What have been the worst home handyman accidents you've had,or seen so far ?

Page 12 of 16  


That's fun, but it takes a lot of time. I just say, "Excuse me a minute, I'll be right back." Then I put down the phone and read a book or something. Five minutes later I just hang up the phone.
I was having fun with the young ladies from the NRA the other night, though. I just couldn't say no in the end. d8-)
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

They were tying up my business phoneline, and I only had a single line in the shop.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:00:57 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

taken off the case and calls stopped because of the harassment they got when they called my number. Gerry :-)} London, Canada
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
willshak wrote:

The Constitution of the United States of America contains in the first TEN amendments FOUR references to "PEOPLE". Why is it that the second reference is interpreted by the anti gun fanatics to mean the GOVERNMENT and the other THREE references to mean them?
A clear and concise answer please, no prevarications....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
willshak wrote:

It seems that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagrees with your intepretation.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Second Amendment is an individual right, not a right belonging to a "well regulated militia" or to members of a militia.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
doesn't it amaze you how every thread that might possibly involve an OT subject degenerates into a pro/anti gun arguement? don't you guys have something better with which to occupy your synapses? "
.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

awhile to sort out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it is generating more interest then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.
William Noble wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess its only a matter of time before someone says "Because the good lord made it so", and we are then allowed to let this thread die... 'alf a mo'. I just did say it. Can we stop now?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Eh, the courts have NOT consistently held that it's an individual right. Just the opposite, in fact.
However, the issue is up for grabs again. Within this decade two Circuit Courts of Appeals have reached opposite conclusions on this issue, one that supports the individual right (Fifth Circuit, United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203) and one that denies it (Ninth Circuit, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052). This conflict puts pressure on the Supreme Court to finally decide the issue, but don't count your chickens. It may be very difficult to find a test case.
FWIW, the issue has been brewing in the highest reaches of legal theorizing since the publication, in the Yale Law Review, of Sanford Levinson's article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" (1989). The article is widely available online for anyone who's interested.
Laurence Tribe (the most famous liberal legal scholar) caused a furor a few years by swinging, to a large degree, to the individual-rights position. It is an extremely hot issue in legal scholarship today, part of a broader turmoil of re-thinking various rights issues.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

lose their title of most overturned circuit any time soon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

However, keep in mind that the 5th, while it has fewer cases reviewed by the USSC, had 100% of them overturned in a recent year. I think it was five cases in one year.
There's no way anyone can anticipate how this one would come out. I'd put my money on the individual-right interpretation prevailing, but I wouldn't bet heavily.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Gordon wrote:

Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the Second Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the copies I EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And read my first post above again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES: <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname 5_cong_documents&docid=f:sd011.105.pdf>
The Bill of Rights: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/billofrights.html
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I\'ve got my DD214 to
prove it.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall not be infringed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and succinctly. You conveniently ignore that. The right of the people to bear arms flows from the necessity of a well-regulated militia. There is a hierarchy here in the flow and ordering of the statements concerning how and why the rights are bestowed by the constitution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

The "militia" consisted of all able bodied men. It was not limited to a government-sponsored military force.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary. The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."
--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.