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

[Michael A. Terrell]

Why should it? It matches his purse and his heels.

[raden]

In message , Colin Wilson writes

And lets not forget that more british soldiers were killed by septics than by enemy combatants in the first gulf war

[raden]

In message , nick hull writes

Right tool for the right job, eh ?

[raden]

What would you know

[Michael A. Terrell]

Why? Can't you afford a mirror?

[raden]

In message , Michael A. Terrell writes

Better than the retard that runs yours

OK rednecks, I'm bored with you now

byeee

[Dave Hall]

Not at all in agreement with much of any of this post. However, most of it is opinion or subject to argument. However, that last piece is not. The Bill of Rights was proposed by Congress and submited to the States AFTER the Constitution had been ratified. The Constitution was ratified by the 9th state on June 21, 1788 and became effective on March 4, 1789. The first Congress under the Constitution submitted the Bill Of Rights to the States for consideration as Amendments to the Constitution on September 25, 1789. The Bill of Rights (or the first

10 Amendments to the Constitution) became effective on December 15, 1791. Clearly this timeline shows that the purpose was NOT "to get the anti-federalists to calm down and ratify the Constitution" though admittedly there was much talk about a Bill of Rights at the various legislatures when the states were debating the Constitution. The Federalist Papers and "anti-Federalist Papers" represent a number of articles discussing this in the context of the times (along with a lot of other issues of concern with the proposed Constitution).

"In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized opposition. Only after two leading Antifederalists, Adams and Hancock, negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for ratification on February 6, 1788 (187?168). Antifederalists had demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended."[7]

Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. They all sent recommendations for amendments with their ratification documents to the new Congress. Since many of these recommendations pertained to safeguarding personal rights, this pressured Congress to add a Bill of Rights after Constitutional ratification. Additionally, North Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution until progress was made on the issue of the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain." [from Wikipedia - yeah I know that is not autoritative]

Dave Hall

[Michael A. Terrell]

Yes it is, but tell us, Redneck, is it fun for you, too?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Why? Now of it was for anyone your sorry government thousands would jump at it, even though most don't beleive in 'Mercy killing'. OTOH, it is a nation of Queens, ruled by a bigger queen.

[J. Clarke]

Please tell us of one instance in which a gun was successfully tried for murder.

[Michael A. Terrell]

I keep waiting and hoping they will ban idiots and cowards. That should reduce the world's population by at least 90%. Of course, they would have to figure out what to do with all the crap left behind. :(

[Michael A. Terrell]

That's funny, some of mine drive staples, others solder. You don't know the difference between 'Gun' and 'Weapon'. Typical 'britidiot'.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Yet no one demands they outlaw shirts. Its sad, really.

Of course, if they outlaw shirts, only outlaws will own shirts.

[Michael A. Terrell]

What can I say? My sense of humor has a hair trigger.

[nick hull]

Funny thing, disregarding sports and target practice, most of my ammo expended was for other purposes than killing. Probably have used a gun as a drill more often than to kill something ;)

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

[nick hull]

I understand American, English is a foreign tongue ;)

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

[F. George McDuffee]

While this depends on definitions, while there were indeed plenty of armed citizens in the first few years of the Republic, there was an almost total lack of politicians and functionaries as they had all decided to move back to England (either before or after the tar and feathers). Over time, we grew our own, until we are again overrun.

Unka' George [George McDuffee] ============ Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

[willshak]

I have a few of them. I also have a DD214. Sorry about your injury. I was fortunate to have served between the Korean and Viet Nam wars. I also have a certificate honoring my 38 years of municipal service, which service required that I enforce the criminal and traffic laws of New York State and carry a gun when on duty. I also own 5 handguns and two rifles. I also was once a member of the NRA. Surprised?

[Ed Huntress]

None of it is opinion. Opinions are what people have when they don't have the facts. The facts in this case are not at all difficult to find.

The first part you can clear up by finding a good English grammar text, British or American. Or look up "nominative absolute" on the Web. It ought to be there someplace.

FWIW, a "clause" in the law means several things. In English, it means just one thing. A phrase can be a clause in legal terms but not in grammatical terms. And it is the grammar of it, not the law, that determines such things as grammatical dependency.

I've been an editor for 34 years. Don' gimme no stuff.

Your understanding of it is incorrect. Those states that demanded an explicit bill of rights ratified on the condition that Congress would produce one. This fact is all over the history books. It's not a controversial issue.

...which is what I said above, and which you appear to be contesting.

...as I said above.

...as I said above.

Just what is it you're contesting?

-- Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

...sigh... George, I can't wait until you write your book. d8-)

-- Ed Huntress