 - 78% yes
2000 - 62% yes
2009 - 44% yes.
USA Today Snapshot.
RD (The Sandman)
news:40g0h558hsto7jcn3...@4ax.com:
Then it isn't a law, is it. It is a company policy. Sheeeeeesh....
Ergo, you have yet to show my statement was in error like you claimed.
Of course, that is par for the course with you, mon ami.
RD (The Sandman)
news:7b7a3740-1750-4e69...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 27, 8:24�am, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote
>> innews:d164b6d6-c350-49ea-ada7-759b6e
> 41b...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>> >> �IOW
Yep, but my gall bladder died a valiant death. I am expected to
recover....it isn't. )
RD (The Sandman)
news:64g0h5t59qr4i9nqr...@4ax.com:
Yes, it was specific and no, you didn't. You weaseled.
Matt
@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm sorry to hear that, even if it is fairly minor surgery these days,
it still has a risk. Glad to hear you are ok.
Sadly, no more fatty foods for you, kiddo. You are going to have eat
the same bland junk the rest of us do :)
Get better soon.
Matt
RD (The Sandman)
news:d20a6330-cdde-4de6...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 28, 10:58�am, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> "r_c_br...@hushmail.com" <r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote
>> innews:7b7a3740-1
> 750-4e69-bcc3...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>> >> legal unless the owner has posted no guns. �Seems fair to me. �Bot
> h
>> >> sides h
>> > ave
>> >> their rights respected.....
>>
>> >> However, I have a problem in the public sector. In the private
>> >> sector, there is choice of where to go. �Therefore, if one
>> >> restauran
> t
>> >> doesn't want my business because I carry a firearm, the one down
>> >> the street will.
>> > ��
>> >> However, in the public sector that isn't true. �I can only go to
>> >> DMV to get my plates, I can only go to court in certain
>> >> �buildings, etc.
> .
>> >> �I
I was in and out of the operating room in about an hour. I reported to
pre-op at 530A and was in the car on my way home at 10A. Sore as hell,
but they have good drugs for that........
> it still has a risk. Glad to hear you are ok.
>
> Sadly, no more fatty foods for you, kiddo. You are going to have eat
> the same bland junk the rest of us do :)
Not really, per my doc, I can go back to eating the same stuff I ate
before. Hell, one is only here once on this earth, might as well enjoy
the foods while passing through.
> Get better soon.
I should be off pain meds by tomorrow.....goodbye pills, hello, Merlot.
;)
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:05:03 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) � A judge on Friday blocked a
That depends on local, state and federal laws.
>How the does a law abiding citizen defend themself off of their property?
By following local, state and federal laws. And I believe that in the
near future all hand guns will be registered and all hand gun owners
will be licensed.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:41:19 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Lookout wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:05:03 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) � A judge on Friday blocked a
>Tube of Astrolube and a condom -- seems to work for Lookout & Clappie.
Who's Clappie?
So if someone doesn't agree with you their gay?
AHAHAHAHA Just like I've always said..the wing nut conservatives all
still have a 4th grade mentality. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH You fucking immature
little punk!
Lookout
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:09:05 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>And will eventually swell up and drown you one way or another. Either
>it will turn in the opposite direction you hope and all restrictions
>against law-abiding people will be removed, or we'll have your total
>ban.
I've never said anything about a ban. You're lying again. Why do you
lie of often?
> In that case you'll be left to your own devices and die at the
>hands of a predatory criminal anyhow.
Nope. I have a gun. I'll be fine in my home.
>For you it is only lose - lose.
Nah..I won't lose anything. You, on the other hand will lose your
artificial penis.
Lookout
I've told klaus several times I don't support a ban. Once again klaus
is lying. But all of you wing nuts lie constantly. Why is that?
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
So I'm right. You CAN'T carry one where ever you want. Period.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Nope. You're wrong again.
Peter Franks
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:41:19 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Lookout wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:05:03 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>>>>>>>
No. Rights exist independent of government at any level. Either you
have the right or you don't.
>> How the does a law abiding citizen defend themself off of their property?
>
> By following local, state and federal laws.
A law abiding citizen already does that.
> And I believe that in the
> near future all hand guns will be registered and all hand gun owners
> will be licensed.
Really? So how does that protect the law abiding from attacks of violence?
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:41:19 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:05:03 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:00:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:51:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lookout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091123/od_nm/us_guns_bars_odd
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) � A judge on Friday blocked a
Rights are determined BY THE government and laws are passed to be more
specific.
>>> How the does a law abiding citizen defend themself off of their property?
>>
>> By following local, state and federal laws.
>
>A law abiding citizen already does that.
>
>> And I believe that in the
>> near future all hand guns will be registered and all hand gun owners
>> will be licensed.
>
>Really? So how does that protect the law abiding from attacks of violence?
That wasn't the question.
RD (The Sandman)
news:gg63h596ocvktkctf...@4ax.com:
That wasn't your statement. Your state was "The law says differently."
Ergo, you are wrong. Sorry 'bout that.
RD (The Sandman)
news:h163h5pee16ndbd60...@4ax.com:
This part is true.
>>How the does a law abiding citizen defend themself off of their
>>property?
>
> By following local, state and federal laws.
Then how do all those folks who follow all those laws get killed every
year?
> And I believe that in the
> near future all hand guns will be registered and all hand gun owners
> will be licensed.
Believe what you wish......you have the right to remain wrong.
Klaus Schadenfreude
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Heh heh. Poor Lookout, tripped up on his own words. I predict he'll go
on defending it for several posts, then claim the discussion is over.
__________
"I don't have to. It's an accepted fact."
-Lookout, when asked to provide a cite
for his outlandish claims
RD (The Sandman)
news:ia14h5d26o6qd3n1a...@4ax.com:
Actually, no, they aren't. Rights exist, it is simply whether or not the
government recognizes that right. Slight difference from what you were
saying, but a significant one. Recognition of rights is a social
construct of government, but even without it the right exists. How else
could we decry other countries like Zaire or Somalia for their violations
of human rights?
>>>> How the does a law abiding citizen defend themself off of their
>>>> property?
>>>
>>> By following local, state and federal laws.
>>
>>A law abiding citizen already does that.
>>
>>> And I believe that in the
>>> near future all hand guns will be registered and all hand gun owners
>>> will be licensed.
>>
>>Really? So how does that protect the law abiding from attacks of
>>violence?
>
> That wasn't the question.
It certainly is to those who are being attacked.
RD (The Sandman)
news:tb63h5tpucah94alh...@4ax.com:
Why are folks like you so interested in other folk's penises?
RD (The Sandman)
r_c_...@hushmail.com
@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, rest easy, my friend. Even though it's likely that the gall
bladder surgery was of the Laparoscopic variety, it still takes some
time to recover. In other words: no sky-diving for you, at least this
week.
Lookout
No one is being attacked. Stop make shit up
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Wrong. The law says land owners aka businessmen can make rules that
apply on THIER land.
Lookout
You're changing the subject.
RD (The Sandman)
news:eoa7h5th7200o0u91...@4ax.com:
Those are part and parcel to property rights. Always have been. One
doesn't need a law to be able to post one's property, the law can only
try to prohibit you from doing so.
In any case, you were wrong. Man up and admit it. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
news:fqa7h5tasjk05qf8u...@4ax.com:
Not at all. The question before you was "How the does a law abiding
citizen defend themself off of their property?"
Your response was: By following local, state and federal laws.
I then asked, how did all those folks who followed those laws (your
statement) get kill every year.
No subject change.....you alluded to them defending themselves by
following the laws. I am simply pointing out it didn't work.
You need to keep track of your own statements.....just like when you said
the law wouldn't let me not post a no guns in my own business.
You tend to step in shit then spend the next several days tryng to deny
it. Just man up....admit your error and we can go on. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
news:73c5c58f-2927-4d78...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 28, 9:58�am, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> "r_c_br...@hushmail.com" <r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote
>> innews:7b7a3740-1
> 750-4e69-bcc3...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>> >> legal unless the owner has posted no guns. �Seems fair to me. �Bot
> h
>> >> sides h
>> > ave
>> >> their rights respected.....
>>
>> >> However, I have a problem in the public sector. In the private
>> >> sector, there is choice of where to go. �Therefore, if one
>> >> restauran
> t
>> >> doesn't want my business because I carry a firearm, the one down
>> >> the street will.
>> > ��
>> >> However, in the public sector that isn't true. �I can only go to
>> >> DMV to get my plates, I can only go to court in certain
>> >> �buildings, etc.
> .
>> >> �I
It was and I was out of the hospital in about 5 hours. Still sore a few
days later but then that is to be expected. Tonight is no more drugs,
hello Merlot.
I won't be skydiving until January it seems. I have to go back and get
an ICD in my chest in a couple of weeks. ;)
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Nope, not at all. Your interpretation of the law is wrong.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
"then I asked"...You asked a different question.
>You need to keep track of your own statements.....just like when you said
>the law wouldn't let me not post a no guns in my own business.
"wouldn't let me NOT post"? Trying to play with the words? I used
OutBack as an example..a business CAN tell to keep YOUR guns off their
property.
>You tend to step in shit then spend the next several days tryng to deny
>it. Just man up....admit your error and we can go on. ;)
Wrong again.
Lookout
Now get ready for loose bowels until you body adjusts.
RD (The Sandman)
news:3a88h55u1tvlb7ga4...@4ax.com:
It is all right up above, you stupid moron. All someone has to do is
look up there and follow the thread. Jesus, you are stupid.
>>You need to keep track of your own statements.....just like when you
>>said the law wouldn't let me not post a no guns in my own business.
>
> "wouldn't let me NOT post"? Trying to play with the words? I used
> OutBack as an example..a business CAN tell to keep YOUR guns off their
> property.
Something which was agreed with......you idiot....I stated that did not
change what I said.
>>You tend to step in shit then spend the next several days tryng to
>>deny it. Just man up....admit your error and we can go on. ;)
>
> Wrong again.
Yes, you are.
RD (The Sandman)
news:nf88h51ld98os47sa...@4ax.com:
My body adjusts rather quickly....always has.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
@comcast.net> wrote:
> "r_c_br...@hushmail.com" <r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote innews:73c5c58f-2927-4d78...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 9:58 am, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> > @comcast.net> wrote:
> >> "r_c_br...@hushmail.com" <r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:7b7a3740-1
Well, that's a step in the right direction. The aftermath of my last
surgery - a couple of years back - was so painful that I, uh,
expedited that particular decision.
>
> I won't be skydiving until January it seems. I have to go back and get
> an ICD in my chest in a couple of weeks. ;)
>
Best of luck with that.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Sure is. You asked a different question. Stop being an idiot.
>>>You need to keep track of your own statements.....just like when you
>>>said the law wouldn't let me not post a no guns in my own business.
>>
>> "wouldn't let me NOT post"? Trying to play with the words? I used
>> OutBack as an example..a business CAN tell to keep YOUR guns off their
>> property.
>
>Something which was agreed with......you idiot....I stated that did not
>change what I said.
And shows I'm right about your ORIGINAL question.
>>>You tend to step in shit then spend the next several days tryng to
>>>deny it. Just man up....admit your error and we can go on. ;)
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
>Yes, you are.
Nah. Stop your fucking whining.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
I had mine out when they did the liver transplant. I've had no
problems liver wise but the loose bowels took a while to adjust to.
The worst was on the highway...a fast food burger at exit 192 meant
another stop at exit 202 to crap.
Good luck.
Lookout
Left AMA? Stupidest thing you could have done AND you could have lost
all insurance coverage for any follow ups.
RD (The Sandman)
b082-4180-a2a...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> > Happy Thanksgiving, sir, have a wonderful holiday with much
food
>> >> >> > and drink.
>>
>> >> >> I did but couldn't drink.......just out of surgery.....
>>
>> >> > Wait, what? �Are you okay?
>>
>> >> Yep, but my gall bladder died a valiant death. �I am expected to
>> >> recover....it isn't. �)
>>
>> > Well, rest easy, my friend. �Even though it's likely that the gall
>> > bladder surgery was of the Laparoscopic variety, it still takes some
>> > time to recover. �In other words: no sky-diving for you, at least
thi
> s
>> > week.
>>
>> It was and I was out of the hospital in about 5 hours. �Still sore a
fe
> w
>> days later but then that is to be expected. �Tonight is no more drugs,
>> hello Merlot. �
>
> Well, that's a step in the right direction. The aftermath of my last
> surgery - a couple of years back - was so painful that I, uh,
> expedited that particular decision.
They have these new pills now.......Old Overcoat can now be used for
recreational purposes. Anyway, the last of the pills that I wish to take
(there are many left) went down Saturday. No mas......tonight back to
the usual.
>> I won't be skydiving until January it seems. �I have to go back and
get
>> an ICD in my chest in a couple of weeks. ;)
>>
>
> Best of luck with that.
Thanks. I expect to see you all on the flip....
RD (The Sandman)
news:afg8h59gtfd80t4un...@4ax.com:
AMA?? What did I miss.....I assumed he was simply talking about the
booze.
RD (The Sandman)
news:c9g8h55jqcmnd4rv2...@4ax.com:
Apparently you can't look up a few lines.....and read your own comments
in sequence. Oh, well, I am tired of baby sitting. I remember why you
were in the Bozo Bin..... you are close to going back.
RD (The Sandman)
news:4cg8h5pfkiqm445rk...@4ax.com:
So far....no problem...of course it's only been a week but I have eaten
in that time. I would assume that your problem is more related to the
transplant than the removal of your gall bladder. After all, it is
something like an appendix. At one time it had more use than it does
today and removal of a gall bladder is no big deal.. Just can't drink
while on pain pills.....so at some point you make a tradeoff. I have
done that.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
You lose again. Lying doesn't help.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Nope. Not even close
> After all, it is something like an appendix.
Wrong again
>At one time it had more use than it does today and removal of a gall bladder is no big deal..
And wrong again. If anything the gallbladder is more important now
then even 30 years ago as the amount of fat we consume has increased.
>Just can't drink while on pain pills.....so at some point you make a tradeoff. I have
>done that.
Ok..you got one right.
Lookout
The gallbladder has nothing to do with processing ETOH.
RD (The Sandman)
news:lt69h5969je640qqi...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:42:51 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:afg8h59gtfd80t4un...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:51:29 -0800 (PST), "r_c_...@hushmail.com"
>>> <r_c_...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Nov 30, 11:05�am, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>>@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> "r_c_br...@hushmail.com" <r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote
>>>>> innews:73c5c58f-2927-4d78-b367-64a573a61960
AMA?? ETOH??
RD (The Sandman)
news:0o69h5pe31kuma0p1...@4ax.com:
PLONK!! Congratulations, you made it.
RD (The Sandman)
news:fp69h59uq7nmgdur1...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:47:16 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:4cg8h5pfkiqm445rk...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:51:45 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:nf88h51ld98os47sa...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:05:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"r_c_...@hushmail.com" <r_c_...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:73c5c58f-2927-4d78...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.
>>>>>>co m:
Not as far as being a necessary organ.
>>At one time it had more use than it does today and removal of a gall
>>bladder is no big deal..
>
> And wrong again. If anything the gallbladder is more important now
> then even 30 years ago as the amount of fat we consume has increased.
Not per most medical books. They state one gets along quite well without
one. After all, it was simply a storage device for bile....without a
gall bladder the liver simply dumps it into the bile duct and life goes
on.
>>Just can't drink while on pain pills.....so at some point you make a
>>tradeoff. I have done that.
>
> Ok..you got one right.
>
--
r_c_...@hushmail.com
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:afg8h59gtfd80t4un...@4ax.com:
That's okay; I missed it too. I should have thrown in one of those
smiley things.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
@comcast.net> wrote:
> "r_c_br...@hushmail.com" <r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in news:cbbc013a-
> b082-4180-a2ac-773695bd7...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > Happy Thanksgiving, sir, have a wonderful holiday with much
> food
> >> >> >> > and drink.
>
> >> >> >> I did but couldn't drink.......just out of surgery.....
>
>
> >> >> Yep, but my gall bladder died a valiant death. ÿI am expected to
> >> >> recover....it isn't. ÿ)
>
> >> > Well, rest easy, my friend. ÿEven though it's likely that the gall
> >> > bladder surgery was of the Laparoscopic variety, it still takes some
> thi
> > s
> >> > week.
>
> >> It was and I was out of the hospital in about 5 hours. ÿStill sore a
> fe
> > w
> >> days later but then that is to be expected. ÿTonight is no more drugs,
> >> hello Merlot. ÿ
>
> > Well, that's a step in the right direction. The aftermath of my last
> > surgery - a couple of years back - was so painful that I, uh,
> > expedited that particular decision.
>
> They have these new pills now.......Old Overcoat can now be used for
> recreational purposes.
Heh. I've heard of those things. :-)
> Anyway, the last of the pills that I wish to take
> (there are many left) went down Saturday.
Actually, most pills have limited effects for me, so I understand.
> No mas......tonight back to
> the usual.
>
>
>
> >> I won't be skydiving until January it seems. ÿI have to go back and
> get
> >> an ICD in my chest in a couple of weeks. ;)
>
> > Best of luck with that.
>
> Thanks. I expect to see you all on the flip....
>
Yep; I'll keep my fingers crossed.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:51:29 -0800 (PST), "r_c_br...@hushmail.com"
Something was lost in translation here.
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
AMA - Against medical advice.
ETOH - alcohol
Lookout
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
You can live without a gallbladder. All the GB is is a pouch for bile
produced buy the liver. It's released when cholecystokinin is detected
the bile is released to break down fats that are being digested. Once
it's gone the bile is continuously released into the duodenum. Now
what will happen to you is the fats won't be digested and CAN give you
loose bowels.
You CAN'T live without a liver. There is no mechanical assist device
as there is for hearts, lungs and kidneys. The liver goes bad you
either get a transplant or you die. I'm one of the lucky ones who got
a liver transplant.
>
>>>At one time it had more use than it does today and removal of a gall
>>>bladder is no big deal..
>>
>> And wrong again. If anything the gallbladder is more important now
>> then even 30 years ago as the amount of fat we consume has increased.
I didn't say you can't live without it. I said it was USED more now
than in years past because of a poor diet.
Lookout
OutBack in Tenn has said no guns in their restaurants.
The tide is turning.