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

Page 9 of 15  
nick hull wrote:
| Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF | THE ABOVE ;)
I can't resist asking...
How much have you actually done to get the qualified candidate of your choice onto the ballot?
:-)
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The <qualified> people Don't Want the job. The only way to get qualified people for most high government positions would be to draft them. Almost by definition, if you WANT the position of power, you probably can't be trusted not to abuse it.
aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As active as this thread is, could you take it to an appropriate group - or at least change the subject line. Please?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

So you are a proponent of the Douglas Adams School of Politics, too.
"To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most WANT to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
-Doug Adams _The Restaurant at The End of The Universe_
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

Or worked to get a crooked politician out of office? (It was easy after the lawsuit.)
--
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
wrote:

Nice protest, but what if it was? What if that choice got the most votes?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Neither wins and are not allowed to run again that round. Do another election in that area until they get it right. I am thinking this would happen once at most and then people would tire of playing head games with politicians and just vote in whoever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Gordon wrote:

An empty office can't pass bad bills, so what's your problem?
--
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
wrote:

It doesn't. It guarantees the Right to own a weapon. If you choose not to exercise that right...you don't have to.

You seem to have missed that tiny little "comma" between the first and second clauses in the verbiage as well as the third clause.
Is there some reason for your reading comprehension issues? Some form of autism perhaps?
Gunner

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

It's not a clause (except to a lawyer), because it contains no predicate. It's a phrase, and the sentence is a type called "nominative absolute." Nominative absolute sentences tell you nothing about the dependency of the clause ("the right of the people..." etc.) upon the phrase. It may be a dependency, or it may be incidental. Often it's a sufficient but not necessary condition.
Nobody ever gets this right, so don't feel badly about it. And it wouldn't be the first time the FFs wrote something that was intentionally ambiguous. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to get the anti-federalists to calm down and ratify the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.
Gunner does identify the source of the idea of our 2nd Amendment as a "right," however, which is English common law.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Ed;
The Founding Fathers may have been unnecessarily ambigous in the phrasing of the Second Amendment but the Resolution of Congress that became the 2ND Amendment upon ratification by the states was NUMBER ONE on the list of Resolutions passed by Congress and sent to the states.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not sure what that means. Was it the shortest one? It seems like it must have been the shortest.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:01:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

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 (187168). 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

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

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. <g>

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

Oddly enough..virtually every state in the Union also includes some form of 2nd Amendment guarantee in its state constitution as well
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And where's the part of that which says a "well regulated militia" is the ONLY reason you can own a gun?
I expect you don't know, and are just mindlessly repeating some nonsense you heard somewhere (from someone who doesn't know either).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on 9/12/2007 10:48 AM Sam E said the following:

It is the section that gun proponents quote. If there is another section that outlines gun ownership other than the 'militia, please cite it.

I haven't insulted anyone over this issue. Why is it that you fell the need to do so?
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
willshak wrote:

If there is another section that defines "the people" as "members of a well-regulated militia" then please cite it.
In any case, by law all males between the ages of 18 and 45 who are citizens of the US are members of the militia.

His suggestion that you are parroting something that was told to you is no more insulting than your suggestion that he had not read the Amendment in it entirety.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:52:48 -0400, willshak
<snip>

<snip>
This is simply another red herring for a yet another "gun grab."
The idea of armed and trained citizens united in well-regulated and organized local militia units strikes terror in the hearts of politicians and political functionaries everywhere.
In many states this is specifically prohibited unless they are under the control of the political authorities as is our so-called national guard.
As in most things, if the politicians and bureaucrats are against it, it is the best thing for the people.
FWIW -- as soon as it became obvious that using national guard troops to augment the border patrol / ICE was having very positive effects on reducing illegal immigration, they were removed from such duty. Why are national guard units on border security duty a good thing in Iraq but a bad thing in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California?
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, I doubt that. Is there some historical support for that, say, in the first years after our independence? There sure were plenty of armed citizens around.
Say, George, have you gotten any surprise calls from the NRA lately? I got one last evening, intended for my wife. How they got her on the list I'll never know. It was either AARP or the NJ Education Association. <g>
Anyway, this sweet young thing named Angel asked if I had time to hear from Wayne and I said sure, I hadn't talked to him in nearly 20 years and it would be a pleasure. Wayne came on the phone and started talking but he didn't let up when I talked back. He acted as if he didn't even hear me. I guess we had a bad connection.
Wayne was running on about some new bill, H.R. 1022 I think, that the Democrats from Hell had introduced, which must be something awful. If I heard him correctly it allows registered Democrats to slit my throat and disembowel me if I'm caught with a gun, or something like that. Anyway, Wayne was talking a mile a minute (the guy still has *some* energy) and then he left. Another sweet young thing came back on and seemed surprised that I was still there. She said she needed for me to take out a five-year membership for the limited-time price of $100. I started to tell her about why I had not renewed my NRA membership but it obviously didn't interest her, so I changed the subject. I wanted to know how everybody at HQ was doing, and how the gun-rights battle is going.
I don't think she was equipped to answer that but she filled in by offering me something if I re-upped; it sounded like some kind of Swiss Army knife. I haven't had one of those so I was intrigued. Then she threw in the real coup de grace: a gen-you-wine, rosewood-handled NRA knife. This excited me. I didn't even wait to hear if it was a sheath knife or a folding knife. I just pictured myself whipping out a knife with "NRA" on the side at a client meeting in NYC, cleaning my fingernails with it while discussing market shares or something.
So I told her OK. This appeared to nearly knock her off her seat. I had my choice of magazines (no Playboy, unfortunately, and they didn't offer Harper's or Mother Jones), so I went for trusty old _American Rifleman_. It's time for me to catch up on the new technology, especially those 1,000-yard woodchuck guns. I could sit on a hill near hear and cover half the county with one of those, which may be just a fantasy but it's something that definitely would be easier on my legs than walking all over hell. I would have scoffed at those things 20 years ago but no more. I'm tired of walking.
Before she hung up she asked if I wanted to contribute another $15 specifically to take out a political contract on Hillary. I told her don't push it.
I wonder how long before I get the Swiss Army thingie and the real prize, my NRA knife? I can't wait.
-- Ed Huntress
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.