Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
76 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Espen
Apr 16, 2013, 10:01:37 AM4/16/13
to
sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in the US.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t work for bypasses, stents, diabetes, cancer, etc etc etc.
>>>>
>>>>And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>>>>cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>>>
>>> Cite, please.
>>
>>People I know but you won't allow that to be truth.
>
> You called it Dan!
Like falling off a log.
--
Dan Espen
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in the US.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn’t work for bypasses, stents, diabetes, cancer, etc etc etc.
>>>>
>>>>And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>>>>cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>>>
>>> Cite, please.
>>
>>People I know but you won't allow that to be truth.
>
> You called it Dan!
Like falling off a log.
--
Dan Espen
Scott Lurndal
Apr 16, 2013, 10:16:04 AM4/16/13
to
Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
>sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>>In general I don't like funds. I think the people that run them are crooks.
>>>Of course 401Ks are all funds so they're hard to avoid completely.
>>
>> I have two 401k's that I manage completely myself. They're invested in
>> equities, corporate bonds and some money market funds for a cash cushion.
>>
>> Once you leave an employer, you can roll that 401k into an IRA on E-trade that
>> you can manage completely yourself. Some employers allow self-managed 401ks,
>> but that is quite rare.
>
>Yep. I have one 401K self managed.
>It does a lot better than the one invested in funds.
>
One of mine is managed by a finance adviser (trades subject to my approval) at
one of the biggest wall st. firms, the other I handle myself through E-trade.
Like you, mine has done better than the one with the large firm (that one had just
recovered from the 2000 bubble when it got hammered by the 2008 crash).
scott
>sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>>In general I don't like funds. I think the people that run them are crooks.
>>>Of course 401Ks are all funds so they're hard to avoid completely.
>>
>> I have two 401k's that I manage completely myself. They're invested in
>> equities, corporate bonds and some money market funds for a cash cushion.
>>
>> Once you leave an employer, you can roll that 401k into an IRA on E-trade that
>> you can manage completely yourself. Some employers allow self-managed 401ks,
>> but that is quite rare.
>
>Yep. I have one 401K self managed.
>It does a lot better than the one invested in funds.
>
One of mine is managed by a finance adviser (trades subject to my approval) at
one of the biggest wall st. firms, the other I handle myself through E-trade.
Like you, mine has done better than the one with the large firm (that one had just
recovered from the 2000 bubble when it got hammered by the 2008 crash).
scott
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Apr 16, 2013, 10:23:54 AM4/16/13
to
On Apr 15, 5:35 pm, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <l...@garlic.com> wrote:
> Untangling the webs of tax lobbyinghttp://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/15/tax-lobbying/
>
> from above:
>
> To be sure, all this correlation does not necessarily prove
> causation. But it strongly suggests it. The most comprehensive academic
> analysis of this question, published in the American Journal of
> Political science, finds that "Firms that spend more on lobbying in a
> given year pay lower effective tax rates in the next year. Increasing
> registered lobbying expenditures by 1 percent appears to lower effective
> tax rates by somewhere in the range of 0.5 to 1.6 percentage points for
> the average firm that lobbies."
Some years ago the Philadelphia Inquirer did a detailed news story on
how corporations have special tax exemptions--tailor made for each
company. A friend of mine who is a tax accountant showed me the
volume of the tax code with all the special exemptions (including his
company).
> Untangling the webs of tax lobbyinghttp://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/15/tax-lobbying/
>
> from above:
>
> To be sure, all this correlation does not necessarily prove
> causation. But it strongly suggests it. The most comprehensive academic
> analysis of this question, published in the American Journal of
> Political science, finds that "Firms that spend more on lobbying in a
> given year pay lower effective tax rates in the next year. Increasing
> registered lobbying expenditures by 1 percent appears to lower effective
> tax rates by somewhere in the range of 0.5 to 1.6 percentage points for
> the average firm that lobbies."
Some years ago the Philadelphia Inquirer did a detailed news story on
how corporations have special tax exemptions--tailor made for each
company. A friend of mine who is a tax accountant showed me the
volume of the tax code with all the special exemptions (including his
company).
Andrew Swallow
Apr 16, 2013, 10:34:22 AM4/16/13
to
On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
{snip}
>
> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people were
> not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The clerk
> was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing selling
> insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled. It was just
> another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
>
> /BAH
>
It is called a universal bank. They have them on the Continent.
Problems selling insurance (PPI) is costing the British banks a fortune.
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people were
> not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The clerk
> was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing selling
> insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled. It was just
> another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
>
> /BAH
>
It is called a universal bank. They have them on the Continent.
Problems selling insurance (PPI) is costing the British banks a fortune.
Andrew Swallow
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Apr 16, 2013, 10:37:20 AM4/16/13
to
On Apr 16, 8:07 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
AFAIK, there is generally no way to accurately predict when someone
with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale. We'd end
up incarcerating a great many innocent people, plus tax ourselves
badly to pay for it.
Mental health is largely a subjective art. Counselors will vary
widely in their opinions of the mental health of someone. It is
troubling that such an inexact method could have the power to
incarcerate people. Further, public emotion could play a harmful
role, with pundits fanning the flames*.
We have strict laws requiring therapists to report all sorts of
potentially dangerous behaviors. One problem with such laws is that
troubled people will not get the therapy they really need because they
fear being reported.
*An ex-offender was moving into a town. Talk radio hosts described
him as an incurable monster out for harm and got the town all upset.
But the truth was that he had a relatively minor and common crime as a
youth.
> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
AFAIK, there is generally no way to accurately predict when someone
with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale. We'd end
up incarcerating a great many innocent people, plus tax ourselves
badly to pay for it.
Mental health is largely a subjective art. Counselors will vary
widely in their opinions of the mental health of someone. It is
troubling that such an inexact method could have the power to
incarcerate people. Further, public emotion could play a harmful
role, with pundits fanning the flames*.
We have strict laws requiring therapists to report all sorts of
potentially dangerous behaviors. One problem with such laws is that
troubled people will not get the therapy they really need because they
fear being reported.
*An ex-offender was moving into a town. Talk radio hosts described
him as an incurable monster out for harm and got the town all upset.
But the truth was that he had a relatively minor and common crime as a
youth.
Andrew Swallow
Apr 16, 2013, 10:46:39 AM4/16/13
to
On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> Al Jadzera had a news item on TV Sunday night about people buying
>
> real estate in Londaon as a tax haven. Something to do with not
> paying property taxes but I didn't understand it. They interviewed
> a woman who had a _small_ 2 BR apartement and, since she lives alone,
> was going to have a property tax increase on the 2nd bedroom.
> GB has always been strange about what people pay for (compared to
> the US). another wierd (to USians) is the way they charged for TV
> receptions.
>
> <snip>
>
> /BAH
>
Sounds like they are mixing up 2 or 3 stories there.
The 'Bedroom tax' is the nickname of a reduction of dole for people who
live in rented accommodation. When the children grow up and leave the
government wants the parents to move to some where cheaper.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Apr 16, 2013, 10:53:05 AM4/16/13
to
On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news:PM0004DA2...@aca2db1d.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>>>> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> Here you've jumbled up the meaning of state and country and
>>>> somehow projected these jumbled meanings to try to prove
>>>> a VAT wouldn't work in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Some cities have sales tax too.
>>>>
>>>> So far I see no reason the US could not use a VAT and Canada still seems
>>>> like a good example of how it could work.
>>>
>>> EAch US state, county, city etc. would have a different rate if a VAT
>>> was substituted for sales tax. And the Federal would probably have one,
> too.
>>> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>> hmmm...that may be a cure for Illinois/Chicago's corruption.
>>
>> This is what is happening in EUrope. VATs tend to converge.
>
> Do they? Is it to make the figuring easier?
>
> /BAH
>
No. The governments are finding the hard way that people will drive for
an hour to save tax on expensive things like furniture.
Andrew Swallow
Walter Bushell
Apr 16, 2013, 11:02:27 AM4/16/13
to
In article <hZOdnZk9pf1Q-PDM...@bt.com>,
But those things people don't pay cash for usually. Other payment
methods can be traced, unless perhaps you use bitcoins.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
methods can be traced, unless perhaps you use bitcoins.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
Apr 16, 2013, 11:06:57 AM4/16/13
to
Andrew Swallow
Tom
Apr 16, 2013, 12:08:32 PM4/16/13
to
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote in
news:PM0004DA7...@aca3572f.ipt.aol.com:
> Dave Garland wrote:
>>> already
>>> has different sales tax rates.
>>
>> Each state? Hell, just in my metro (2 serious cities and a bunch of
>> suburbs, 7 counties, 2 states but we'll forget about the part that's
>> across the state line) we've probably got 10 or 15 different sales
>> tax rates, depending on exactly where you are and what you're
>> selling. State tax, city tax, county tax, transit district tax,
>> downtown food & lodging tax, taxes for two different sports stadiums
>> (different boundaries, though the stadiums aren't more than half a
>> mile apart), city liquor tax (at least I don't have to deal with that
>> one as a vendor), it's a friggin' nightmare for me to figure out what
>> tax to charge, even when the customer isn't more than 20 miles away.
>
> Goddfuckinggrief. That's almost as bad a DST differences in certain
> areas in Europe.
Please tell me which single timezone is used within North Dakota
(or South Dakota, or Nebraska for that matter)
Please tell me on which date all of the US states change
to/from DST.
So much for consistency!
news:PM0004DA7...@aca3572f.ipt.aol.com:
> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>> EAch US state, county, city etc. would have a different rate if a
>>>> VAT was substituted for sales tax.
>>>
>>> How is that any different from the status quo ante? Each state
>>>> VAT was substituted for sales tax.
>>>
>>> already
>>> has different sales tax rates.
>>
>> Each state? Hell, just in my metro (2 serious cities and a bunch of
>> suburbs, 7 counties, 2 states but we'll forget about the part that's
>> across the state line) we've probably got 10 or 15 different sales
>> tax rates, depending on exactly where you are and what you're
>> selling. State tax, city tax, county tax, transit district tax,
>> downtown food & lodging tax, taxes for two different sports stadiums
>> (different boundaries, though the stadiums aren't more than half a
>> mile apart), city liquor tax (at least I don't have to deal with that
>> one as a vendor), it's a friggin' nightmare for me to figure out what
>> tax to charge, even when the customer isn't more than 20 miles away.
>
> Goddfuckinggrief. That's almost as bad a DST differences in certain
> areas in Europe.
Please tell me which single timezone is used within North Dakota
(or South Dakota, or Nebraska for that matter)
Please tell me on which date all of the US states change
to/from DST.
So much for consistency!
Walter Bushell
Apr 16, 2013, 12:28:21 PM4/16/13
to
In article <hZOdnZs9pf2T9PDM...@bt.com>,
But you are requested and required to pay sales tax on merchandise
bought out of state if you are a NY state resident and IIUC this is
true of most states that have sales taxes.
bought out of state if you are a NY state resident and IIUC this is
true of most states that have sales taxes.
Scott Lurndal
Apr 16, 2013, 12:36:48 PM4/16/13
to
to buy their new car to save the 7.5% (at the time) CA sales tax. The
DMV was then instructed to collect the sales tax when the vehicle
was subsequently registered in California.
scott
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 1:41:11 PM4/16/13
to
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
> Peter Flass wrote
>> Dan Espen wrote
>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> What the heck were these people smoking when they repealed it?
>>> Cite?
>>> Just kidding.
>>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot"
>> is or what s/he intended to accomplish.
> I want them dead.
So you are no better than they are.
> I'm very upset.
Bet that will make them curl up and die for sure.
>> Like the gun control discussion, this would seem to advance
>> my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a lot
>> more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
> There's no political talk about banning bomb instructions on the net.
Because even the most stupid realises that it just isnt possible.
> I also don't understand this gun discussion. I thought
> the guns the idiot used in Conn. were legally bought.
Yes they were. Which just goes to show how completely
useless the checks on who can buy a gun are.
Now the only proposal is to extend the checks and
the proposed extensions are JUST AS USELESS as
far as preventing another one like that is concerned.
> Peter Flass wrote
>> Dan Espen wrote
>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>> What the heck were these people smoking when they repealed it?
>>> Cite?
>>> Just kidding.
>>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot"
>> is or what s/he intended to accomplish.
So you are no better than they are.
> I'm very upset.
Bet that will make them curl up and die for sure.
>> Like the gun control discussion, this would seem to advance
>> my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a lot
>> more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
Because even the most stupid realises that it just isnt possible.
> I also don't understand this gun discussion. I thought
> the guns the idiot used in Conn. were legally bought.
Yes they were. Which just goes to show how completely
useless the checks on who can buy a gun are.
Now the only proposal is to extend the checks and
the proposed extensions are JUST AS USELESS as
far as preventing another one like that is concerned.
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 1:42:31 PM4/16/13
to
news:PM0004DA7...@aca3572f.ipt.aol.com...
> Is it to make the figuring easier?
Its mostly just happened as a result of an EU
edict, particularly with what is VAT free etc.
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:PM0004DA2...@aca2db1d.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>>>> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> Here you've jumbled up the meaning of state and country and
>>>> somehow projected these jumbled meanings to try to prove
>>>> a VAT wouldn't work in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Some cities have sales tax too.
>>>>
>>>> So far I see no reason the US could not use a VAT and Canada still
>>>> seems
>>>> like a good example of how it could work.
>>>
>>>EAch US state, county, city etc. would have a different rate if a VAT
>>>was substituted for sales tax. And the Federal would probably have one,
> too.
>>>So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>>hmmm...that may be a cure for Illinois/Chicago's corruption.
>>
>> This is what is happening in EUrope. VATs tend to converge.
>
> Do they?
Well, they have, anyway.
>> In article <PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:PM0004DA2...@aca2db1d.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>>>> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> Here you've jumbled up the meaning of state and country and
>>>> somehow projected these jumbled meanings to try to prove
>>>> a VAT wouldn't work in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Some cities have sales tax too.
>>>>
>>>> So far I see no reason the US could not use a VAT and Canada still
>>>> seems
>>>> like a good example of how it could work.
>>>
>>>EAch US state, county, city etc. would have a different rate if a VAT
>>>was substituted for sales tax. And the Federal would probably have one,
> too.
>>>So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>>hmmm...that may be a cure for Illinois/Chicago's corruption.
>>
>> This is what is happening in EUrope. VATs tend to converge.
>
> Do they?
> Is it to make the figuring easier?
edict, particularly with what is VAT free etc.
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 1:43:41 PM4/16/13
to
> Dan Espen wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>>
>>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in the
>>>>>> US.
>>>>
>>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t work for bypasses, stents, diabetes, cancer, etc etc etc.
>>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>>
>>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in the
>>>>>> US.
>>>>
>>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>>> cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>>
>> Is this logical in your mind?
>>> And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>>> cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>>
>>
>> Did you really mean to say that Canadians will be going to Mexico for
>> non-approved treatments?
> The FDA doesn't approve mecial treatments in Germany.
No one ever said they did.
> Germany has its own infrastructure.
Duh.
> Or do you all really believe that the FDA is a global god?
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 1:46:11 PM4/16/13
to
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
>>> in 2009, US IRS was in the news about going after some 52,000 wealthy
>>> individuals for $400B in unpaid taxes on illegal hidden offshore income
>>> (also news about IRS trying to force large swiss banks to divulge
>>> records about the 52,000 US wealthy individuals).
>>
>> re:
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#93 What Makes an Architecture
> Bizarre?
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#6 What Makes an Architecture
>> Bizarre?
>>
>> in any case ... after 2009 ... most of the news about illegal off-shore
>> involving 52,000 wealthy US individuals seemed to nearly evaporate
>>
>> recent item in the "Secreccy for Sale" in linkedin financial
>> fraud:
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#11 Secrecy for Sale: Inside the
> Global Offshore Money Maze
>>
>> updated highlights pages:
>> http://www.icij.org/blog/2013/04/highlights-offshore-leaks-so-far
>>
>> including:
>>
>> Among the 4,000 U.S. individuals listed in the records, at least 30
>> are American citizens accused in lawsuits or criminal cases of fraud,
>> money laundering or other serious financial misconduct, an analysis by
>> the Washington Post and ICIJ found. Offshore trusts and companies set
>> up in the South Pacific and Caribbean are the common factor in several
>> prominent financial scandals in the U.S.
> GB has always been strange about what people pay for (compared to the US).
Not always, but certainly has done some things differently with that sort of
tax.
> another wierd (to USians) is the way they charged for TV receptions.
Its just about unique in the modern first world now on that.
>>
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
>>> in 2009, US IRS was in the news about going after some 52,000 wealthy
>>> individuals for $400B in unpaid taxes on illegal hidden offshore income
>>> (also news about IRS trying to force large swiss banks to divulge
>>> records about the 52,000 US wealthy individuals).
>>
>> re:
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#93 What Makes an Architecture
> Bizarre?
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#6 What Makes an Architecture
>> Bizarre?
>>
>> in any case ... after 2009 ... most of the news about illegal off-shore
>> involving 52,000 wealthy US individuals seemed to nearly evaporate
>>
>> recent item in the "Secreccy for Sale" in linkedin financial
>> fraud:
>> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#11 Secrecy for Sale: Inside the
> Global Offshore Money Maze
>>
>> updated highlights pages:
>> http://www.icij.org/blog/2013/04/highlights-offshore-leaks-so-far
>>
>> including:
>>
>> Among the 4,000 U.S. individuals listed in the records, at least 30
>> are American citizens accused in lawsuits or criminal cases of fraud,
>> money laundering or other serious financial misconduct, an analysis by
>> the Washington Post and ICIJ found. Offshore trusts and companies set
>> up in the South Pacific and Caribbean are the common factor in several
>> prominent financial scandals in the U.S.
>
> Al Jadzera had a news item on TV Sunday night about people buying
> real estate in Londaon as a tax haven. Something to do with not
> paying property taxes but I didn't understand it. They interviewed
> a woman who had a _small_ 2 BR apartement and, since she lives alone,
> was going to have a property tax increase on the 2nd bedroom.
Because its not being used as a bedroom.
> Al Jadzera had a news item on TV Sunday night about people buying
> real estate in Londaon as a tax haven. Something to do with not
> paying property taxes but I didn't understand it. They interviewed
> a woman who had a _small_ 2 BR apartement and, since she lives alone,
> was going to have a property tax increase on the 2nd bedroom.
> GB has always been strange about what people pay for (compared to the US).
tax.
> another wierd (to USians) is the way they charged for TV receptions.
Andrew Swallow
Apr 16, 2013, 1:47:46 PM4/16/13
to
Andrew Swallow
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 1:49:36 PM4/16/13
to
news:PM0004DA7...@aca3572f.ipt.aol.com...
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 10:48 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <d3b0f5de-0dd3-4c6e...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (hancock4) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2:59 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bankers blame all sorts of holds and fees on the govt because that
>>>>>> sounds better than admitting they'll use any excuse to screw their
>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Years ago banks derrived 90% of their income from interest and only
>>>>> 10% from fees. Back then banks were modest institutions, conservative
>>>>> and reliable as investments, but not high profit. Many savings banks
>>>>> were "mutual"--owned by their depositors, not shareholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today banks get 50% of their income from interest and 50% from fees.
>>>>> Banks are big profit machines. Look at the spread between what they
>>>>> pay out on deposits and earn on credit card balances.
>>>>
>>>> When my sister was working in a bank (10 years ago or so), she would
>>>> sometimes be reprimanded for not gouging customers enough on fees.
>>>>
>>> My mother was hounded by a bank clerk at her bank to buy an insurance;
>>> the deal was for Mom to give the bank all her savings and they would
>>> give her a piece of paper. I told her the banker was lying to her
>>> but Mom didn't believe me. You don't sell that kind of insurance to
>>> a 80+ year old.
>>>
>>
>> Insurance or an annuity? She would have been a perfect target to sell
>> an annuity to.
and that NOT ONE of their retail banks imploded spectacularly or
even needed to be bailed out by govt in the most recent complete
implosion of much of the world financial system.
Nice theory. Pity about the real world.
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 10:48 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <d3b0f5de-0dd3-4c6e...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (hancock4) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2:59 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bankers blame all sorts of holds and fees on the govt because that
>>>>>> sounds better than admitting they'll use any excuse to screw their
>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Years ago banks derrived 90% of their income from interest and only
>>>>> 10% from fees. Back then banks were modest institutions, conservative
>>>>> and reliable as investments, but not high profit. Many savings banks
>>>>> were "mutual"--owned by their depositors, not shareholders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today banks get 50% of their income from interest and 50% from fees.
>>>>> Banks are big profit machines. Look at the spread between what they
>>>>> pay out on deposits and earn on credit card balances.
>>>>
>>>> When my sister was working in a bank (10 years ago or so), she would
>>>> sometimes be reprimanded for not gouging customers enough on fees.
>>>>
>>> My mother was hounded by a bank clerk at her bank to buy an insurance;
>>> the deal was for Mom to give the bank all her savings and they would
>>> give her a piece of paper. I told her the banker was lying to her
>>> but Mom didn't believe me. You don't sell that kind of insurance to
>>> a 80+ year old.
>>>
>>
>> Insurance or an annuity? She would have been a perfect target to sell
>> an annuity to.
>
> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people were
> not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The clerk
> was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing selling
> insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled. It was just
> another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
How odd that both Canada and Australia have always allowed that
> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people were
> not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The clerk
> was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing selling
> insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled. It was just
> another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
and that NOT ONE of their retail banks imploded spectacularly or
even needed to be bailed out by govt in the most recent complete
implosion of much of the world financial system.
Nice theory. Pity about the real world.
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 1:50:16 PM4/16/13
to
>>>Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/2013 5:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>>>> By the way, New Yorkers are now getting double taxation. A few years
>>>>>> ago the state instituted a "minimum" sales tax on online purchases.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's not what it is. NY has a Use Tax like every other state
>>>>> with a sales tax. You have to enter a Use Tax number on your income
>>>>> tax form, and they suggest an estimate, but if your actual amount is
>>>>> lower, you can enter that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I figured out my actual use tax a few years ago and it turned out to
>>>>> be higher than their estimate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do a lot online, too, so I haven't bothered, but how the heck can you
>>>> prove your actual purchases are lower?
>>>
>>>States acquire purchasing data from the vendors.
>>
>> No, they don't.
>
> Then how does a state know what you bought? Michigan's income tax form
> talks about exchanging data with other states.
Its just bluff that does bluff some.
>>>> On 4/14/2013 5:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>>>> By the way, New Yorkers are now getting double taxation. A few years
>>>>>> ago the state instituted a "minimum" sales tax on online purchases.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's not what it is. NY has a Use Tax like every other state
>>>>> with a sales tax. You have to enter a Use Tax number on your income
>>>>> tax form, and they suggest an estimate, but if your actual amount is
>>>>> lower, you can enter that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I figured out my actual use tax a few years ago and it turned out to
>>>>> be higher than their estimate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do a lot online, too, so I haven't bothered, but how the heck can you
>>>> prove your actual purchases are lower?
>>>
>>>States acquire purchasing data from the vendors.
>>
>> No, they don't.
>
> Then how does a state know what you bought? Michigan's income tax form
> talks about exchanging data with other states.
Its just bluff that does bluff some.
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 1:51:16 PM4/16/13
to
> Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>>
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> > news:PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com...
>>>
>>> They do lose business. people in Mass go to NH for booze and
>>> cigarettes.
>>
>> They buy gas in and pay gas taxes to get there. Let's see
>> Maynard to Nashua 3/4 hour drive each way, $300 dollars
>> for boose and cigarettes save $50 in taxes. Hour and a half
>> $50 less $0.90 /mile to drive there by 90 miles
>> ($81.00) = -$31.00
>>
>> Spend an extra $31.00 and an hour and a half to
>> save $50.00 in taxes
>>
>> I believe you.
>
> <grin> My mother used to drive to another grocery store to save $.05
> on one item. No matter how many times I asked how much she spent on
> gas and her time, she still thought she saved a nickel. When
> I'm trying to decide about hiring somebody or
> doing it myself, I figure my time at $300/hour.
Mindlessly silly with someone who no longer works.
>>
>>
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> > news:PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com...
>>> >> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>
>>> >> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>> >
>>> > How odd that they don’t with sales tax.
>>>
>>> >> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>> >
>>>
>>> They do lose business. people in Mass go to NH for booze and
>>> cigarettes.
>>
>> They buy gas in and pay gas taxes to get there. Let's see
>> Maynard to Nashua 3/4 hour drive each way, $300 dollars
>> for boose and cigarettes save $50 in taxes. Hour and a half
>> $50 less $0.90 /mile to drive there by 90 miles
>> ($81.00) = -$31.00
>>
>> Spend an extra $31.00 and an hour and a half to
>> save $50.00 in taxes
>>
>> I believe you.
>
> <grin> My mother used to drive to another grocery store to save $.05
> on one item. No matter how many times I asked how much she spent on
> gas and her time, she still thought she saved a nickel. When
> I'm trying to decide about hiring somebody or
> doing it myself, I figure my time at $300/hour.
Mindlessly silly with someone who no longer works.
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 1:53:20 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 07:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Congress critters who are doing the tax-hole making. Lobbyers talk
> mostly to the staff of the those critters. It's the staff which
> writes the tax laws, too.
Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves, and
they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once they've
verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been made.
The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or even the
bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>> To be sure, all this correlation does not necessarily prove
>> causation. But it strongly suggests it. The most comprehensive
>> academic analysis of this question, published in the American
>> Journal of Political science, finds that "Firms that spend more on
>> lobbying in a given year pay lower effective tax rates in the next
>> year. Increasing registered lobbying expenditures by 1 percent
>> appears to lower effective tax rates by somewhere in the range of
>> 0.5 to 1.6 percentage points for the average firm that lobbies."
>
> Ok. Now think of how that lobbying works. It's not necessarily the
>> To be sure, all this correlation does not necessarily prove
>> causation. But it strongly suggests it. The most comprehensive
>> academic analysis of this question, published in the American
>> Journal of Political science, finds that "Firms that spend more on
>> lobbying in a given year pay lower effective tax rates in the next
>> year. Increasing registered lobbying expenditures by 1 percent
>> appears to lower effective tax rates by somewhere in the range of
>> 0.5 to 1.6 percentage points for the average firm that lobbies."
>
> Congress critters who are doing the tax-hole making. Lobbyers talk
> mostly to the staff of the those critters. It's the staff which
> writes the tax laws, too.
Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves, and
they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once they've
verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been made.
The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or even the
bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 1:57:56 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 09:34, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people
>> were not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The
>> clerk was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing
>> selling insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled.
>> It was just another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
>
> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people
>> were not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The
>> clerk was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing
>> selling insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled.
>> It was just another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
>
> It is called a universal bank. They have them on the Continent.
One of the lessons learned from the Crash of 1929/Great Depression was
that banks, insurance companies and stock brokers should be kept
completely separate. That prevented problems in one industry from
taking down the others--and the entire financial system. It worked
great for 70 years.
> Problems selling insurance (PPI) is costing the British banks a
> fortune.
system a few years ago--exactly as anyone with a brain knew would
happen, though I doubt many predicted it would happen so quickly.
It didn't cost our _banks_ a fortune, though, since they were bailed out
by the taxpayers.
James O. Brown
Apr 16, 2013, 2:00:35 PM4/16/13
to
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:d3316bed-120b-4334...@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 16, 8:07 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
> AFAIK, there is generally no way to accurately predict when someone
> with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale.
It isn't even possible to do it with personal violence either.
>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
> AFAIK, there is generally no way to accurately predict when someone
> with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale.
> We'd end up incarcerating a great many innocent people,
By definition, if they have not yet done any crime, they are innocent.
> plus tax ourselves badly to pay for it.
> Mental health is largely a subjective art.
> Counselors will vary widely in their opinions of the mental health
> of someone. It is troubling that such an inexact method could have
> the power to incarcerate people. Further, public emotion could play
> a harmful role, with pundits fanning the flames*.
> We have strict laws requiring therapists to report all sorts of
> potentially dangerous behaviors. One problem with such laws is that
> troubled people will not get the therapy they really need because they
> fear being reported.
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 2:02:59 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 07:07, Peter Flass wrote:
up if there exists medication that can control their craziness--even if
they have no means to obtain that medication (a common problem in the US
given the lack of universal health care) or have a proven record of
refusing to take it.
Since you mentioned gun control, while those adjudicated mentally
incompetent are prohibited from buying a gun, there is no registry of
such so they still pass the required background check--as long as their
craziness hasn't resulted in a felony conviction at some point.
> On 4/15/2013 9:56 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>
>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>
>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>
>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>
> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate
> a lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
Unfortunately, our courts have ruled that a crazy person can't be locked
> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate
> a lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
up if there exists medication that can control their craziness--even if
they have no means to obtain that medication (a common problem in the US
given the lack of universal health care) or have a proven record of
refusing to take it.
Since you mentioned gun control, while those adjudicated mentally
incompetent are prohibited from buying a gun, there is no registry of
such so they still pass the required background check--as long as their
craziness hasn't resulted in a felony conviction at some point.
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 2:08:08 PM4/16/13
to
"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:kkk39r$b47$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 16-Apr-13 09:34, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people
>>> were not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The
>>> clerk was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing
>>> selling insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled.
>>> It was just another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
>>
>> It is called a universal bank. They have them on the Continent.
>
> One of the lessons learned from the Crash of 1929/Great Depression was
> that banks, insurance companies and stock brokers should be kept
> completely separate. That prevented problems in one industry from
> taking down the others--and the entire financial system. It worked
> great for 70 years.
Neither Canada nor Australia were that stupid, and their system
>> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people
>>> were not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The
>>> clerk was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing
>>> selling insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled.
>>> It was just another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
>>
>> It is called a universal bank. They have them on the Continent.
>
> One of the lessons learned from the Crash of 1929/Great Depression was
> that banks, insurance companies and stock brokers should be kept
> completely separate. That prevented problems in one industry from
> taking down the others--and the entire financial system. It worked
> great for 70 years.
continues to work fine anyway. NOT ONE of their retail banks
imploded spectacularly or even needed to be bailed out by
govt recently and they both have MUCH bigger banks per
capita than the US does too.
>> Problems selling insurance (PPI) is costing the British banks a fortune.
> The repeal of the above restrictions is what
> crashed the financial system a few years ago
> --exactly as anyone with a brain knew would happen,
> though I doubt many predicted it would happen so quickly.
> It didn't cost our _banks_ a fortune, though,
> since they were bailed out by the taxpayers.
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 2:09:02 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 09:16, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
>> Yep. I have one 401K self managed. It does a lot better than the
>> one invested in funds.
>
> One of mine is managed by a finance adviser (trades subject to my
> approval) at one of the biggest wall st. firms, the other I handle
> myself through E-trade.
>
> Like you, mine has done better than the one with the large firm (that
> one had just recovered from the 2000 bubble when it got hammered by
> the 2008 crash).
My 401k did very well (~35% gain) in 2008, despite being fully invested
in mutual funds (the only option available). I knew a crash was coming,
so I moved everything to a bond index fund near the peak, waited a few
months, and moved back into stock index funds at the bottom. That's the
closest I've come to "managing" my account, though; most years, I just
rebalance as needed and live with "only" 10-15% gains. That's not too
bad for an hour's work, if that.
> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
>> Yep. I have one 401K self managed. It does a lot better than the
>> one invested in funds.
>
> One of mine is managed by a finance adviser (trades subject to my
> approval) at one of the biggest wall st. firms, the other I handle
> myself through E-trade.
>
> Like you, mine has done better than the one with the large firm (that
> one had just recovered from the 2000 bubble when it got hammered by
> the 2008 crash).
My 401k did very well (~35% gain) in 2008, despite being fully invested
in mutual funds (the only option available). I knew a crash was coming,
so I moved everything to a bond index fund near the peak, waited a few
months, and moved back into stock index funds at the bottom. That's the
closest I've come to "managing" my account, though; most years, I just
rebalance as needed and live with "only" 10-15% gains. That's not too
bad for an hour's work, if that.
sidd
Apr 16, 2013, 2:21:34 PM4/16/13
to
In article <PM0004DA7...@aca3572f.ipt.aol.com>,
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-tax-snatcher-mystery-1828441
apartment linked to three offshore corps
sidd
jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Al Jadzera had a news item on TV Sunday night about people buying
>real estate in Londaon as a tax haven. Something to do with not
>paying property taxes but I didn't understand it.
apparently the late iron lady was in a tax dodge on hers too
>
>Al Jadzera had a news item on TV Sunday night about people buying
>real estate in Londaon as a tax haven. Something to do with not
>paying property taxes but I didn't understand it.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-tax-snatcher-mystery-1828441
apartment linked to three offshore corps
sidd
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 2:29:48 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 07:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> Like the gun control discussion, this would seem to advance my
>> argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a lot more people
>> with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>
>> Like the gun control discussion, this would seem to advance my
>> argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a lot more people
>> with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>
> There's no political talk about banning bomb instructions on the
> net.
That debate was settled decades ago; like it or not, courts have ruled
> net.
that bomb instructions are protected under the 1st Amd.
> I also don't understand this gun discussion. I thought the guns
> the idiot used in Conn. were legally bought.
That's why part of the plan is to ban the type of gun* and the high
capacity magazines that he used. Of course, there are thousands of each
floating around already that won't go away (as seen during the 1994-2004
ban of both), and he could have easily used a type of gun that _wasn't_
made of black plastic or changed magazines more often. So, that part of
the debate is pretty much pointless.
Universal background checks and a mental health registry are much more
logical steps; neither would have prevented this particular incident,
but they would have stopped several other school shootings--and many of
the thousands of other shootings that happen every year.
What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun control
folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this tragedy to
push through stuff they've been wanting to do for decades, even though
there is no direct link between them.
(* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault weapon
_replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since 1985; note
that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used in a crime by
its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a _cop_.)
greymausg
Apr 16, 2013, 2:30:03 PM4/16/13
to
On 2013-04-16, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:48�pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> It's often difficult to fire an "at will" employee in the US, even
>> without an employment contract. �It takes an enormous amount of
>> documentation showing numerous offenses over an extended period. �(This
>> assumes there is no documented _criminal_ behavior.) �If they blame
>> their poor job performance on drug or alcohol addiction, it becomes
>> flat-out illegal to fire them for having a "disability".
>
> The large number of people fired from their job for cause would
> disagree with you about how 'difficult' it is (even union members or
> civil service). There are standard procedures to follow and they are
> not difficult nor time consuming as long as management is objective.
> Once Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, the pendulum has swung
> sharply to the favor of management over labor.
>
> Some fired workers can't even collect unemployment insurance, though
> most employers will look the other way and not fight it. Most fired
> workers have no grounds to sue and can't.
>
> Heck, there are slezy employers out there who find some excuse to fire
> good workers so they don't have to pay them unemployment or severance,
> and they're able to make that stick, too.
Well known practice here, leave some marked banknotes in an unsecured
place, leave the employee on their own to collect cash from `out-of-hours'
customers, so on, so on. So well known that its suprising that people
fall for it.
Friend collected the payments for people getting their horses
a `swimming-excercise' at a horse pool, shut the place at the usual hour
, went to the pub, security man asked the publican to open the till,
where they found the marked notes, so he was fired without compensation,
and, adding insult to injury, the local priest removed him from the
list of Eucharistic ministers. Now, That was really funny!
--
maus
.
.
...
> On Apr 14, 11:48�pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> It's often difficult to fire an "at will" employee in the US, even
>> without an employment contract. �It takes an enormous amount of
>> documentation showing numerous offenses over an extended period. �(This
>> assumes there is no documented _criminal_ behavior.) �If they blame
>> their poor job performance on drug or alcohol addiction, it becomes
>> flat-out illegal to fire them for having a "disability".
>
> The large number of people fired from their job for cause would
> disagree with you about how 'difficult' it is (even union members or
> civil service). There are standard procedures to follow and they are
> not difficult nor time consuming as long as management is objective.
> Once Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, the pendulum has swung
> sharply to the favor of management over labor.
>
> Some fired workers can't even collect unemployment insurance, though
> most employers will look the other way and not fight it. Most fired
> workers have no grounds to sue and can't.
>
> Heck, there are slezy employers out there who find some excuse to fire
> good workers so they don't have to pay them unemployment or severance,
> and they're able to make that stick, too.
Well known practice here, leave some marked banknotes in an unsecured
place, leave the employee on their own to collect cash from `out-of-hours'
customers, so on, so on. So well known that its suprising that people
fall for it.
Friend collected the payments for people getting their horses
a `swimming-excercise' at a horse pool, shut the place at the usual hour
, went to the pub, security man asked the publican to open the till,
where they found the marked notes, so he was fired without compensation,
and, adding insult to injury, the local priest removed him from the
list of Eucharistic ministers. Now, That was really funny!
--
maus
.
.
...
greymausg
Apr 16, 2013, 2:30:03 PM4/16/13
to
On 2013-04-15, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I lived in NYC for 40 years. We had some really high
> taxes and weren't more than 5 miles from the border.
>
> Never in 40 years did I decide to leave the city to buy something.
>
> Looks like the attributions above are a total mess.
> I never made the claim that states with high taxes loose business.
> Obviously people on the borders might decide to save a few cents.
> But states are pretty big. It's not a real problem.
>
Ladies I know head for New York and head West through New Jersey to
some giant outlet to buy cheap stuff. Funny thing, some come home without
buying anything, just go for the trip.
> Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> writes:
>
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com...
>>> >> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>
>>> >> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>> >
>>> > How odd that they don�??????t with sales tax.
>
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com...
>>> >> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>
>>> >> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>> >
>>>
>>> They do lose business. people in Mass go to NH for booze and cigarettes.
>>
>> They buy gas in and pay gas taxes to get there. Let's see
>> Maynard to Nashua 3/4 hour drive each way, $300 dollars
>> for boose and cigarettes save $50 in taxes. Hour and a half
>> $50 less $0.90 /mile to drive there by 90 miles
>> ($81.00) = -$31.00
>>
>> Spend an extra $31.00 and an hour and a half to
>> save $50.00 in taxes
>>
>> I believe you.
>
> Obviously depends on how close you are to the border.
>>> They do lose business. people in Mass go to NH for booze and cigarettes.
>>
>> They buy gas in and pay gas taxes to get there. Let's see
>> Maynard to Nashua 3/4 hour drive each way, $300 dollars
>> for boose and cigarettes save $50 in taxes. Hour and a half
>> $50 less $0.90 /mile to drive there by 90 miles
>> ($81.00) = -$31.00
>>
>> Spend an extra $31.00 and an hour and a half to
>> save $50.00 in taxes
>>
>> I believe you.
>
> I lived in NYC for 40 years. We had some really high
> taxes and weren't more than 5 miles from the border.
>
> Never in 40 years did I decide to leave the city to buy something.
>
> Looks like the attributions above are a total mess.
> I never made the claim that states with high taxes loose business.
> Obviously people on the borders might decide to save a few cents.
> But states are pretty big. It's not a real problem.
>
Ladies I know head for New York and head West through New Jersey to
some giant outlet to buy cheap stuff. Funny thing, some come home without
buying anything, just go for the trip.
Message has been deleted
greymausg
Apr 16, 2013, 2:30:03 PM4/16/13
to
On 2013-04-15, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>
>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>
>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in the US.
>>>
>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>
>>> Doesn???t work for bypasses, stents, diabetes, cancer, etc etc etc.
>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>
>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>
>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in the US.
>>>
>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>
>>
>> And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>> cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
Perhaps Albania :)
>> And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>> cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
Now and Again there are `whip-arounds' here to collect money to
send children for cancer treatment to the US. Generally those treatments
are innefective.
>
> Is this logical in your mind?
>
> Did you really mean to say that Canadians will be going to Mexico for
> non-approved treatments?
>
Scott Lurndal
Apr 16, 2013, 2:41:12 PM4/16/13
to
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun control
>folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this tragedy to
>push through stuff they've been wanting to do for decades, even though
>there is no direct link between them.
>
>(* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault weapon
>_replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since 1985; note
>that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used in a crime by
>its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a _cop_.)
It's pretty clear that the US government and citizenry have determined that
>What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun control
>folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this tragedy to
>push through stuff they've been wanting to do for decades, even though
>there is no direct link between them.
>
>(* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault weapon
>_replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since 1985; note
>that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used in a crime by
>its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a _cop_.)
weapons _can_ (and _should_) be banned.
So, on the continuum from a single-shot .22 rifle to a device with a
physics package, where do we draw the line? All automatic weapons are
effectively banned (BATF permits for antique machine guns notwithstanding),
clearly SAMs, RPG's, LAWs, SAWs should be all banned, but where do
semi-automatic weapons fall in this continuum? I support the hunters, all
of which can manage just fine with single-shot or reduced magazines, so what
is the societal need for semi-automatic "replicas" of military assault weapons?
scott
Walter Bushell
Apr 16, 2013, 2:53:55 PM4/16/13
to
In article <A6fbt.2$f8...@fe44.iad>,
And NY state went after people who bought mail order tobacco from the
Indian stores. Left credit card receipts and from those they could
locate the people. Some got big bills for back cigarette taxes. They
will get to you eventually at least on the big ticket items.
Indian stores. Left credit card receipts and from those they could
locate the people. Some got big bills for back cigarette taxes. They
will get to you eventually at least on the big ticket items.
Walter Bushell
Apr 16, 2013, 2:56:00 PM4/16/13
to
In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>,
Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves, and
> they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once they've
> verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been made.
> The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or even the
> bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
> Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves, and
> they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once they've
> verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been made.
> The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or even the
> bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Apr 16, 2013, 2:56:31 PM4/16/13
to
On Apr 16, 2:29 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 16-Apr-13 07:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
> > I also don't understand this gun discussion. I thought the guns
> > the idiot used in Conn. were legally bought.
>
> Yes, they were--by his mother, IIRC.
Some years ago there was a mass shooting on the LIRR. IIRC, the
>On 16-Apr-13 07:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
> > I also don't understand this gun discussion. I thought the guns
> > the idiot used in Conn. were legally bought.
>
> Yes, they were--by his mother, IIRC.
shooter bought his guns legally, with a waiting period, and had no
criminal or other record.
> That's why part of the plan is to ban the type of gun* and the high
> capacity magazines that he used. Of course, there are thousands of each
> floating around already that won't go away (as seen during the 1994-2004
> ban of both), and he could have easily used a type of gun that _wasn't_
> made of black plastic or changed magazines more often. So, that part of
> the debate is pretty much pointless.
revolver, today's automatic weapons carry a lot more fire power and
longer time between reloads. IIRC, the LIRR shooter was tackled by
other passengers when he stopped to reload.
> Universal background checks and a mental health registry are much more
> logical steps; neither would have prevented this particular incident,
> but they would have stopped several other school shootings--and many of
> the thousands of other shootings that happen every year.
reasonable step. Those people are firmly convinced that it's only a
matter of time before the evil guvmint comes by to confiscate all of
their guns. Indeed, it's their mindset that makes me nervous and very
much in support of gun control legislation. Those people are so
freakin' paranoid.
> What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun control
> folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this tragedy to
> push through stuff they've been wanting to do for decades, even though
> there is no direct link between them.
passage and certainly seem reasonable.
Dan Espen
Apr 16, 2013, 2:58:27 PM4/16/13
to
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 16-Apr-13 07:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 9:56 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>>
>>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate
>> a lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>
> Unfortunately, our courts have ruled that a crazy person can't be locked
> up if there exists medication that can control their craziness--even if
> they have no means to obtain that medication (a common problem in the US
> given the lack of universal health care) or have a proven record of
> refusing to take it.
This goes back to my "every one has to work" plan.
> On 16-Apr-13 07:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 9:56 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>>
>>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate
>> a lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>
> Unfortunately, our courts have ruled that a crazy person can't be locked
> up if there exists medication that can control their craziness--even if
> they have no means to obtain that medication (a common problem in the US
> given the lack of universal health care) or have a proven record of
> refusing to take it.
As these people with mental issues go off meds or the meds stop working,
their boss would report them and they'd need to visit the hospital.
We can't have mentally unstable people left to their own devices.
They must be working, or must be in treatment.
Current laws are inadequate to the problem.
I hear the House has plans to introduce better mental health laws.
If avoiding gun control leads to better mental health laws, I'm all for
it.
--
Dan Espen
Walter Bushell
Apr 16, 2013, 3:01:06 PM4/16/13
to
In article <slrnkmq9s...@gmaus.org>, greymausg <ma...@mail.com>
wrote:
> On 2013-04-15, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> writes:
> >
> >> jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>
> >>> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>> > news:PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com...
> >>> >> Dan Espen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
> >>> >
> >>> > How odd that they donâ??????t with sales tax.
not be something worth buying.
wrote:
> On 2013-04-15, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> writes:
> >
> >> jmfbahciv wrote:
> >>
> >>> Rod Speed wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>> > news:PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com...
> >>> >> Dan Espen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> They do lose business. people in Mass go to NH for booze and cigarettes.
> >>
> >> They buy gas in and pay gas taxes to get there. Let's see
> >> Maynard to Nashua 3/4 hour drive each way, $300 dollars
> >> for boose and cigarettes save $50 in taxes. Hour and a half
> >> $50 less $0.90 /mile to drive there by 90 miles
> >> ($81.00) = -$31.00
> >>
> >> Spend an extra $31.00 and an hour and a half to
> >> save $50.00 in taxes
> >>
> >> I believe you.
> >
> > Obviously depends on how close you are to the border.
> > I lived in NYC for 40 years. We had some really high
> > taxes and weren't more than 5 miles from the border.
> >
> > Never in 40 years did I decide to leave the city to buy something.
> >
> > Looks like the attributions above are a total mess.
> > I never made the claim that states with high taxes loose business.
> > Obviously people on the borders might decide to save a few cents.
> > But states are pretty big. It's not a real problem.
> >
>
> Ladies I know head for New York and head West through New Jersey to
> some giant outlet to buy cheap stuff. Funny thing, some come home without
> buying anything, just go for the trip.
It's called "shopping". If shopping for clothes, there might or might
> >>> They do lose business. people in Mass go to NH for booze and cigarettes.
> >>
> >> They buy gas in and pay gas taxes to get there. Let's see
> >> Maynard to Nashua 3/4 hour drive each way, $300 dollars
> >> for boose and cigarettes save $50 in taxes. Hour and a half
> >> $50 less $0.90 /mile to drive there by 90 miles
> >> ($81.00) = -$31.00
> >>
> >> Spend an extra $31.00 and an hour and a half to
> >> save $50.00 in taxes
> >>
> >> I believe you.
> >
> > Obviously depends on how close you are to the border.
> > I lived in NYC for 40 years. We had some really high
> > taxes and weren't more than 5 miles from the border.
> >
> > Never in 40 years did I decide to leave the city to buy something.
> >
> > Looks like the attributions above are a total mess.
> > I never made the claim that states with high taxes loose business.
> > Obviously people on the borders might decide to save a few cents.
> > But states are pretty big. It's not a real problem.
> >
>
> Ladies I know head for New York and head West through New Jersey to
> some giant outlet to buy cheap stuff. Funny thing, some come home without
> buying anything, just go for the trip.
not be something worth buying.
Alfred Falk
Apr 16, 2013, 3:06:58 PM4/16/13
to
Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:iczjwzqt...@home.home:
Consider for example the Zamboni treatment for Multiple Sclerosis. It
is not approved in many civilized countries, but some people are willing
to chance it. So they go they go somewhere that allows it.
news:iczjwzqt...@home.home:
>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>
>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>
>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in
>>>>> the US.
>>>
>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>
>>> Doesn’t work for bypasses, stents, diabetes, cancer, etc etc etc.
>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>
>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>
>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in
>>>>> the US.
>>>
>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>
>>
>> And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>> cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>
>> And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>> cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>
> Is this logical in your mind?
>
> Did you really mean to say that Canadians will be going to Mexico for
> non-approved treatments?
They already do. Well, I don't know about Mexico, specifically.
>
> Did you really mean to say that Canadians will be going to Mexico for
> non-approved treatments?
Consider for example the Zamboni treatment for Multiple Sclerosis. It
is not approved in many civilized countries, but some people are willing
to chance it. So they go they go somewhere that allows it.
Mike
Apr 16, 2013, 3:15:42 PM4/16/13
to
"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
| In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>,
| Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
|
| > Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves,
and
| > they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once
they've
| > verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been
made.
| > The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or even
the
| > bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
|
| Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
| Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not read and do not
| Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
|
| > Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves,
and
| > they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once
they've
| > verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been
made.
| > The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or even
the
| > bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
|
| Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
| Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
understand is ridiculous beyond belief. If a lawyer recommended that
you sign a contract he had not read, he would be subject to heavy
mal-practice liability and disbarment.
We have too much law and regulations. The Constitution should
specifically prohibit Congress from delegating the authority to make
regulations with the power of law. Further it should require
Congressmen to swear that they have read and thoroughly understand a
bill before they can vote for it. Failure to do so should result in
an impeachment and criminal prosecution.
If we did these things we would have fewer laws but they would be more
understandable and more reasonable.
Walter Bushell
Apr 16, 2013, 3:32:00 PM4/16/13
to
In article <XnsA1A485E93C...@78.46.70.116>,
Alfred Falk <fa...@arc.REMOVE.ab.ca> wrote:
> They already do. Well, I don't know about Mexico, specifically.
> Consider for example the Zamboni treatment for Multiple Sclerosis. It
> is not approved in many civilized countries, but some people are willing
> to chance it. So they go they go somewhere that allows it.
They use one of those machines that cleans the ice before hockey games?
> They already do. Well, I don't know about Mexico, specifically.
> Consider for example the Zamboni treatment for Multiple Sclerosis. It
> is not approved in many civilized countries, but some people are willing
> to chance it. So they go they go somewhere that allows it.
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 3:36:13 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 13:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun
>> control folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this
>> tragedy to push through stuff they've been wanting to do for
>> decades, even though there is no direct link between them.
>>
>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>> _cop_.)
>
> It's pretty clear that the US government and citizenry have
> determined that weapons _can_ (and _should_) be banned.
That is not clear at all, at least if you mean _all_ weapons. And there
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun
>> control folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this
>> tragedy to push through stuff they've been wanting to do for
>> decades, even though there is no direct link between them.
>>
>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>> _cop_.)
>
> It's pretty clear that the US government and citizenry have
> determined that weapons _can_ (and _should_) be banned.
is a rather vocal segment of the citizenry (and the minority party) that
thinks _no_ weapons should be banned.
> So, on the continuum from a single-shot .22 rifle to a device with a
> physics package, where do we draw the line? All automatic weapons
> are effectively banned (BATF permits for antique machine guns
> notwithstanding),
still a very active market for those weapons, and it's not difficult to
get a permit to buy one, just expensive.
> clearly SAMs, RPG's, LAWs, SAWs should be all banned,
Still, the ban on explosive weapons is generally accepted; you can get a
permit for them, but it's expensive. SAWs are covered by the machine
gun discussion above.
> but where do semi-automatic weapons fall in this continuum?
> I support the hunters, all of which can manage just fine with
> single-shot or reduced magazines, so what is the societal need for
> semi-automatic "replicas" of military assault weapons?
Chicago) cannot ban guns completely, they specifically addressed
semi-auto handguns. That means semi-auto long guns (including assault
weapon replicas) are probably protected as well, but that'll take
another test case to verify.
The 1994-2004 ban on high-cap mags never made it to SCOTUS, and there's
no obvious example to follow, so that's an open question. The 1985 ban
on real assault weapons hasn't been tested either; following the logic
from US v Miller (the only 2nd Amd case in the entire 20th Century),
that's unconstitutional as well.
James O. Brown
Apr 16, 2013, 3:38:15 PM4/16/13
to
news:proto-E9A194....@news.panix.com...
They can't when you have enough of a clue to use cash.
sdrat
Apr 16, 2013, 3:46:01 PM4/16/13
to
"Dan Espen" <des...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ick3o22...@home.home...
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>
>> On 16-Apr-13 07:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2013 9:56 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>>>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate
>>> a lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>>
>> Unfortunately, our courts have ruled that a crazy person can't be locked
>> up if there exists medication that can control their craziness--even if
>> they have no means to obtain that medication (a common problem in the US
>> given the lack of universal health care) or have a proven record of
>> refusing to take it.
> This goes back to my "every one has to work" plan.
Which was never going to fly, most obviously with those with little kids.
>
>> On 16-Apr-13 07:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2013 9:56 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>>>
>>>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>>>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate
>>> a lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>>
>> Unfortunately, our courts have ruled that a crazy person can't be locked
>> up if there exists medication that can control their craziness--even if
>> they have no means to obtain that medication (a common problem in the US
>> given the lack of universal health care) or have a proven record of
>> refusing to take it.
> This goes back to my "every one has to work" plan.
> As these people with mental issues go off meds
> or the meds stop working,
> their boss would report them and they'd need to visit the hospital.
And plenty who do something unspeakable are still taking
their meds, and no one has noticed they arent working too.
> We can't have mentally unstable people left to their own devices.
> They must be working,
Hasn�t stopped plenty of them from doing something unspeakable.
> or must be in treatment.
> Current laws are inadequate to the problem.
Even when we kept them in locked wards, plenty only came
to the notice of anyone when they did the first unspeakable
act, including Brevik, who was working.
Nice theory, pity about the real world.
> I hear the House has plans to introduce better mental health laws.
> If avoiding gun control leads to better mental health laws, I'm all for
> it.
osmium
Apr 16, 2013, 3:46:50 PM4/16/13
to
"Scott Lurndal" wrote:
> It's pretty clear that the US government and citizenry have determined
> that
> weapons _can_ (and _should_) be banned.
It is pretty clear to me that the successful politicians don't share your
> It's pretty clear that the US government and citizenry have determined
> that
> weapons _can_ (and _should_) be banned.
view. If they did one of the courageous 535 would introduce a bill to
abolish or modify the second amendment.
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 3:50:16 PM4/16/13
to
"Alfred Falk" <fa...@arc.REMOVE.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:XnsA1A485E93C...@78.46.70.116...
> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote in
> news:iczjwzqt...@home.home:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>>
>>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in
>>>>>> the US.
>>>>
>>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t work for bypasses, stents, diabetes, cancer, etc etc etc.
> news:iczjwzqt...@home.home:
>
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>>
>>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in
>>>>>> the US.
>>>>
>>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>>> cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>>
>> Is this logical in your mind?
>>
>> Did you really mean to say that Canadians will be going to Mexico for
>> non-approved treatments?
>
> They already do. Well, I don't know about Mexico, specifically.
> Consider for example the Zamboni treatment for Multiple Sclerosis.
> It is not approved in many civilized countries,
It doesn�t need to be approved if you are prepared to pay for it yourself.
>>> And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>>> cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>>
>> Is this logical in your mind?
>>
>> Did you really mean to say that Canadians will be going to Mexico for
>> non-approved treatments?
>
> They already do. Well, I don't know about Mexico, specifically.
> Consider for example the Zamboni treatment for Multiple Sclerosis.
> It is not approved in many civilized countries,
> but some people are willing to chance it.
> So they go they go somewhere that allows it.
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 3:54:13 PM4/16/13
to
"Mike" <mi...@mike.net> wrote in message
news:Mdidnf2IvJ3VPvDM...@earthlink.com...
>
> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
> | In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>,
> | Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> |
> | > Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves,
> and
> | > they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once
> they've
> | > verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been
> made.
> | > The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or even
> the
> | > bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
> |
> | Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
> | Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
> The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not
> read and do not understand is ridiculous beyond belief.
Its just not possible to understand most complex legislation.
> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
> | In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>,
> | Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> |
> | > Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves,
> and
> | > they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once
> they've
> | > verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been
> made.
> | > The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or even
> the
> | > bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
> |
> | Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
> | Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
> The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not
> read and do not understand is ridiculous beyond belief.
> If a lawyer recommended that you sign a contract he had not read,
> he would be subject to heavy mal-practice liability and disbarment.
> We have too much law and regulations.
> The Constitution should specifically prohibit Congress from
> delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of law.
> Further it should require Congressmen to swear that they have
> read and thoroughly understand a bill before they can vote for it.
thoroughly understand a bill when they claimed they did ?
> Failure to do so should result in an impeachment and criminal prosecution.
thoroughly understand a bill when they claimed they did ?
> If we did these things we would have fewer laws but they
> would be more understandable and more reasonable.
Dan Espen
Apr 16, 2013, 4:17:03 PM4/16/13
to
have been banned.
Certainly some weapons need to be banned.
No one needs a personal nuclear weapon.
As a kid I always wanted a switch blade knife.
They're mostly illegal in the US.
I learned to open a folding knife with one hand instead.
Now I've grown out of it.
--
Dan Espen
greymausg
Apr 16, 2013, 4:27:45 PM4/16/13
to
On 2013-04-16, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
> People I know but you won't allow that to be truth.
>
>>
>> Note that unapproved cancer treatments are usually quite dangerous and are
>> unapproved for generally a good reason.
>
> It was approved by Germany's FDA. The US' drug/treatment approval
> process has problems.
>
> /BAH
Many years ago there was an article in Readers Digest about common
ailments in different countries. It was aamazing, liver troubles
in France, other problems in German-speaking countries, and the UK
was different again.
(Some countries have different markets, population sizes, etc, so
small countries might not have a potential market size to warrent
the tests that local medics need to approve a drug.)
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>>
>>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in the US.
>>>>
>>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn’t work for bypasses, stents, diabetes, cancer, etc etc etc.
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>>>> Dave Garland wrote
>>>>>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> When the US gets into the same buisiness,
>>>>>>> Canadians will be going to Mexico (as will
>>>>>>> Americans) or SE Asia for their medical services.
>>>>
>>>>>> Americans already are, because they can't afford the services in the US.
>>>>
>>>>> I know. The insurance companies find it cheaper to
>>>>> pay for the flights to Asia and back for hip replacements.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>>>cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>>
>> Cite, please.
>>>And you are wrong. People in the US are already going to Europe for
>>>cancer treatments which the FDA hasn't approved.
>>
>
> People I know but you won't allow that to be truth.
>
>>
>> Note that unapproved cancer treatments are usually quite dangerous and are
>> unapproved for generally a good reason.
>
> It was approved by Germany's FDA. The US' drug/treatment approval
> process has problems.
>
> /BAH
Many years ago there was an article in Readers Digest about common
ailments in different countries. It was aamazing, liver troubles
in France, other problems in German-speaking countries, and the UK
was different again.
(Some countries have different markets, population sizes, etc, so
small countries might not have a potential market size to warrent
the tests that local medics need to approve a drug.)
greymausg
Apr 16, 2013, 4:27:45 PM4/16/13
to
> On Apr 16, 8:07 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>
> AFAIK, there is generally no way to accurately predict when someone
>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>
> with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale. We'd end
> up incarcerating a great many innocent people, plus tax ourselves
> badly to pay for it.
>
> Mental health is largely a subjective art. Counselors will vary
> widely in their opinions of the mental health of someone. It is
> troubling that such an inexact method could have the power to
> incarcerate people. Further, public emotion could play a harmful
> role, with pundits fanning the flames*.
>
> We have strict laws requiring therapists to report all sorts of
> potentially dangerous behaviors. One problem with such laws is that
> troubled people will not get the therapy they really need because they
> fear being reported.
>
>
> *An ex-offender was moving into a town. Talk radio hosts described
> him as an incurable monster out for harm and got the town all upset.
> But the truth was that he had a relatively minor and common crime as a
> youth.
Agree with the above re mental problems, there have been a couple of
examples here where a disturbed person has killed the children as well
as himself, and a call for such people to be restrained. I don't know
how that can be done.
JimP.
Apr 16, 2013, 4:30:08 PM4/16/13
to
On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:15:05 +0100, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 15/04/2013 20:55, JimP. wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:43:36 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2013 4:29 PM, JimP. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:42:25 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <51677d81$5$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
>>>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In <8661zte...@chai.my.domain>, on 04/11/2013
>>>>>> at 10:35 AM, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Banning box cutters from carry-on luggage would have made it much
>>>>>>> harder for the hijackers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, the single most effective change since 9/11 is that the FAA no
>>>>>> longer tells anybody to cooperate with hijackers. I was rather
>>>>>> startled by how that played out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My assumption was that while air marshalls were disciplined, normal
>>>>>> passengers were not. I was confident that in the next hijacking
>>>>>> attempt the passengers would kill the hijackers rather than simply
>>>>>> subduing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to find a jury to convict, and probably even a prosecutor to
>>>>> prosecute.
>>>>
>>>> From what I've seen on telly and other places recently, if a gun was
>>>> used to stop terrorists on ann airplance. An anti-gun prosecutor would
>>>> prosecute. And likely win in places I needn't name.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You really, *really* don't want to shoot a gun on an airplane.
>>
>> MythBusters disproved a number of 'shooting a gun on an airplane'
>> myths. Especially the one where someone gets sucked out a small hole
>> due to decompression. Like in the James Bond movie 'Goldfniger'.
>> .
>> JimP.
>>
>They also showed that you could get sucked out of a big hole.
>
>In passenger aircraft the windows are sized to keep you in.
>
>Andrew Swallow
Yes, if the roof comes off, you can go out of the airplane.
But I was revering to the small bullet in a window myth.
.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://story.drivein-jim.net/ A story Feb, 2011
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On 15/04/2013 20:55, JimP. wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:43:36 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2013 4:29 PM, JimP. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:42:25 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <51677d81$5$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net>,
>>>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In <8661zte...@chai.my.domain>, on 04/11/2013
>>>>>> at 10:35 AM, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Banning box cutters from carry-on luggage would have made it much
>>>>>>> harder for the hijackers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, the single most effective change since 9/11 is that the FAA no
>>>>>> longer tells anybody to cooperate with hijackers. I was rather
>>>>>> startled by how that played out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My assumption was that while air marshalls were disciplined, normal
>>>>>> passengers were not. I was confident that in the next hijacking
>>>>>> attempt the passengers would kill the hijackers rather than simply
>>>>>> subduing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to find a jury to convict, and probably even a prosecutor to
>>>>> prosecute.
>>>>
>>>> From what I've seen on telly and other places recently, if a gun was
>>>> used to stop terrorists on ann airplance. An anti-gun prosecutor would
>>>> prosecute. And likely win in places I needn't name.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You really, *really* don't want to shoot a gun on an airplane.
>>
>> MythBusters disproved a number of 'shooting a gun on an airplane'
>> myths. Especially the one where someone gets sucked out a small hole
>> due to decompression. Like in the James Bond movie 'Goldfniger'.
>> .
>> JimP.
>>
>They also showed that you could get sucked out of a big hole.
>
>In passenger aircraft the windows are sized to keep you in.
>
>Andrew Swallow
Yes, if the roof comes off, you can go out of the airplane.
But I was revering to the small bullet in a window myth.
.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://story.drivein-jim.net/ A story Feb, 2011
Dave Garland
Apr 16, 2013, 5:27:39 PM4/16/13
to
On 4/16/2013 1:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun control
> folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this tragedy to
> push through stuff they've been wanting to do for decades, even though
> there is no direct link between them.
>
> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault weapon
> _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since 1985; note
> that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used in a crime by
> its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a _cop_.)
>
While I mostly agree, you're overstating the case (or need lots more
> What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun control
> folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this tragedy to
> push through stuff they've been wanting to do for decades, even though
> there is no direct link between them.
>
> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault weapon
> _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since 1985; note
> that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used in a crime by
> its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a _cop_.)
>
qualifiers), even if we don't count the SMGs of the '20s and '30s or
the "actual" assault weapons used to kill some 400-500 people at My
Lai. In 2009, the Bureau of Forensic Services of California (whose
domain is rural areas only) reported 3 "machine guns" and 8 "assault
weapons" as defined in CA law, used to commit crimes, though it's
difficult to tell which of these if any, were fully automatic assault
weapons. But that's just the rural areas of one large state. And a
victim, of course, isn't terribly interested in whether he died at the
hands of "the owner" or somebody else.
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 5:30:36 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 14:15, Mike wrote:
> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
>> In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes
>>> themselves, and they pass them on to the staff to get inserted
>>> into bills once they've verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign
>>> contributions have been made. The Congress critters rarely read
>>> what they're voting on--or even the bills they're introducing.
>>> That's what they have staff for.
>>
>> Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
>> Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
>
> The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not read and do
> not understand is ridiculous beyond belief. If a lawyer recommended
> that you sign a contract he had not read, he would be subject to
> heavy mal-practice liability and disbarment.
It's not new. Many of FDR's "emergency" bills were passed without
> "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
>> In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes
>>> themselves, and they pass them on to the staff to get inserted
>>> into bills once they've verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign
>>> contributions have been made. The Congress critters rarely read
>>> what they're voting on--or even the bills they're introducing.
>>> That's what they have staff for.
>>
>> Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
>> Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
>
> The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not read and do
> not understand is ridiculous beyond belief. If a lawyer recommended
> that you sign a contract he had not read, he would be subject to
> heavy mal-practice liability and disbarment.
Congress even having _received a copy_, and there's no clear evidence
that the bills were even _written_ before being passed into law.
With typical bills these days being hundreds to thousands of pages long,
it's unlikely that _any_ human has read them in full.
> We have too much law and regulations. The Constitution should
> specifically prohibit Congress from delegating the authority to make
> regulations with the power of law.
At best, such a change would result in the agencies writing the same
regulations but then passing them to Congress to be enacted--unread--as
law, so the process would be even less efficient than it already is.
> Further it should require Congressmen to swear that they have read
> and thoroughly understand a bill before they can vote for it.
point of that?
If you want bills to be shorter, require that they be read aloud in
their entirety before taking a vote. None of the politicians will show
up and listen, true, but the length problem will solve itself.
Rod Speed
Apr 16, 2013, 5:42:29 PM4/16/13
to
Mike <sapie...@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Mike <mi...@mike.net> wrote
>>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote
Its just not possible to do modern first and second
world countrys without complex legislation.
> How can we expect citizens to obey unintelligible laws?
They arent unintelligible, just not possible to UNDERSTAND
all legislation. That�s why we have specialists for stuff like
tax law and other stuff like murder etc.
> How can we expect the executive branch to effectively execute the will of
> the people as reflected in unintelligible laws?
They arent unintelligible, just not possible to UNDERSTAND
all legislation. That�s why we have specialists for stuff like
tax law and other stuff like murder etc.
> If they do not understand it how can they claim it is good for their
> constituents to pass it?
Because that�s what the specialists have said about
it and you can check their arguments if you care.
> If it is unintelligible,
It isnt unintelligible by everyone, just the congress
critter who can't possibly understand ALL legislation.
> the decisions of judges will no longer be ruled by law
That's just plain wrong. They are the specialists in that area of the law.
> but by arbitrary decisions of men
They aren't arbitrary decisions, they are decisions
made by those who do understand the law, and those
decisions can be and are able to be appealed etc.
> thus defeating the whole goal of a representative democracy under law.
Fraid not.
>>> If a lawyer recommended that you sign a contract he had not read,
>>> he would be subject to heavy mal-practice liability and disbarment.
>> Irrelevant to how Congress/Parliament works.
> But very relevant to their responsibility to their office.
Nope, they don�t have to understand every bit of legislation completely.
Its just not possible for any one individual to do that.
> They swear to protect and defend the constitution.
The constitution does NOT require them to fully
understand every bit of legislation completely.
> If they do not understand a bill they are not fulfilling their oath.
Bullshit.
>>> We have too much law and regulations.
>> Then do the decent thing and set fire to yourself on Capitol Hill or
>> sumfin.
> I am doing something
Nope, just baying at the moon.
> by pointing out the stupidity of your position
That hasn�t in fact done a damned thing about anything.
> and those who think you need to pass a bill to find out what is in it.
I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
>>> The Constitution should specifically prohibit Congress from
>>> delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of law.
>> It doesn�t, for a reason.
> Yes, that reason is that the founding fathers never imagined government
> growing far beyond the bounds specified by the Tenth Amendment.
Bullshit.
> As Jefferson said, " any government large enough to give you all you want,
> is large enough to take all you have".
Just more utterly silly pollywaffle.
>>> Further it should require Congressmen to swear that they have
>>> read and thoroughly understand a bill before they can vote for it.
>> And just how do you propose to actually prove that they didn�t
>> thoroughly understand a bill when they claimed they did ?
> I don't.
You have to to be able to do impeachment and
criminal prosecution under a rule of law system.
> I am just trying to establish the fact that they should own up to their
> responsibility for unintended consequences.
That�s always been obvious with any legislation.
If there do turn out to be undesirable unintended consequences,
they are always free to amend the legislation.
> Further, to point out what "honor" requires of statesmen.
Have fun finding even one of those in any Congress.
>>> Failure to do so should result in an impeachment and criminal
>>> prosecution.
>> And just how do you propose to actually prove that they didn�t
>> thoroughly understand a bill when they claimed they did ?
> I do not
You have to to be able to do impeachment and
criminal prosecution under a rule of law system.
> but I think it is a clear definition of their responsibility.
The constitution says otherwise.
>>> If we did these things we would have fewer laws but they
>>> would be more understandable and more reasonable.
>> Mindlessly silly.
> So you defend large cumbersome and unintelligible over small but workable.
There is no alternative with modern first and second world countrys.
Even the US constitution, which is certainly intelligible,
is not fully understandable by anyone and there has been
endless argument for centurys now about exactly what it
says has to be done.
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Mike <mi...@mike.net> wrote
>>> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote
>>>>> Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves, and
>>>>> they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once they've
>>>>> verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been
>>>>> made.
>>>>> The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on-- or even the
>>>>> Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes themselves, and
>>>>> they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once they've
>>>>> verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have been
>>>>> made.
>>>>> bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
>>>> Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
>>>> Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
>>> The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not
>>> read and do not understand is ridiculous beyond belief.
>> Its just not possible to understand most complex legislation.
> Then we should not have it!
>>>> Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
>>>> Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
>>> The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not
>>> read and do not understand is ridiculous beyond belief.
>> Its just not possible to understand most complex legislation.
Its just not possible to do modern first and second
world countrys without complex legislation.
> How can we expect citizens to obey unintelligible laws?
They arent unintelligible, just not possible to UNDERSTAND
all legislation. That�s why we have specialists for stuff like
tax law and other stuff like murder etc.
> How can we expect the executive branch to effectively execute the will of
> the people as reflected in unintelligible laws?
They arent unintelligible, just not possible to UNDERSTAND
all legislation. That�s why we have specialists for stuff like
tax law and other stuff like murder etc.
> If they do not understand it how can they claim it is good for their
> constituents to pass it?
Because that�s what the specialists have said about
it and you can check their arguments if you care.
> If it is unintelligible,
It isnt unintelligible by everyone, just the congress
critter who can't possibly understand ALL legislation.
> the decisions of judges will no longer be ruled by law
That's just plain wrong. They are the specialists in that area of the law.
> but by arbitrary decisions of men
They aren't arbitrary decisions, they are decisions
made by those who do understand the law, and those
decisions can be and are able to be appealed etc.
> thus defeating the whole goal of a representative democracy under law.
Fraid not.
>>> If a lawyer recommended that you sign a contract he had not read,
>>> he would be subject to heavy mal-practice liability and disbarment.
>> Irrelevant to how Congress/Parliament works.
Nope, they don�t have to understand every bit of legislation completely.
Its just not possible for any one individual to do that.
> They swear to protect and defend the constitution.
The constitution does NOT require them to fully
understand every bit of legislation completely.
> If they do not understand a bill they are not fulfilling their oath.
Bullshit.
>>> We have too much law and regulations.
>> Then do the decent thing and set fire to yourself on Capitol Hill or
>> sumfin.
Nope, just baying at the moon.
> by pointing out the stupidity of your position
That hasn�t in fact done a damned thing about anything.
> and those who think you need to pass a bill to find out what is in it.
I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
>>> The Constitution should specifically prohibit Congress from
>>> delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of law.
>> It doesn�t, for a reason.
> growing far beyond the bounds specified by the Tenth Amendment.
Bullshit.
> As Jefferson said, " any government large enough to give you all you want,
> is large enough to take all you have".
Just more utterly silly pollywaffle.
>>> Further it should require Congressmen to swear that they have
>>> read and thoroughly understand a bill before they can vote for it.
>> And just how do you propose to actually prove that they didn�t
>> thoroughly understand a bill when they claimed they did ?
You have to to be able to do impeachment and
criminal prosecution under a rule of law system.
> I am just trying to establish the fact that they should own up to their
> responsibility for unintended consequences.
That�s always been obvious with any legislation.
If there do turn out to be undesirable unintended consequences,
they are always free to amend the legislation.
> Further, to point out what "honor" requires of statesmen.
Have fun finding even one of those in any Congress.
>>> Failure to do so should result in an impeachment and criminal
>>> prosecution.
>> And just how do you propose to actually prove that they didn�t
>> thoroughly understand a bill when they claimed they did ?
You have to to be able to do impeachment and
criminal prosecution under a rule of law system.
> but I think it is a clear definition of their responsibility.
The constitution says otherwise.
>>> If we did these things we would have fewer laws but they
>>> would be more understandable and more reasonable.
>> Mindlessly silly.
There is no alternative with modern first and second world countrys.
Even the US constitution, which is certainly intelligible,
is not fully understandable by anyone and there has been
endless argument for centurys now about exactly what it
says has to be done.
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 5:44:31 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 15:17, Dan Espen wrote:
> Certainly some weapons need to be banned. No one needs a personal
> nuclear weapon.
I've heard some folks argue that the 2nd Amd means they can own a tank
> Certainly some weapons need to be banned. No one needs a personal
> nuclear weapon.
or aircraft carrier, and they didn't appear to be joking. A literal
reading of US v Miller says they're correct, too.
Nuclear weapons are a special case, since there is no way the Founders
could have envisioned that scale of destructive power. In contrast, the
machine gun was invented in 1719, so the Founders could be presumed to
have considered that when drafting the 2nd Amd in 1789.
> As a kid I always wanted a switch blade knife. They're mostly illegal
> in the US. I learned to open a folding knife with one hand instead.
> Now I've grown out of it.
sidesteps the legal definition of a switchblade. It's quite handy.
Dan Espen
Apr 16, 2013, 6:22:46 PM4/16/13
to
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 16-Apr-13 15:17, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Certainly some weapons need to be banned. No one needs a personal
>> nuclear weapon.
>
> I've heard some folks argue that the 2nd Amd means they can own a tank
> or aircraft carrier, and they didn't appear to be joking. A literal
> reading of US v Miller says they're correct, too.
Looked it up. That conclusion is a stretch.
> On 16-Apr-13 15:17, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Certainly some weapons need to be banned. No one needs a personal
>> nuclear weapon.
>
> I've heard some folks argue that the 2nd Amd means they can own a tank
> or aircraft carrier, and they didn't appear to be joking. A literal
> reading of US v Miller says they're correct, too.
Sawed off shotguns, automatic weapons, even switch blade knives,
all banned.
> Nuclear weapons are a special case, since there is no way the Founders
> could have envisioned that scale of destructive power. In contrast, the
> machine gun was invented in 1719, so the Founders could be presumed to
> have considered that when drafting the 2nd Amd in 1789.
The first known ancestor of multi-shot weapons was created by James
Puckle, a London lawyer, who patented what he called "The Puckle Gun"
on May 15, 1718. It was a design for a 1 in. (25.4 mm) caliber,
flintlock revolver cannon able to fire 9 rounds before reloading,
intended for use on ships.
The founders were familiar with weapons that took minutes to load, had
limited range and accuracy.
They might have been pretty smart, but I don't think they had a clue
what modern society or weapons would be like.
The founders are fine and all, but I don't consider their opinions
sacred anyway.
>> As a kid I always wanted a switch blade knife. They're mostly illegal
>> in the US. I learned to open a folding knife with one hand instead.
>> Now I've grown out of it.
>
> I have an "assisted open" knife, which is basically the same thing but
> sidesteps the legal definition of a switchblade. It's quite handy.
--
Dan Espen
Mike
Apr 16, 2013, 6:23:59 PM4/16/13
to
"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
news:kkkfoi$bff$1...@dont-email.me...
| On 16-Apr-13 14:15, Mike wrote:
| > "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
| news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
| >> In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
| >>> Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes
| >>> themselves, and they pass them on to the staff to get inserted
| >>> into bills once they've verified that the proper
bribes^Wcampaign
| >>> contributions have been made. The Congress critters rarely read
| >>> what they're voting on--or even the bills they're introducing.
| >>> That's what they have staff for.
| >>
| >> Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
| >> Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
| >
| > The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not read and do
| > not understand is ridiculous beyond belief. If a lawyer
recommended
| > that you sign a contract he had not read, he would be subject to
| > heavy mal-practice liability and disbarment.
| It's not new. Many of FDR's "emergency" bills were passed without
| Congress even having _received a copy_, and there's no clear
evidence
| that the bills were even _written_ before being passed into law.
It was wrong then and is wrong today.
| > "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
| news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
| >> In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk
<ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
| >>> Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes
| >>> themselves, and they pass them on to the staff to get inserted
| >>> into bills once they've verified that the proper
bribes^Wcampaign
| >>> contributions have been made. The Congress critters rarely read
| >>> what they're voting on--or even the bills they're introducing.
| >>> That's what they have staff for.
| >>
| >> Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in no
| >> Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
| >
| > The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not read and do
| > not understand is ridiculous beyond belief. If a lawyer
recommended
| > that you sign a contract he had not read, he would be subject to
| > heavy mal-practice liability and disbarment.
| It's not new. Many of FDR's "emergency" bills were passed without
| Congress even having _received a copy_, and there's no clear
evidence
| that the bills were even _written_ before being passed into law.
| With typical bills these days being hundreds to thousands of pages
long,
| it's unlikely that _any_ human has read them in full.
such as ear-marks, special tax loopholes, hidden exemptions and other
sins.
| > We have too much law and regulations. The Constitution should
| > specifically prohibit Congress from delegating the authority to
make
| > regulations with the power of law.
|
| There's decent reasons for allowing that.
| At best, such a change would result in the agencies writing the same
| regulations but then passing them to Congress to be
enacted--unread--as
| law, so the process would be even less efficient than it already is.
elected representatives rather than allow it to be defused across
faceless bureaucrats.
| > Further it should require Congressmen to swear that they have read
| > and thoroughly understand a bill before they can vote for it.
|
| They'll all just lie, and you can't prove otherwise, so what is the
| point of that?
their party and political philosophy.
| If you want bills to be shorter, require that they be read aloud in
| their entirety before taking a vote. None of the politicians will
show
| up and listen, true, but the length problem will solve itself.
Stephen Sprunk
Apr 16, 2013, 6:46:34 PM4/16/13
to
On 16-Apr-13 16:27, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 4/16/2013 1:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>> _cop_.)
>
> While I mostly agree, you're overstating the case (or need lots more
> qualifiers), even if we don't count the SMGs of the '20s and '30s or
> the "actual" assault weapons used to kill some 400-500 people at My
> Lai.
There were implied qualifiers: in the US, by civilians, and after the
> On 4/16/2013 1:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>> _cop_.)
>
> While I mostly agree, you're overstating the case (or need lots more
> qualifiers), even if we don't count the SMGs of the '20s and '30s or
> the "actual" assault weapons used to kill some 400-500 people at My
> Lai.
Gun Control Act of 1968.
> In 2009, the Bureau of Forensic Services of California (whose
> domain is rural areas only) reported 3 "machine guns" and 8 "assault
> weapons" as defined in CA law, used to commit crimes, though it's
> difficult to tell which of these if any, were fully automatic assault
> weapons. But that's just the rural areas of one large state.
> And a victim, of course, isn't terribly interested in whether he
> died at the hands of "the owner" or somebody else.
of lawful gun owners when most gun crime (and effectively all gun crime
involving "assault weapons") is committed by people who obtained their
guns illegally in the first place.
Likewise, despite assault weapon replicas featuring in a few recent
high-profile shootings, over 98% of all gun deaths are from handguns.
Nearly all of the <2% of deaths from long guns are suicides or lawful
homicides. We need to focus on background checks and mental health, not
get distracted with things that, statistically, are not problems!
Mike
Apr 16, 2013, 9:21:15 PM4/16/13
to
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:at5oju...@mid.individual.net...
|
|
| "Mike" <mi...@mike.net> wrote in message
| news:Mdidnf2IvJ3VPvDM...@earthlink.com...
| >
| > "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
| > news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
| > | In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>,
| > | Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
| > |
| > | > Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes
themselves,
| > and
| > | > they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once
| > they've
| > | > verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have
been
| > made.
| > | > The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or
even
| > the
| > | > bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
| > |
| > | Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in
no
| > | Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
|
| > The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not
| > read and do not understand is ridiculous beyond belief.
|
Then we should not have it! How can we expect citizens to obey
|
| "Mike" <mi...@mike.net> wrote in message
| news:Mdidnf2IvJ3VPvDM...@earthlink.com...
| >
| > "Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
| > news:proto-5F4B4C....@news.panix.com...
| > | In article <kkk316$959$1...@dont-email.me>,
| > | Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
| > |
| > | > Actually, the lobbyists often write the laws/loopholes
themselves,
| > and
| > | > they pass them on to the staff to get inserted into bills once
| > they've
| > | > verified that the proper bribes^Wcampaign contributions have
been
| > made.
| > | > The Congress critters rarely read what they're voting on--or
even
| > the
| > | > bills they're introducing. That's what they have staff for.
| > |
| > | Given the mass of legislation and the legalese it's written in
no
| > | Congresscritter could possibly keep up.
|
| > The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not
| > read and do not understand is ridiculous beyond belief.
|
unintelligible laws? How can we expect the executive branch to
effectively execute the will of the people as reflected in
unintelligible laws? If they do not understand it how can they claim
it is good for their constituents to pass it? If it is
unintelligible, the decisions of judges will no longer be ruled by law
but by arbitrary decisions of men thus defeating the whole goal of a
representative democracy under law.
| > If a lawyer recommended that you sign a contract he had not read,
| > he would be subject to heavy mal-practice liability and
disbarment.
|
| Irrelevant to how Congress/Parliament works.
to protect and defend the constitution. If they do not understand a
bill they are not fulfilling their oath.
| > We have too much law and regulations.
|
| Then do the decent thing and set fire to yourself on Capitol Hill or
sumfin.
I am doing something by pointing out the stupidity of your position
|
| Then do the decent thing and set fire to yourself on Capitol Hill or
sumfin.
and those who think you need to pass a bill to find out what is in it.
| > The Constitution should specifically prohibit Congress from
| > delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of
law.
|
| It doesn’t, for a reason.
| > delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of
law.
|
Yes, that reason is that the founding fathers never imagined
government growing far beyond the bounds specified by the Tenth
you all you want, is large enough to take all you have".
| > Further it should require Congressmen to swear that they have
| > read and thoroughly understand a bill before they can vote for it.
|
| And just how do you propose to actually prove that they didn’t
| > read and thoroughly understand a bill before they can vote for it.
|
| thoroughly understand a bill when they claimed they did ?
I don't. I am just trying to establish the fact that they should own
up to their responsibility for unintended consequences. Further, to
point out what "honor" required of statesmen.
| > Failure to do so should result in an impeachment and criminal
prosecution.
|
| thoroughly understand a bill when they claimed they did ?
I do not but I think it is a clear definition of their responsibility.
| > If we did these things we would have fewer laws but they
| > would be more understandable and more reasonable.
|
| Mindlessly silly.
Dan Espen
Apr 16, 2013, 9:54:56 PM4/16/13
to
Stop at the red light is pretty simple.
As I understand it, laws are written in legalese so that they
can't be misinterpreted.
I think most people know very well what's legal and what's not.
Recently I had to look up the regulation concerning fence height.
The actual regulation was full of a bunch of legal stuff but
6ft high was quite easy to understand:
9. A permit shall not be required for fences six feet or less in
height. This exception does not apply to barriers surrounding public
or private swimming pools.
--
Dan Espen
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Apr 16, 2013, 10:22:31 PM4/16/13
to
On Apr 16, 5:30 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> If you want bills to be shorter, require that they be read aloud in
> their entirety before taking a vote. None of the politicians will show
> up and listen, true, but the length problem will solve itself.
That wouldn't help. Some law bodies do just that and their laws are
> If you want bills to be shorter, require that they be read aloud in
> their entirety before taking a vote. None of the politicians will show
> up and listen, true, but the length problem will solve itself.
just as convoluted.
Laws are long and complex because they are the product of deal
making. "You build a post office in my district and I'll build one in
yours". Lots and lots of compromises, pork, etc. In essence,
something a lawmaker can take home and brag to his particular
constituents.
As our accounting teacher told us, never look for logic in the tax
code. It's not written by accountants, but by congressmen.
WW II was supposedly when "we all pulled together for a common goal".
Nope. Special interests were as hard at work during the war as before
and after. Say the army needed to build a munitions plant. The most
logical location was the least important. Towns that sought economic
development pushed for it even if it was too far away from materials
and transportation. Towns that didn't want that kind of thing fought
against it even if it was the best place.
Many towns fought very hard against defense housing, not wanting cheap
construction or transients.
Migrating workers faced prejudice and violence in towns where they
sought war employment. Despite federal orders, many companies simply
refused to hire blacks or limited them to janitors. Country folk from
the hills faced nasty discrimination, too.
Several books have been written about the underside of Ford's Willow
Run "Will it run?" bomber plant. An enormous mountain of self
interest and inefficiency.
The military knew full well that soldiers, being soldiers, would need
release and that meant safety from VD. But back then the moralists
were outraged at any such effort. They buried their heads and it got
messy.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Apr 16, 2013, 10:24:41 PM4/16/13
to
On Apr 16, 5:44 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Nuclear weapons are a special case, since there is no way the Founders
> could have envisioned that scale of destructive power. In contrast, the
> machine gun was invented in 1719, so the Founders could be presumed to
> have considered that when drafting the 2nd Amd in 1789.
But wasn't the basic weapon back then a simple musket? If the
> Nuclear weapons are a special case, since there is no way the Founders
> could have envisioned that scale of destructive power. In contrast, the
> machine gun was invented in 1719, so the Founders could be presumed to
> have considered that when drafting the 2nd Amd in 1789.
conservatives are so fond of using the founding fathers as a baseline,
then the musket should be the only weapon allowed.
Mike
Apr 16, 2013, 11:01:06 PM4/16/13
to
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:57bc7084-ff19-4a70...@t5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
suppress these natural tendencies of legislatures.
The current U.S. tax code is over 77,000 pages. For anything but the
simplest question you can ask the IRS ten times and get ten different
answers. That fact guarantees arbitrary rule by men rather than rule
by law. The tax code is just one area where that is true. The EPA,
HH, Agriculture, etc are all just as bad or rapidly moving in that
direction.
The Constitution was created to resist growth of government by
splitting power between the legislature, executive and judicial
functions. It is supposed to be slow and inefficient to protect the
populous from oppression. In retrospect we need a few additional
measures to support that goal.
sdrat
Apr 16, 2013, 11:03:46 PM4/16/13
to
"Dan Espen" <des...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ic38up3...@home.home...
> Stop at the red light is pretty simple.
red light, like when say driving an ambulance that is on the way to
attempting to assist someone who has just had a heart attack etc.
Even more messy with killing people.
> As I understand it, laws are written in legalese
> so that they can't be misinterpreted.
to read law that is very clear just what is legal and what isnt
with some complex situations like killing people etc.
> I think most people know very well what's legal and what's not.
> Recently I had to look up the regulation concerning fence height.
> The actual regulation was full of a bunch of legal stuff but
> 6ft high was quite easy to understand:
> 9. A permit shall not be required for fences six feet or less in
> height. This exception does not apply to barriers surrounding public
> or private swimming pools.
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/2008nswrrchanges.pdf item 138
Cant cut and paste, the fuckwits don�t allow that.
Mike
Apr 16, 2013, 11:12:50 PM4/16/13
to
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:4a00fd06-787d-41dc...@b3g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
threat over government that if it becomes too oppressive, the populous
could revolt with a credible potential of success.
Therefore, as military weapons evolve, private weapons should also.
The populous does not need the most modern front line weapons. They
have a vast numerical advantage over the military and police.
However, they can not be frozen far behind modern weapons.
Mike
Dave Garland
Apr 16, 2013, 11:16:30 PM4/16/13
to
On 4/16/2013 5:46 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 16-Apr-13 16:27, Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 4/16/2013 1:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>>> _cop_.)
I'd agree that the bans are on "scary looking" rifles rather than what
> On 16-Apr-13 16:27, Dave Garland wrote:
>> On 4/16/2013 1:29 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>>> _cop_.)
the military would consider to be an "assault weapon".
>>
>> While I mostly agree, you're overstating the case (or need lots more
>> qualifiers), even if we don't count the SMGs of the '20s and '30s or
>> the "actual" assault weapons used to kill some 400-500 people at My
>> Lai.
>
> There were implied qualifiers: in the US, by civilians, and after the
> Gun Control Act of 1968.
some "replica" into an "actual" assault weapon. I've heard that for
certain designs it's just a matter of replacing a single part.
> > In 2009, the Bureau of Forensic Services of California (whose
>> domain is rural areas only) reported 3 "machine guns" and 8 "assault
>> weapons" as defined in CA law, used to commit crimes, though it's
>> difficult to tell which of these if any, were fully automatic assault
>> weapons. But that's just the rural areas of one large state.
>
> ... and zero of them were used in said crimes by their lawful owners.
crimes with them, they weren't "lawful" any more.
But I'd suggest that "lawful" owners should be required to secure
their weapons so that they could not be taken by "unlawful" ones.
That failure to do so should be considered, at a minimum, to be
reckless negligence.
>
>> And a victim, of course, isn't terribly interested in whether he
>> died at the hands of "the owner" or somebody else.
>
> True, but it speaks to the usefulness of further restricting the rights
> of lawful gun owners when most gun crime (and effectively all gun crime
> involving "assault weapons") is committed by people who obtained their
> guns illegally in the first place.
>
> Likewise, despite assault weapon replicas featuring in a few recent
> high-profile shootings, over 98% of all gun deaths are from handguns.
and wrongful homicides, and suicides)? Maybe, though that sounds
awfully high. Got a cite?
But I'd expect that many, maybe most, would indeed be from handguns.
I'd be ok with banning those, though it would be very difficult
politically, and being that they are "durable goods", it would be
maybe centuries before they disappeared. I suppose banning
manufacture of pistol ammo would speed up their demise. Yeah, you
can't stop a handloader who's got a stock of brass and bullet molds,
but I doubt if most perps know those folks, if you can't buy the ammo
in the local store, you've got to preserve those five rounds that you
have until they're old enough to be useless.
> Nearly all of the <2% of deaths from long guns are suicides or lawful
> homicides. We need to focus on background checks and mental health, not
> get distracted with things that, statistically, are not problems!
background and mental health checks on not only the potential buyers,
but the people they live with. That ain't gonna happen.
>
> S
BTW. which group are you posting from? a.f.c has a long history of
digressions and offtopic thread drift, but my impression is that
comp.arch isn't as happy with them, and I'd like to trim that group
from the followups.
>
Dave Garland
Apr 16, 2013, 11:26:19 PM4/16/13
to
On 4/16/2013 8:21 PM, Mike wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:at5oju...@mid.individual.net...
> |
> |
> | "Mike" <mi...@mike.net> wrote in message
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:at5oju...@mid.individual.net...
> |
> |
> | "Mike" <mi...@mike.net> wrote in message
> | > The Constitution should specifically prohibit Congress from
> | > delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of
> law.
> |
> | It doesn�t, for a reason.
> | > delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of
> law.
> |
>
> Yes, that reason is that the founding fathers never imagined
> government growing far beyond the bounds specified by the Tenth
> Amendment. As Jefferson said, " any government large enough to give
> you all you want, is large enough to take all you have".
The founding fathers never imagined having a standing army, or having
> Yes, that reason is that the founding fathers never imagined
> government growing far beyond the bounds specified by the Tenth
> Amendment. As Jefferson said, " any government large enough to give
> you all you want, is large enough to take all you have".
war conducted without an official declaration of war from Congress
(which would make every "war" the US has conducted since 1945 to be a
crime).
So how is that different? Or are you suggesting that?
Joe Pfeiffer
Apr 16, 2013, 11:35:46 PM4/16/13
to
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> writes:
> On 4/16/2013 8:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:at5oju...@mid.individual.net...
>> |
>> |
>> | "Mike" <mi...@mike.net> wrote in message
>
>> | > The Constitution should specifically prohibit Congress from
>> | > delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of
>> law.
>> |
>> | It doesn’t, for a reason.
> On 4/16/2013 8:21 PM, Mike wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:at5oju...@mid.individual.net...
>> |
>> |
>> | "Mike" <mi...@mike.net> wrote in message
>
>> | > The Constitution should specifically prohibit Congress from
>> | > delegating the authority to make regulations with the power of
>> law.
>> |
>>
>> Yes, that reason is that the founding fathers never imagined
>> government growing far beyond the bounds specified by the Tenth
>> Amendment. As Jefferson said, " any government large enough to give
>> you all you want, is large enough to take all you have".
>
> The founding fathers never imagined having a standing army, or having
> war conducted without an official declaration of war from Congress
> (which would make every "war" the US has conducted since 1945 to be a
> crime).
>
> So how is that different? Or are you suggesting that?
Well, they actually did imagine a standing army. That's why they
>> Yes, that reason is that the founding fathers never imagined
>> government growing far beyond the bounds specified by the Tenth
>> Amendment. As Jefferson said, " any government large enough to give
>> you all you want, is large enough to take all you have".
>
> The founding fathers never imagined having a standing army, or having
> war conducted without an official declaration of war from Congress
> (which would make every "war" the US has conducted since 1945 to be a
> crime).
>
> So how is that different? Or are you suggesting that?
specifically warned against it.
Dan Espen
Apr 16, 2013, 11:46:12 PM4/16/13
to
>
>> Recently I had to look up the regulation concerning fence height.
>> The actual regulation was full of a bunch of legal stuff but
>> 6ft high was quite easy to understand:
>
>> 9. A permit shall not be required for fences six feet or less in
>> height. This exception does not apply to barriers surrounding public
>> or private swimming pools.
>
> Now try interpreting ours
>
> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/2008nswrrchanges.pdf item 138
> Cant cut and paste, the fuckwits don’t allow that.
>> Recently I had to look up the regulation concerning fence height.
>> The actual regulation was full of a bunch of legal stuff but
>> 6ft high was quite easy to understand:
>
>> 9. A permit shall not be required for fences six feet or less in
>> height. This exception does not apply to barriers surrounding public
>> or private swimming pools.
>
> Now try interpreting ours
>
> http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/2008nswrrchanges.pdf item 138
They mark it non-copy, the pdf reader is the enforcer:
Starting a right turn from a road (except a multi-lane road) Cyclists
(1) A driver turning right at an intersection from a road (except a
multi-lane road) must approach and enter the intersection in accordance
with this rule.
(2) If the road has a dividing line or median strip, the driver must
approach and enter the intersection from the left of, parallel to, and
as near as practicable to, the dividing line or median strip.
Couldn't find anything about fence heights though.
:)
--
Dan Espen
Walter Bushell
Apr 17, 2013, 12:42:59 AM4/17/13
to
In article <ic38up3...@home.home>, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> As I understand it, laws are written in legalese so that they
> can't be misinterpreted.
And we see how well that works, belike they are written so as to
increase the income of lawyers.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
wrote:
> As I understand it, laws are written in legalese so that they
> can't be misinterpreted.
increase the income of lawyers.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Walter Bushell
Apr 17, 2013, 12:48:16 AM4/17/13
to
In article <tPKdnZQmLJeEjvPM...@earthlink.com>,
Wrong bear, unless you are talking about open carry.
Wrong bear, unless you are talking about open carry.
Rod Speed
Apr 17, 2013, 12:55:44 AM4/17/13
to
Mike <mi...@mike.net> wrote
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote
about that right only applying to the current technology and
not to anything that turned up later, very likely for a reason,
because they didn�t believe it made sense to limit it like that.
> The Founders provided for the right to own and bare arms to
> maintain a threat over government that if it becomes too oppressive,
> the populous could revolt with a credible potential of success.
And then the real world moved on and it doesn�t work like that
anymore in the first or second world, and so it makes no sense
to allow anyone to have any weapon they like anymore.
> Therefore, as military weapons evolve, private weapons should also.
> The populous does not need the most modern front line weapons.
> They have a vast numerical advantage over the military and police.
But that�s irrelevant when it comes to overthrowing the govt if they don�t
like it.
> However, they can not be frozen far behind modern weapons.
Using that line, they cant be frozen at all and even those who
do have a criminal record can't be prevented from having any
weapon they like, because they might decided that the govt
has become too oppressive and needs to be overthrown.
In fact you can even run the even sillier line that those who do
have a criminal record may well have ALREADY been oppressed
by government, and so the last thing that should be done is to
stop them having any weapon they like to use to overthrow the govt.
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote
>> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote
>>> Nuclear weapons are a special case, since there is no way the Founders
>>> could have envisioned that scale of destructive power. In contrast, the
>>> machine gun was invented in 1719, so the Founders could be presumed
>>> to have considered that when drafting the 2nd Amd in 1789.
>> But wasn't the basic weapon back then a simple musket? If
>> the conservatives are so fond of using the founding fathers as
>> a baseline, then the musket should be the only weapon allowed.
The problem with that is the founders never said anything
>>> Nuclear weapons are a special case, since there is no way the Founders
>>> could have envisioned that scale of destructive power. In contrast, the
>>> machine gun was invented in 1719, so the Founders could be presumed
>>> to have considered that when drafting the 2nd Amd in 1789.
>> But wasn't the basic weapon back then a simple musket? If
>> the conservatives are so fond of using the founding fathers as
>> a baseline, then the musket should be the only weapon allowed.
about that right only applying to the current technology and
not to anything that turned up later, very likely for a reason,
because they didn�t believe it made sense to limit it like that.
> The Founders provided for the right to own and bare arms to
> maintain a threat over government that if it becomes too oppressive,
> the populous could revolt with a credible potential of success.
anymore in the first or second world, and so it makes no sense
to allow anyone to have any weapon they like anymore.
> Therefore, as military weapons evolve, private weapons should also.
> The populous does not need the most modern front line weapons.
> They have a vast numerical advantage over the military and police.
like it.
> However, they can not be frozen far behind modern weapons.
do have a criminal record can't be prevented from having any
weapon they like, because they might decided that the govt
has become too oppressive and needs to be overthrown.
In fact you can even run the even sillier line that those who do
have a criminal record may well have ALREADY been oppressed
by government, and so the last thing that should be done is to
stop them having any weapon they like to use to overthrow the govt.
Rod Speed
Apr 17, 2013, 1:04:45 AM4/17/13
to
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote
> Stephen Sprunk wrote
>> Dave Garland wrote
> But I'd suggest that "lawful" owners should be required to secure their
> weapons so that they could not be taken by "unlawful" ones.
We haven't even worked out how to do that with stuff like cash.
Its not even possible.
> That failure to do so should be considered, at a minimum, to be reckless
> negligence.
Not when it isnt even possible.
ALL you can ever do is make it harder.
>>> And a victim, of course, isn't terribly interested in whether he died at
>>> the hands of "the owner" or somebody else.
>> True, but it speaks to the usefulness of further restricting the rights
>> of lawful gun owners when most gun crime (and effectively all gun crime
>> involving "assault weapons") is committed by people who obtained their
>> guns illegally in the first place.
>> Likewise, despite assault weapon replicas featuring in a few recent
>> high-profile shootings, over 98% of all gun deaths are from handguns.
> I don't know. 98% of all gun deaths (including accidents, rightful and
> wrongful homicides, and suicides)? Maybe, though that sounds awfully
> high. Got a cite?
> But I'd expect that many, maybe most, would indeed be from handguns. I'd
> be ok with banning those, though it would be very difficult politically,
Impossible, actually.
> and being that they are "durable goods", it would be maybe centuries
> before they disappeared. I suppose banning manufacture of pistol ammo
> would speed up their demise.
But wouldn’t stop people reloading.
> Yeah, you can't stop a handloader who's got a stock of brass and bullet
> molds, but I doubt if most perps know those folks, if you can't buy the
> ammo in the local store, you've got to preserve those five rounds that you
> have until they're old enough to be useless.
That’s hundreds of years.
>> Nearly all of the <2% of deaths from long guns are suicides or lawful
>> homicides. We need to focus on background checks and mental health, not
>> get distracted with things that, statistically, are not problems!
> Yeah, that would help, but (as Connecticut shows) you really need
> background and mental health checks on not only the potential buyers, but
> the people they live with. That ain't gonna happen.
And even if it did, it wouldn’t stop the illegal trade in guns.
> BTW. which group are you posting from? a.f.c has a long history of
> digressions and offtopic thread drift, but my impression is that comp.arch
> isn't as happy with them,
There clearly are some who don’t care in that group.
> and I'd like to trim that group from the followups.
I don’t believe in that while ever some
from the group being trimmed are posting.
> Stephen Sprunk wrote
>> Dave Garland wrote
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote
>>>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>>>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>>>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>>>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>>>> _cop_.)
> I'd agree that the bans are on "scary looking" rifles rather than what the
> military would consider to be an "assault weapon".
>>> While I mostly agree, you're overstating the case (or need lots more
>>> qualifiers), even if we don't count the SMGs of the '20s and '30s or the
>>> "actual" assault weapons used to kill some 400-500 people at My Lai.
>> There were implied qualifiers: in the US, by civilians, and after the Gun
>> Control Act of 1968.
> Ok, I didn't hear those. Or whether it's a simple matter to convert some
> "replica" into an "actual" assault weapon. I've heard that for certain
> designs it's just a matter of replacing a single part.
>> > In 2009, the Bureau of Forensic Services of California (whose
>>> domain is rural areas only) reported 3 "machine guns" and 8 "assault
>>> weapons" as defined in CA law, used to commit crimes, though it's
>>> difficult to tell which of these if any, were fully automatic assault
>>> weapons. But that's just the rural areas of one large state.
>> ... and zero of them were used in said crimes by their lawful owners.
> I don't know. Do you? Besides, obviously if their owners committed
> crimes with them, they weren't "lawful" any more.
Presumably he meant it was lawful for them to get the guns, not to use them.
>>>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>>>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>>>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>>>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>>>> _cop_.)
> I'd agree that the bans are on "scary looking" rifles rather than what the
> military would consider to be an "assault weapon".
>>> While I mostly agree, you're overstating the case (or need lots more
>>> qualifiers), even if we don't count the SMGs of the '20s and '30s or the
>>> "actual" assault weapons used to kill some 400-500 people at My Lai.
>> There were implied qualifiers: in the US, by civilians, and after the Gun
>> Control Act of 1968.
> Ok, I didn't hear those. Or whether it's a simple matter to convert some
> "replica" into an "actual" assault weapon. I've heard that for certain
> designs it's just a matter of replacing a single part.
>> > In 2009, the Bureau of Forensic Services of California (whose
>>> domain is rural areas only) reported 3 "machine guns" and 8 "assault
>>> weapons" as defined in CA law, used to commit crimes, though it's
>>> difficult to tell which of these if any, were fully automatic assault
>>> weapons. But that's just the rural areas of one large state.
>> ... and zero of them were used in said crimes by their lawful owners.
> I don't know. Do you? Besides, obviously if their owners committed
> crimes with them, they weren't "lawful" any more.
> But I'd suggest that "lawful" owners should be required to secure their
> weapons so that they could not be taken by "unlawful" ones.
Its not even possible.
> That failure to do so should be considered, at a minimum, to be reckless
> negligence.
ALL you can ever do is make it harder.
>>> And a victim, of course, isn't terribly interested in whether he died at
>>> the hands of "the owner" or somebody else.
>> True, but it speaks to the usefulness of further restricting the rights
>> of lawful gun owners when most gun crime (and effectively all gun crime
>> involving "assault weapons") is committed by people who obtained their
>> guns illegally in the first place.
>> Likewise, despite assault weapon replicas featuring in a few recent
>> high-profile shootings, over 98% of all gun deaths are from handguns.
> I don't know. 98% of all gun deaths (including accidents, rightful and
> wrongful homicides, and suicides)? Maybe, though that sounds awfully
> high. Got a cite?
> But I'd expect that many, maybe most, would indeed be from handguns. I'd
> be ok with banning those, though it would be very difficult politically,
> and being that they are "durable goods", it would be maybe centuries
> before they disappeared. I suppose banning manufacture of pistol ammo
> would speed up their demise.
> Yeah, you can't stop a handloader who's got a stock of brass and bullet
> molds, but I doubt if most perps know those folks, if you can't buy the
> ammo in the local store, you've got to preserve those five rounds that you
> have until they're old enough to be useless.
>> Nearly all of the <2% of deaths from long guns are suicides or lawful
>> homicides. We need to focus on background checks and mental health, not
>> get distracted with things that, statistically, are not problems!
> Yeah, that would help, but (as Connecticut shows) you really need
> background and mental health checks on not only the potential buyers, but
> the people they live with. That ain't gonna happen.
> BTW. which group are you posting from? a.f.c has a long history of
> digressions and offtopic thread drift, but my impression is that comp.arch
> isn't as happy with them,
> and I'd like to trim that group from the followups.
from the group being trimmed are posting.
sdrat
Apr 17, 2013, 1:08:43 AM4/17/13
to
news:icsj2p2...@home.home...
Yes, but I couldn’t be bothered getting around
that when you can read it for yourself so easily.
> Starting a right turn from a road (except a multi-lane road) Cyclists
>
> (1) A driver turning right at an intersection from a road (except a
> multi-lane road) must approach and enter the intersection in accordance
> with this rule.
>
> (2) If the road has a dividing line or median strip, the driver must
> approach and enter the intersection from the left of, parallel to, and
> as near as practicable to, the dividing line or median strip.
That isnt 138, Keeping off a Painted Island.
that when you can read it for yourself so easily.
> Starting a right turn from a road (except a multi-lane road) Cyclists
>
> (1) A driver turning right at an intersection from a road (except a
> multi-lane road) must approach and enter the intersection in accordance
> with this rule.
>
> (2) If the road has a dividing line or median strip, the driver must
> approach and enter the intersection from the left of, parallel to, and
> as near as practicable to, the dividing line or median strip.
Dave Garland
Apr 17, 2013, 1:53:41 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/17/2013 12:04 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote
numbers of cash, but lots of people track the serial numbers of guns.
If there's a record of who purchased that firearm legally, that's
your starting point. Make records of sales mandatory, and that helps
immensely.
>> That failure to do so should be considered, at a minimum, to be
>> reckless negligence.
>
And besides, ammo is a consumable. You got a new gun, you want to try
it out. Doing so, you just removed some ammo from the pool. Shoot
some warning shots into your enemy's house (such as the house of a
neighbor of mine), you've drained some more of the stockpile. Gonna
run out, eventually.
>
>> BTW. which group are you posting from? a.f.c has a long history of
>> digressions and offtopic thread drift, but my impression is that
>> comp.arch isn't as happy with them,
>
> There clearly are some who don’t care in that group.
>
>> and I'd like to trim that group from the followups.
>
> I don’t believe in that while ever some
> from the group being trimmed are posting.
Understood. Nor do I. But if Sprunk isn't depending on c.a, I'd
rather remove that group (and the accompanying aggrevation of its
other participants). Personally, I don't enjoy pissing people off.
> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote
>
>> But I'd suggest that "lawful" owners should be required to secure
>> their weapons so that they could not be taken by "unlawful" ones.
>
> We haven't even worked out how to do that with stuff like cash.
>
> Its not even possible.
>
Way easier to do with guns. It's not common to track the serial
>> But I'd suggest that "lawful" owners should be required to secure
>> their weapons so that they could not be taken by "unlawful" ones.
>
> We haven't even worked out how to do that with stuff like cash.
>
> Its not even possible.
>
numbers of cash, but lots of people track the serial numbers of guns.
If there's a record of who purchased that firearm legally, that's
your starting point. Make records of sales mandatory, and that helps
immensely.
>> That failure to do so should be considered, at a minimum, to be
>> reckless negligence.
>
> But wouldn’t stop people reloading.
>
>> Yeah, you can't stop a handloader who's got a stock of brass and
>> bullet molds, but I doubt if most perps know those folks, if you
>> can't buy the ammo in the local store, you've got to preserve those
>> five rounds that you have until they're old enough to be useless.
>
> That’s hundreds of years.
Less. IME, ammo that's 40 years old can't be assumed to be reliable.
>
>> Yeah, you can't stop a handloader who's got a stock of brass and
>> bullet molds, but I doubt if most perps know those folks, if you
>> can't buy the ammo in the local store, you've got to preserve those
>> five rounds that you have until they're old enough to be useless.
>
> That’s hundreds of years.
And besides, ammo is a consumable. You got a new gun, you want to try
it out. Doing so, you just removed some ammo from the pool. Shoot
some warning shots into your enemy's house (such as the house of a
neighbor of mine), you've drained some more of the stockpile. Gonna
run out, eventually.
>
>> BTW. which group are you posting from? a.f.c has a long history of
>> digressions and offtopic thread drift, but my impression is that
>> comp.arch isn't as happy with them,
>
> There clearly are some who don’t care in that group.
>
>> and I'd like to trim that group from the followups.
>
> I don’t believe in that while ever some
> from the group being trimmed are posting.
rather remove that group (and the accompanying aggrevation of its
other participants). Personally, I don't enjoy pissing people off.
Rod Speed
Apr 17, 2013, 2:32:49 AM4/17/13
to
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote
> It's not common to track the serial numbers of cash, but lots of people
> track the serial numbers of guns.
Doesn’t stop the guns being stolen.
> If there's a record of who purchased that firearm legally, that's your
> starting point.
Doesn’t stop the individual who stole it using it unlawfully.
You don’t seriously believe that all those gang bangers
that shoot each other all get their guns legally do you ?
> Make records of sales mandatory, and that helps immensely.
Nope, doesn’t do a damned thing to stop those who choose
to steal them from those who have got them legally.
>>> That failure to do so should be considered, at a minimum, to be reckless
>>> negligence.
>> But wouldn’t stop people reloading.
>>> Yeah, you can't stop a handloader who's got a stock of brass and
>>> bullet molds, but I doubt if most perps know those folks, if you
>>> can't buy the ammo in the local store, you've got to preserve those
>>> five rounds that you have until they're old enough to be useless.
>> That’s hundreds of years.
> Less. IME, ammo that's 40 years old can't be assumed to be reliable.
Yes, but when its illegal, I doubt those who want it will care about
reliable.
And its completely trivial to replace the propellant anyway.
> And besides, ammo is a consumable.
Not when its illegal it isnt.
> You got a new gun, you want to try it out. Doing so, you just removed
> some ammo from the pool.
So you don’t bother to try it out when the ammo is illegal.
> Shoot some warning shots into your enemy's house (such as the house of a
> neighbor of mine), you've drained some more of the stockpile.
So you don’t bother to do that when the ammo is illegal.
> Gonna run out, eventually.
Nope, once its illegal, hardly anyone will consume it because
its now illegal, and its easy to just replace what does get used
by reloading.
>>> BTW. which group are you posting from? a.f.c has a long history of
>>> digressions and offtopic thread drift, but my impression is that
>>> comp.arch isn't as happy with them,
>> There clearly are some who don’t care in that group.
>>> and I'd like to trim that group from the followups.
>> I don’t believe in that while ever some
>> from the group being trimmed are posting.
> Understood. Nor do I. But if Sprunk isn't depending on c.a,
I haven't seen him reply to any which just have a.f.c
> I'd rather remove that group (and the accompanying aggrevation of its
> other participants). Personally, I don't enjoy pissing people off.
I don’t care when what they want isn't sensible.
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote
>>> But I'd suggest that "lawful" owners should be required to secure
>>> their weapons so that they could not be taken by "unlawful" ones.
>> We haven't even worked out how to do that with stuff like cash.
>> Its not even possible.
> Way easier to do with guns.
Nope.
>> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote
>>> But I'd suggest that "lawful" owners should be required to secure
>>> their weapons so that they could not be taken by "unlawful" ones.
>> We haven't even worked out how to do that with stuff like cash.
>> Its not even possible.
> Way easier to do with guns.
> It's not common to track the serial numbers of cash, but lots of people
> track the serial numbers of guns.
> If there's a record of who purchased that firearm legally, that's your
> starting point.
You don’t seriously believe that all those gang bangers
that shoot each other all get their guns legally do you ?
> Make records of sales mandatory, and that helps immensely.
to steal them from those who have got them legally.
>>> That failure to do so should be considered, at a minimum, to be reckless
>>> negligence.
>> But wouldn’t stop people reloading.
>>> Yeah, you can't stop a handloader who's got a stock of brass and
>>> bullet molds, but I doubt if most perps know those folks, if you
>>> can't buy the ammo in the local store, you've got to preserve those
>>> five rounds that you have until they're old enough to be useless.
>> That’s hundreds of years.
> Less. IME, ammo that's 40 years old can't be assumed to be reliable.
reliable.
And its completely trivial to replace the propellant anyway.
> And besides, ammo is a consumable.
> You got a new gun, you want to try it out. Doing so, you just removed
> some ammo from the pool.
> Shoot some warning shots into your enemy's house (such as the house of a
> neighbor of mine), you've drained some more of the stockpile.
> Gonna run out, eventually.
Nope, once its illegal, hardly anyone will consume it because
its now illegal, and its easy to just replace what does get used
by reloading.
>>> BTW. which group are you posting from? a.f.c has a long history of
>>> digressions and offtopic thread drift, but my impression is that
>>> comp.arch isn't as happy with them,
>> There clearly are some who don’t care in that group.
>>> and I'd like to trim that group from the followups.
>> I don’t believe in that while ever some
>> from the group being trimmed are posting.
> Understood. Nor do I. But if Sprunk isn't depending on c.a,
> I'd rather remove that group (and the accompanying aggrevation of its
> other participants). Personally, I don't enjoy pissing people off.
John Levine
Apr 17, 2013, 6:51:12 AM4/17/13
to
>The Founders provided for the right to own and bare arms to maintain a
>threat over government that if it becomes too oppressive, the populous
>could revolt with a credible potential of success.
That's the conventional myth, but the 2nd amendment is really about
>threat over government that if it becomes too oppressive, the populous
>could revolt with a credible potential of success.
state militias that put down slave rebellions.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179307/-The-Second-Amendment-was-Ratified-to-Preserve-Slavery
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:08:24 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 8:54 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 9:56 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>
>>>> What the heck were these people smoking when they repealed it?
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Just kidding.
>>>
>>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>>
>>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish.
>
> I want them dead. I'm very upset.
>
>> Like the gun control discussion, this would
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>>
> There's no political talk about banning bomb instructions on the net.
> I also don't understand this gun discussion. I thought the guns the
> idiot used in Conn. were legally bought.
>
By his mother. *She* knew he was crazy, and yet he was still able to
get hold of her guns. She was apparently a "gun nut," perhaps not
crazy, although she was the one who taught her son to shoot. I guess
the fact that she was the first victim is a bit of poetic justice.
--
Pete
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 9:56 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>
>>>> What the heck were these people smoking when they repealed it?
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Just kidding.
>>>
>>> People often say "what were they smoking?".
>>>
>>> Maybe if people smoked a bit more these things wouldn't happen.
>>> Like that idiot today in Boston.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish.
>
> I want them dead. I'm very upset.
>
>> Like the gun control discussion, this would
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>>
> There's no political talk about banning bomb instructions on the net.
> I also don't understand this gun discussion. I thought the guns the
> idiot used in Conn. were legally bought.
>
By his mother. *She* knew he was crazy, and yet he was still able to
get hold of her guns. She was apparently a "gun nut," perhaps not
crazy, although she was the one who taught her son to shoot. I guess
the fact that she was the first victim is a bit of poetic justice.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:11:25 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 8:54 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> Note that unapproved cancer treatments are usually quite dangerous and are
>> unapproved for generally a good reason.
>
> It was approved by Germany's FDA. The US' drug/treatment approval
> process has problems.
Problems like not approving Thalidomide, although it was approved in
Europe. Tat decision saved a lot of anguish. In the case of cancer
treatments for terminal patients, though, I'd be inclined to say "let
'em have at it." If it gives them a chance, or even just gives them
hope, why not?
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:13:12 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 8:54 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> <grin> My mother used to drive to another grocery store to save $.05
>
> on one item. No matter how many times I asked how much she spent on
> gas and her time, she still thought she saved a nickel. When
> I'm trying to decide about hiring somebody or doing it myself, I
> figure my time at $300/hour.
One person doing this makes no difference. Lots of people doing this
leads retailers to cut their prices to retain customers.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:17:15 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 9:57 AM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> past articles has been some really high-priced property in london was
> being purchased by offshore corporations ... and investigators were
> being totally stonewalled on who was actually involved. people have
> large piles of undeclared income/cash ... and want to put it to work
> ... so one of the ways is invest in expensive real-estate ... however,
> they haven't declared all that loot (illegally avoid taxes) ... so being
> able to trace the purchases back to actual owners would expose the
> undeclared income.
I imagine Assad is looking for a little place in London about now; he
used to live there and it's probably looking better to him all the time.
--
Pete
>
> past articles has been some really high-priced property in london was
> being purchased by offshore corporations ... and investigators were
> being totally stonewalled on who was actually involved. people have
> large piles of undeclared income/cash ... and want to put it to work
> ... so one of the ways is invest in expensive real-estate ... however,
> they haven't declared all that loot (illegally avoid taxes) ... so being
> able to trace the purchases back to actual owners would expose the
> undeclared income.
I imagine Assad is looking for a little place in London about now; he
used to live there and it's probably looking better to him all the time.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:21:34 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 10:37 AM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale. We'd end
> up incarcerating a great many innocent people, plus tax ourselves
> badly to pay for it.
I'll take my chances.
>
> Mental health is largely a subjective art. Counselors will vary
> widely in their opinions of the mental health of someone. It is
> troubling that such an inexact method could have the power to
> incarcerate people. Further, public emotion could play a harmful
> role, with pundits fanning the flames*.
>
> We have strict laws requiring therapists to report all sorts of
> potentially dangerous behaviors. One problem with such laws is that
> troubled people will not get the therapy they really need because they
> fear being reported.
Apparently the Colorado shooter was reported to the police, they just
didn't know what to do with the information. We used to have laws
allowing dangerous people to be involuntarily committed, but they've
faded away. We need to reinstate these, and pass a law spelling out
police responsibility for handling these cases.
--
Pete
> On Apr 16, 8:07 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>
>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>
> AFAIK, there is generally no way to accurately predict when someone
>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>
> with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale. We'd end
> up incarcerating a great many innocent people, plus tax ourselves
> badly to pay for it.
I'll take my chances.
>
> Mental health is largely a subjective art. Counselors will vary
> widely in their opinions of the mental health of someone. It is
> troubling that such an inexact method could have the power to
> incarcerate people. Further, public emotion could play a harmful
> role, with pundits fanning the flames*.
>
> We have strict laws requiring therapists to report all sorts of
> potentially dangerous behaviors. One problem with such laws is that
> troubled people will not get the therapy they really need because they
> fear being reported.
Apparently the Colorado shooter was reported to the police, they just
didn't know what to do with the information. We used to have laws
allowing dangerous people to be involuntarily committed, but they've
faded away. We need to reinstate these, and pass a law spelling out
police responsibility for handling these cases.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:26:06 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 11:06 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 16/04/2013 16:02, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <hZOdnZk9pf1Q-PDM...@bt.com>,
>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>>> In article <PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:PM0004DA2...@aca2db1d.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here you've jumbled up the meaning of state and country and
>>>>>>> somehow projected these jumbled meanings to try to prove
>>>>>>> a VAT wouldn't work in the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some cities have sales tax too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far I see no reason the US could not use a VAT and Canada
>>>>>>> still seems
>>>>>>> like a good example of how it could work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EAch US state, county, city etc. would have a different rate if a VAT
>>>>>> was substituted for sales tax. And the Federal would probably
>>>>>> have one,
>>>> too.
>>>>>> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>>>>> hmmm...that may be a cure for Illinois/Chicago's corruption.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what is happening in EUrope. VATs tend to converge.
>>>>
>>>> Do they? Is it to make the figuring easier?
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. The governments are finding the hard way that people will drive for
>>> an hour to save tax on expensive things like furniture.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> But those things people don't pay cash for usually. Other payment
>> methods can be traced, unless perhaps you use bitcoins.
>>
> These are legal purchases. They do not care that the government knows.
>
There are some exceptions. A purchase of a car is supposed to be taxed
at the rate where you live, no matter where you buy it. There may be
other such large items.
The sales tax is a chaotic mess left over from horse-and-buggy days when
there was no internet and people didn't want to travel 10 miles to make
a purchase. We need to provide some sort of rational nationwide system.
--
Pete
> On 16/04/2013 16:02, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <hZOdnZk9pf1Q-PDM...@bt.com>,
>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>>> In article <PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:PM0004DA2...@aca2db1d.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here you've jumbled up the meaning of state and country and
>>>>>>> somehow projected these jumbled meanings to try to prove
>>>>>>> a VAT wouldn't work in the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some cities have sales tax too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far I see no reason the US could not use a VAT and Canada
>>>>>>> still seems
>>>>>>> like a good example of how it could work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EAch US state, county, city etc. would have a different rate if a VAT
>>>>>> was substituted for sales tax. And the Federal would probably
>>>>>> have one,
>>>> too.
>>>>>> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>>>>> hmmm...that may be a cure for Illinois/Chicago's corruption.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what is happening in EUrope. VATs tend to converge.
>>>>
>>>> Do they? Is it to make the figuring easier?
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. The governments are finding the hard way that people will drive for
>>> an hour to save tax on expensive things like furniture.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>
>> But those things people don't pay cash for usually. Other payment
>> methods can be traced, unless perhaps you use bitcoins.
>>
> These are legal purchases. They do not care that the government knows.
>
There are some exceptions. A purchase of a car is supposed to be taxed
at the rate where you live, no matter where you buy it. There may be
other such large items.
The sales tax is a chaotic mess left over from horse-and-buggy days when
there was no internet and people didn't want to travel 10 miles to make
a purchase. We need to provide some sort of rational nationwide system.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:31:07 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 2:30 PM, greymausg wrote:
>
> Well, for various values of converge:
>
> There seems to be a value that, when exceeded, sends people over the border
> to a lower VAT area to buy stuff. Real bummer wwhen your high-price
> purchase shows a fault and has to be returned.
>
>
Does it matter? If you buy in the European equivalent of Target,
wouldn't you be able to return it to any Target anywhere?
--
Pete
> On 2013-04-15, Morten Reistad <fi...@last.name> wrote:
>> In article <PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:PM0004DA2...@aca2db1d.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>>>> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> Here you've jumbled up the meaning of state and country and
>>>> somehow projected these jumbled meanings to try to prove
>>>> a VAT wouldn't work in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Some cities have sales tax too.
>>>>
>>>> So far I see no reason the US could not use a VAT and Canada still seems
>>>> like a good example of how it could work.
>>>
>>> EAch US state, county, city etc. would have a different rate if a VAT
>>> was substituted for sales tax. And the Federal would probably have one, too.
>>> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>> hmmm...that may be a cure for Illinois/Chicago's corruption.
>>
>> This is what is happening in EUrope. VATs tend to converge.
>>
>> -- mrr
>> In article <PM0004DA5...@aca21c22.ipt.aol.com>,
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:PM0004DA2...@aca2db1d.ipt.aol.com...
>>>>>>> Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>>>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> Here you've jumbled up the meaning of state and country and
>>>> somehow projected these jumbled meanings to try to prove
>>>> a VAT wouldn't work in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Some cities have sales tax too.
>>>>
>>>> So far I see no reason the US could not use a VAT and Canada still seems
>>>> like a good example of how it could work.
>>>
>>> EAch US state, county, city etc. would have a different rate if a VAT
>>> was substituted for sales tax. And the Federal would probably have one, too.
>>> So states with the highest VAT charages would probably lose business.
>>> hmmm...that may be a cure for Illinois/Chicago's corruption.
>>
>> This is what is happening in EUrope. VATs tend to converge.
>>
>
> Well, for various values of converge:
>
> There seems to be a value that, when exceeded, sends people over the border
> to a lower VAT area to buy stuff. Real bummer wwhen your high-price
> purchase shows a fault and has to be returned.
>
>
Does it matter? If you buy in the European equivalent of Target,
wouldn't you be able to return it to any Target anywhere?
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:38:53 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 3:15 PM, Mike wrote:
>
> The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not read and do not
> understand is ridiculous beyond belief. If a lawyer recommended that
>
> The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not read and do not
> you sign a contract he had not read, he would be subject to heavy
> mal-practice liability and disbarment.
Ridiculous, but true. In New York, for example, the budget is
frequently negotiated by "three men in a room" - the governor, the
Senate majority leader and the Assembly majority leader. The individual
legislators have at best only a vague idea of what's in it. A
many-hundred-page bill gets dropped on their desks and the have three
days to supposedly read it before they vote. Actually, almost 100% of
the time they do what their party leaders say anyhow, so it doesn't
really matter.
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:44:11 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 3:36 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 16-Apr-13 13:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>>> What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun
>>> control folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this
>>> tragedy to push through stuff they've been wanting to do for
>>> decades, even though there is no direct link between them.
>>> _cop_.)
>>
>> It's pretty clear that the US government and citizenry have
>> determined that weapons _can_ (and _should_) be banned.
>
> That is not clear at all, at least if you mean _all_ weapons. And there
> is a rather vocal segment of the citizenry (and the minority party) that
> thinks _no_ weapons should be banned.
>
>> So, on the continuum from a single-shot .22 rifle to a device with a
>> physics package, where do we draw the line? All automatic weapons
>> are effectively banned (BATF permits for antique machine guns
>> notwithstanding),
>
> Only if all machine guns made before 1985 are called "antique"; there's
> still a very active market for those weapons, and it's not difficult to
> get a permit to buy one, just expensive.
>
>> clearly SAMs, RPG's, LAWs, SAWs should be all banned,
>
> There are some who would debate that. Really.
>
> Still, the ban on explosive weapons is generally accepted; you can get a
> permit for them, but it's expensive. SAWs are covered by the machine
> gun discussion above.
>
>> but where do semi-automatic weapons fall in this continuum?
>> I support the hunters, all of which can manage just fine with
>> single-shot or reduced magazines, so what is the societal need for
>> semi-automatic "replicas" of military assault weapons?
>
> When SCOTUS ruled that the feds (DC v Heller) and states (McDonald v
> Chicago) cannot ban guns completely, they specifically addressed
> semi-auto handguns. That means semi-auto long guns (including assault
> weapon replicas) are probably protected as well, but that'll take
> another test case to verify.
>
> The 1994-2004 ban on high-cap mags never made it to SCOTUS, and there's
> no obvious example to follow, so that's an open question. The 1985 ban
> on real assault weapons hasn't been tested either; following the logic
> from US v Miller (the only 2nd Amd case in the entire 20th Century),
> that's unconstitutional as well.
>
> S
>
I hate to say this, being a Republican, but maybe we just need to repeal
the second amendment. This wouldn't, and shouldn't, automatically ban
all guns, but it would sure stop the NRA from screaming about their
"rights."
--
Pete
> On 16-Apr-13 13:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>>> What the current furor boils down to, then, is that the gun
>>> control folks are using the emotion and public pressure from this
>>> tragedy to push through stuff they've been wanting to do for
>>> decades, even though there is no direct link between them.
>>>
>>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>>> in a crime by its owner, and the owner in that isolated case was a
>>> (* Called "assault weapons" by the left but at most are assault
>>> weapon _replicas_. Actual assault weapons have been banned since
>>> 1985; note that only one actual assault weapon has _ever_ been used
>>> _cop_.)
>>
>> It's pretty clear that the US government and citizenry have
>> determined that weapons _can_ (and _should_) be banned.
>
> That is not clear at all, at least if you mean _all_ weapons. And there
> is a rather vocal segment of the citizenry (and the minority party) that
> thinks _no_ weapons should be banned.
>
>> So, on the continuum from a single-shot .22 rifle to a device with a
>> physics package, where do we draw the line? All automatic weapons
>> are effectively banned (BATF permits for antique machine guns
>> notwithstanding),
>
> Only if all machine guns made before 1985 are called "antique"; there's
> still a very active market for those weapons, and it's not difficult to
> get a permit to buy one, just expensive.
>
>> clearly SAMs, RPG's, LAWs, SAWs should be all banned,
>
> There are some who would debate that. Really.
>
> Still, the ban on explosive weapons is generally accepted; you can get a
> permit for them, but it's expensive. SAWs are covered by the machine
> gun discussion above.
>
>> but where do semi-automatic weapons fall in this continuum?
>> I support the hunters, all of which can manage just fine with
>> single-shot or reduced magazines, so what is the societal need for
>> semi-automatic "replicas" of military assault weapons?
>
> When SCOTUS ruled that the feds (DC v Heller) and states (McDonald v
> Chicago) cannot ban guns completely, they specifically addressed
> semi-auto handguns. That means semi-auto long guns (including assault
> weapon replicas) are probably protected as well, but that'll take
> another test case to verify.
>
> The 1994-2004 ban on high-cap mags never made it to SCOTUS, and there's
> no obvious example to follow, so that's an open question. The 1985 ban
> on real assault weapons hasn't been tested either; following the logic
> from US v Miller (the only 2nd Amd case in the entire 20th Century),
> that's unconstitutional as well.
>
> S
>
I hate to say this, being a Republican, but maybe we just need to repeal
the second amendment. This wouldn't, and shouldn't, automatically ban
all guns, but it would sure stop the NRA from screaming about their
"rights."
--
Pete
Peter Flass
Apr 17, 2013, 8:46:21 AM4/17/13
to
On 4/16/2013 4:17 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> As a kid I always wanted a switch blade knife.
> They're mostly illegal in the US.
> I learned to open a folding knife with one hand instead.
> Now I've grown out of it.
>
I had one I filed a little bit so I could just flip it open. I still
have it, I now use it to open boxes.
--
Pete
>
> As a kid I always wanted a switch blade knife.
> They're mostly illegal in the US.
> I learned to open a folding knife with one hand instead.
> Now I've grown out of it.
>
I had one I filed a little bit so I could just flip it open. I still
have it, I now use it to open boxes.
--
Pete
Gerard Schildberger
Apr 17, 2013, 8:51:16 AM4/17/13
to
On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:48:16 PM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
sleeveless shirts and dresses. I may be wrong, of
course. The 2nd amendment is about a dress code,
possible for Militia uniforms?
_______________________________ Gerard Schildberger
> "Mike" wrote:
>> The Founders provided for the right to own and bare arms
> Wrong bear, unless you are talking about open carry.
No, I'm pretty sure the Founders were talking about
>> The Founders provided for the right to own and bare arms
> Wrong bear, unless you are talking about open carry.
sleeveless shirts and dresses. I may be wrong, of
course. The 2nd amendment is about a dress code,
possible for Militia uniforms?
_______________________________ Gerard Schildberger
Andrew Swallow
Apr 17, 2013, 9:39:08 AM4/17/13
to
was a distinct possibility. Now he has allegedly committed war crimes
this will not work because we will want to put him on trial.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Apr 17, 2013, 9:40:58 AM4/17/13
to
Andrew Swallow
jmfbahciv
Apr 17, 2013, 10:00:02 AM4/17/13
to
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> Al Jadzera had a news item on TV Sunday night about people buying
>> real estate in Londaon as a tax haven. Something to do with not
>> paying property taxes but I didn't understand it. They interviewed
>> a woman who had a _small_ 2 BR apartement and, since she lives alone,
>> was going to have a property tax increase on the 2nd bedroom.
>> GB has always been strange about what people pay for (compared to
>> the US). another wierd (to USians) is the way they charged for TV
>> receptions.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> /BAH
>>
>
> Sounds like they are mixing up 2 or 3 stories there.
that's likely.
> The 'Bedroom tax' is the nickname of a reduction of dole for people who
> live in rented accommodation. When the children grow up and leave the
> government wants the parents to move to some where cheaper.
It was a rented apartment? I thought she owned it. From the pictures
(which can be slanted) taken of her apt., the rooms were very tiny.
Couldn't she "fix" the problem by knocking down the wall between
the two tiny bedrooms?
/BAH
> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>> Al Jadzera had a news item on TV Sunday night about people buying
>> real estate in Londaon as a tax haven. Something to do with not
>> paying property taxes but I didn't understand it. They interviewed
>> a woman who had a _small_ 2 BR apartement and, since she lives alone,
>> was going to have a property tax increase on the 2nd bedroom.
>> GB has always been strange about what people pay for (compared to
>> the US). another wierd (to USians) is the way they charged for TV
>> receptions.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> /BAH
>>
>
> Sounds like they are mixing up 2 or 3 stories there.
that's likely.
> The 'Bedroom tax' is the nickname of a reduction of dole for people who
> live in rented accommodation. When the children grow up and leave the
> government wants the parents to move to some where cheaper.
It was a rented apartment? I thought she owned it. From the pictures
(which can be slanted) taken of her apt., the rooms were very tiny.
Couldn't she "fix" the problem by knocking down the wall between
the two tiny bedrooms?
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Apr 17, 2013, 10:00:07 AM4/17/13
to
greymausg wrote:
>> him as an incurable monster out for harm and got the town all upset.
>> But the truth was that he had a relatively minor and common crime as a
>> youth.
>
> Agree with the above re mental problems, there have been a couple of
> examples here where a disturbed person has killed the children as well
> as himself, and a call for such people to be restrained. I don't know
> how that can be done.
What is it about those men who go after kids? Soon after the Conn.
mess some guy in China went through a grade school with a knife.
/BAH
> On 2013-04-16, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 8:07 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>>
>> AFAIK, there is generally no way to accurately predict when someone
>> with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale. We'd end
>> up incarcerating a great many innocent people, plus tax ourselves
>> badly to pay for it.
>>
>> On Apr 16, 8:07 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately we don't yet know who "that idiot" is or what s/he
>>> intended to accomplish. Like the gun control discussion, this would
>>> seem to advance my argument that we need to lock up and/or medicate a
>>> lot more people with mental problems *before* they kill people.
>>
>> AFAIK, there is generally no way to accurately predict when someone
>> with mental problems will commit violence on a mass scale. We'd end
>> up incarcerating a great many innocent people, plus tax ourselves
>> badly to pay for it.
>>
>> Mental health is largely a subjective art. Counselors will vary
>> widely in their opinions of the mental health of someone. It is
>> troubling that such an inexact method could have the power to
>> incarcerate people. Further, public emotion could play a harmful
>> role, with pundits fanning the flames*.
>>
>> We have strict laws requiring therapists to report all sorts of
>> potentially dangerous behaviors. One problem with such laws is that
>> troubled people will not get the therapy they really need because they
>> fear being reported.
>>
>>
>> *An ex-offender was moving into a town. Talk radio hosts described
>> widely in their opinions of the mental health of someone. It is
>> troubling that such an inexact method could have the power to
>> incarcerate people. Further, public emotion could play a harmful
>> role, with pundits fanning the flames*.
>>
>> We have strict laws requiring therapists to report all sorts of
>> potentially dangerous behaviors. One problem with such laws is that
>> troubled people will not get the therapy they really need because they
>> fear being reported.
>>
>>
>> him as an incurable monster out for harm and got the town all upset.
>> But the truth was that he had a relatively minor and common crime as a
>> youth.
>
> Agree with the above re mental problems, there have been a couple of
> examples here where a disturbed person has killed the children as well
> as himself, and a call for such people to be restrained. I don't know
> how that can be done.
What is it about those men who go after kids? Soon after the Conn.
mess some guy in China went through a grade school with a knife.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Apr 17, 2013, 10:00:01 AM4/17/13
to
John Levine wrote:
>>>>> Given a choice between 1) the Federal Reserve has different rules in
>>>>> New York and Massachusetts and 2) your banker was full of it, I'm
>>>>> afraid we'll have to pick door 2.
>>>>>
>>>>Could it be a new rule?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>Now I"m wondering if it's a state rule or bank rule.
>
> I've never, ever heard of a state money laundering rule. Banks would
> object like crazy, since it would put state chartered banks at a
> competitive disadvantage to federally chartered banks that aren't
> subject to state regs.
>
> It's door number 2.
>
> Next time you're at the bank, ask them which regulator issued the rule
> about the mythical money laundering hold on big checks.
OK. thanks.
/BAH
>>>>> Given a choice between 1) the Federal Reserve has different rules in
>>>>> New York and Massachusetts and 2) your banker was full of it, I'm
>>>>> afraid we'll have to pick door 2.
>>>>>
>>>>Could it be a new rule?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>Now I"m wondering if it's a state rule or bank rule.
>
> I've never, ever heard of a state money laundering rule. Banks would
> object like crazy, since it would put state chartered banks at a
> competitive disadvantage to federally chartered banks that aren't
> subject to state regs.
>
> It's door number 2.
>
> Next time you're at the bank, ask them which regulator issued the rule
> about the mythical money laundering hold on big checks.
OK. thanks.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Apr 17, 2013, 9:59:59 AM4/17/13
to
Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
> {snip}
> On 16/04/2013 13:54, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>>
>> I"m not sure what kind it was now. I did look it up and old people were
>> not supposed to be a target for that kind of insurance. The clerk
>> was imply trying to fill her quota. WTH is a bank doing selling
>> insurance? This was after that banking law was cancelled. It was just
>> another hint that a big mess was going to happen.
>>
>> /BAH
>>
> It is called a universal bank. They have them on the Continent.
This was her local bank. When it got bought out by an out-of-state
bank, the new owners started to non-banking things and consolidated
bank statements (which caused lots of problems).
>
> Problems selling insurance (PPI) is costing the British banks a fortune.
Good. Banking isn't retail insurance.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Apr 17, 2013, 9:59:57 AM4/17/13
to
Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>
>> Ok. Now think of how that lobbying works. It's not necessarily the
>> Congress critters who are doing the tax-hole making. Lobbyers talk
>> mostly to the staff of the those critters. It's the staff which
>> writes the tax laws, too.
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#14 What Makes an Architecture
Bizarre?
>
> cbs 60mins expose on medicare part-d (first major legislation after
> fiscal responsibility act was allowed to expire in 2002, comptroller
> general characterized as unfunded mandate coming to be long term $40T
> totally swamping all other budget items) ... had 18 (from party in
> power) that snaked the bill through the process (combination of members
> of congress and their staff) ... they add single sentence that precludes
> competitive bidding at the last minute just before final vote ... and
> prevent distribution of CBO analysis (until after vote) of that single
> sentence change. afterwards, all 18 had resigned on were on drug
> industry payrolls.
>
> The story is that members of congress set the money harvesting theme
> ... and leave the details to their staffs. One of the jokes was that
> members of congress used to listen to the lobbyists explain what they
> wanted and the associated justification before asking for the money; now
> first thing they just ask how much ... and tell the lobbyists to discuss
> the details with their staff; part of earning the label of most corrupt
> institution on earth.
>
> 60mins shows drugs under part-d (with no competitive bidding) that are
> three times the price of the identical drugs from VA (that has
> competitive bidding).
>
> in aggregate, CBO had report last decade that baseline budget had all
> federal debt retired by 2010 ... however (mostly after fiscal
> responsibility act expired in 2002), tax revenues were cut by $6T (in
> part because of tax loopholes for special interests ... but also general
> tax rate reductions ... mostly benefitting super wealthy) and spending
> increased $6T for a $12T budget gap.
>
> however, comptroller general's observation was just medicare part-d was
> unfunded mandate and comes to be long term $40T, totally swamping all
> other budget items (aka the biggest unfunded spending increase ... a
> gift by 18 critical members of congress & their staffs ... to the drug
> industry ... apparently recipricated) ... the $1T JSF/F-35 for MICC,
> pales in comparison.
Yup. Take a look at the drug part of Massachusetts mandated insurance
law. It went negative the first year. Now each kid has to have his/her
own drug insurance policy; if parents don't buy them they don't
get to take exemptions on state tax; the penalty gets more expensive
the next years' taxes.
Note that Congress did make a law which offered medical insurance
(I think it included drug coverage) for extraordinary events. AARP
immediately lobbied against the law and it got repealed. Mom
figured out it would cost her and Dad $200/month to buy it. At their
age that was really cheap and she wanted it.
>
> Its going to be interesting to see if Elizabeth Warren can make a
> difference ... she has the power to sign spotlight on lot of the
> unethical/illegal practices going on in financial/regulatory/congress
> ... but to make major change ... legislation has to be passed ... which
> requires the rest of congress. Can she create enough of a popular
> backlash against the status quo to foster change.
that will be due to the "rebels" who denigrated because their poster
child is a female. ;-)
>one of the recent
> items
>
> The Fed messed with the wrong senator; If foreclosure victims get
> justice, trace it back to a bad decision to stonewall Elizabeth Warren
> last week
> http://www.salon.com/2013/04/15/fed_messed_with_the_wrong_senator/
>
> from above:
>
> Indeed, despite OCC and the Fed's best efforts to protect banks from
> harm, they've actually exposed them like never before. If I didn't
> know better, I'd think there were moles among this
> gang-that-couldn't-regulate-straight.
It's possible. However, if you read mystery stories, a lot of the
exposure of the culprit is because s/he micromanaged the coverup;
it may be a form of "protesting too much". I can tell if my sister
is lying because she repeats the lie at least once/5 minutes
especially if the conversation has veered off the subject.
>
> ... snip ...
>
> from this post
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#12 More Whistleblower Leaks on
Foreclosure Settlement Show Both Suppression of Evidence and Gross
Incompetence
>
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Apr 17, 2013, 10:00:06 AM4/17/13
to
> news:PM0004DA7...@aca3572f.ipt.aol.com...
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>> On 4/14/2013 5:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>>>>> By the way, New Yorkers are now getting double taxation. A few years
>>>>>>> ago the state instituted a "minimum" sales tax on online purchases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's not what it is. NY has a Use Tax like every other state
>>>>>> with a sales tax. You have to enter a Use Tax number on your income
>>>>>> tax form, and they suggest an estimate, but if your actual amount is
>>>>>> lower, you can enter that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I figured out my actual use tax a few years ago and it turned out to
>>>>>> be higher than their estimate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do a lot online, too, so I haven't bothered, but how the heck can you
>>>>> prove your actual purchases are lower?
>>>>
>>>>States acquire purchasing data from the vendors.
>>>
>>> No, they don't.
>>
>> Then how does a state know what you bought? Michigan's income tax form
>> talks about exchanging data with other states.
>
> Its just bluff that does bluff some.
You are wrong. States are going after uncollected cigarette tax. They
have to get their data of purchases from somewhere.
/BAH
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>>Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>> On 4/14/2013 5:40 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>>>>> By the way, New Yorkers are now getting double taxation. A few years
>>>>>>> ago the state instituted a "minimum" sales tax on online purchases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's not what it is. NY has a Use Tax like every other state
>>>>>> with a sales tax. You have to enter a Use Tax number on your income
>>>>>> tax form, and they suggest an estimate, but if your actual amount is
>>>>>> lower, you can enter that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I figured out my actual use tax a few years ago and it turned out to
>>>>>> be higher than their estimate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do a lot online, too, so I haven't bothered, but how the heck can you
>>>>> prove your actual purchases are lower?
>>>>
>>>>States acquire purchasing data from the vendors.
>>>
>>> No, they don't.
>>
>> Then how does a state know what you bought? Michigan's income tax form
>> talks about exchanging data with other states.
>
> Its just bluff that does bluff some.
You are wrong. States are going after uncollected cigarette tax. They
have to get their data of purchases from somewhere.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Apr 17, 2013, 10:00:00 AM4/17/13
to
>> | > The idea that Congressmen vote for bills they have not
>> | > read and do not understand is ridiculous beyond belief.
>>
>> | > read and do not understand is ridiculous beyond belief.
>>
>> Then we should not have it! How can we expect citizens to obey
>> unintelligible laws?
>
> Which unintelligible law would that be?
>
>> unintelligible laws?
>
> Which unintelligible law would that be?
>
> Stop at the red light is pretty simple.
Not any more.
<snip>
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Apr 17, 2013, 10:00:12 AM4/17/13
to
I don't know about the others which have happened in the last 30 years.
It wouldn't have stopped the Arab in Texas [can't remember where].
I don't know about the kids in Colorado. Probably not.
/BAH
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages