Well we are far away from socialistic system however we are on the road to it. When such as NJ treasury department penalizes victims because of some Corporation commit fraud what more can we aspect
What's the old cliche? When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns?
"Tony" wrote in news:4XBDi.6687$kI5.1962@trnddc08:
you better reexamine the Federal government's spending then. Over 50% goes towards social programs,I believe.
What we really need is a smarter voter.
dpb wrote in news:fbmq03$7jn$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org:
I believe you are wrong in that.
I find no Amendment near that date that modifies Article I,Section 2.3. It was modified by the 14th Amendment(in 1868),but not in the manner you cite.
Interesting,the government is not following the Constitution.(no big surprise there.)
My guess would probably be some sort of a nod to 1 S8 18 that says Congress has the right to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out their duties under constitution. ALthough I would suppose that the Courts would say the specific trumps the nebulous. But I could be wrong. Interestingly, I don't see any references to any court cases on these subjects. Everybody seems to be studiously ignoring them.
I'll dip my toe in this pointless discussion- a banned-gun island in the middle of a non-banned area is close to meaningless. There are no around DC, Chicago, et al. All people (black-market gun resellers, usually not end users) have to do is drive an hour, and drive home. Most big-city violence is not done by educated people with marketable job skills- it is done by people to whom the city (or their local neighborhood) is their entire universe, who are incapable of even conceiving of living elsewhere, and voting with their feet. There are parts of this medium-size city like this- they have been undergoing 'revitilization' for 30-40 years, with 3rd and 4th generation residents who keep asking 'why doesn't somebody do something?'. All the while, there are stable and safe neighborhoods less than a mile away. But they ain't 'home'.
Standard disclaimer- yeah, I own guns. But I wish there was a way to keep stupid or intoxicated or drugged-up people from having them available when their anger or desperation overpowers their common sense or fear of punishment. (A five-minute time horizon tends to lead to doing stupid things...)
aem sends...
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in news:OmJDi.1853$FO2.601 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:
True dat. So why are voters dumb? Maybe it's because public schools are not teaching civics anymore. But we will teach Islamic studies. How about American studies? The founding fathers were not racist pigs, they were truly brilliant men with a vision for a nation that had never been conceived before.
Anyone that takes the time to study their work will be duly impressed and gain an understanding of why America is great and why it is worth defending.
But that would not advance the socialist agenda, stupid me.
....
What, specifically, do you think wrong?
I didn't say there was an Amendment. AFAIK, the number has been 435 since 1911 except for a short period after the addition of AK and HI to which it then reverted. The fix of the number was, I believe by a legislative act. It is possible it actually is a House Rule as opposed to Federal law, I don't recall; I'm going on what I remember from HS Government which is almost that long ago itself, by now. :)
The real point I was making is that the size of the House doesn't change after every Census, only reapportionment as necessary.
Whichever mechanism it was, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court which is the arbitrating authority for such questions. One would presume in the nearly 100 years subsequent if there were much doubt of how a ruling would come down there would have been a case filed.
From a practical matter, it's unlikely the founders considered the possibility of 300 million in population in the calculation of any size growth and a consequent essentially unlimited growth in the size of the House.
--
I haven't been able to find any cases on that. Could be like the War Powers Act, which hasn't been tested in court either, where my theory is that nobody WANTS to know if it legal. One side in case it isn't and the other side in case it is.
Yeah. I doubt that the founders would have liked a 10,000 member House.
Interesting troll?????
Heard something recently as part of an international radio broadcast carried late at night by our local network that some European countries are 'pulling back' on the requirement to to do away with non- CF bulbs by mandating the use of CFLs. . Probably something of short term policy though; apparently the availability of sufficient CF bulbs will be a problem. Have previously read that Australia however is enacting or has enacted legislation concerning the mandatory use of CF bulbs.
Personally am wondering about misplaced enthusiasm; everyone jumping on the 'Use CFLs' bandwagon even though they have no concept of wattage and electrical consumption versus longer term issues.
Our local municipality for example classifies dud CFLs as 'hazardous waste', in the same category as those 48 inch fluorescent tubes and instructs its trash collectors not to take them. Not that anyone would notice one or two CFLs buried in bag of garbage! Also asked one of the staff at the regional land fill who agreed that technically CFLs and fluorescent tubes were hazardous and should treated accordingly; but also commented that when a truck or dumpster comes in (every minute or two) "We can't and don't monitor everything on it or in each bag of garbage"!
But surely there a many other aspects of electrical use in our societies that could be reviewed. Too many street lights, on all night? Is it necessary to floodlight buildings at night? During WWII for example it was amazing what savings/economies could effected.
Possibly CF lamps will have a one time effect/reduction in the amount of electricity consumed, which will be hailed as a success and proof that it's the right decision? But their manufacture may have heavier than expected effects on the environment, due to the mercury they contain, the electronic components used. At least they are supposed to last some 5 times longer while using less electricity?
A neighbour has gone almost entirely CFL; installing them in locations (at cost of several dollars each), where they will rarely be switched on! For example a rarely used basement storeroom! And claims an undefined saving in electricity; but this has been during recent mainly non heating summer months. Be interesting once winter comes since the neighbours have, like many homes here, electric heating mainly generated by hydro.
It does makes sense to use CFLs in outdoor locations (although they don't always work best in cold climates?) where the wasted heat will not be recovered and some may be on for long periods overnight. Conventional (incandescent) bulbs in this home contribute heat to our residence which directly offsets the electric heating; so it is not really wasted. Our bathroom is partially heated by the six 40 watt conventional bulbs (cost 25 cents each) which are only switched on when bathroom is in use. Most of the time the 500 watt baseboard heater rarely comes on!
Have just installed a motion detector light using two 75 watt conventional bulbs that come on virtually instantly, over where our vehicle is parked. But it is of course a more complicated gadget and will ultimately not last as long as a plain old switch while using electricity for only the few minute periods it will be on. It comes on maybe a couple of times a night, for about six-ten minutes if/when a neighbour drops by.
Interesting discussion. I must fix that vintage oil lamp by installing a new wick, just in case, by the way.
terry wrote: ...
Of course, those same incandescents add the same heat in the warm months as well, so the benefit in the winter may be canceled by higher cooling load in the summer...
--
Easier would be a monarchy. Then you only need one smart person.
Yep. Consider a New Orleans resident who was forcibly relocated to, say, Salt Lake City. His immediate reaction: "Damn! You means all I has to do is stand behind dis counter and make Slurpees and I's gets PAID? Shit, man, dats cool!"
It's a revelation to the fifth-generation poor.
Since, as you say, a banned-gun island is close to meaningless, wouldn't that argue convincingly for abandoning the banned-gun island so that the righteous folk there would have some way of defending themselves?
As for whackos getting guns, well, you can't build a house without making sawdust.
Goblins getting guns is the price we have to pay so the rest of us can protect ourselves from goblins getting guns. Wait...
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in news:OmJDi.1853$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:
And a more honest major media. One that -reports- with much less slanting or favoring sides,keeps their opinion separate from news reports.
dpb wrote in news:fbp12k$kfk$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org:
So,that's when you AMEND the Constitution,the PROPER way,not just pass laws contrary to it.
"aemeijers" wrote in news:xeKDi.495508$ snipped-for-privacy@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
Japan and England are islands with strict gun control,yet they still have gun crimes.In this day and age,there's no such thing as a gun-free zone.
BTW,police and government lose firearms a lot. Then there's smuggling and home manufacture of guns. Australian police caught a guy making 100's of handguns illegally and he had already sold many on the black market.
Even a "total" civilian gun ban would not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
All gun control does is make it safer for the criminals.
Correct Chris: This is along way from light bulbs. CFL or otherwise.
The ownership, use of guns and gun violence is very much factor of the culture and type of society; a childish remark, such as the one about 'Inspectors and bullets' would be unacceptable in most civilized societies! Whereas in Iraq for example, it has been said every house has an AK47 or the equivalent and if some hot head gets into an argument with a neighbour .................... ! or doesn't like a particular 'brand ' of religion!
Until age 22 I lived in a society where gun ownership was rarity. My father who was in the over-age (Home Guard) defence force during WWII did not retain any weapons and voluntarily surrendered his Colt 45 after the war to the local police, for disposal, after using it with blanks, as a starter's pistol for school events for a couple of years. There was never any suggestion of keeping it. Even then the blanks were kept separately from the locked up revolver. Gun violence in that country was and still is a rarity.
As a reservist in the mid-late 1950s I was trained in the use of at least two military weapons (I was quite a good shot actually) and would have served if called up. Gun safety was a paramount requirement; no point shooting your own people!
Since then have also been fortunate to have lived in a society where there is no need to own a gun at all; I could get a rifle or a shotgun to go hunting; but have no need. And therefore no responsibility to control it or its ammunition. Friends who occasionally may own a gun (in this somewhat rural part of Canada) usually have an old ex- military rifle that their deceased father used to own for occasional moose or other hunting. And these are registered and kept securely locked up. For example I have never seen a Lee Enfield that my good neighbor is said to own and don't expect to!
We notice that many of our southern neighbours are questioning what they feel are increasing restrictions on personal freedoms through your systems of government; both federal, state and city. Also what would appear to be the over-influence of industry lobbyists on elected reps. and government employees. Rather than the wishes of 'ordinary folk'. That's your business except as it occasionally affects us; your biggest trading partner. Also the US passion for owning guns stemming from having an armed militia back some couple of hundred years ago? Rather like Switzerland's reservist army? Again that is your business and none of ours to comment.
But gee! You do have a lot of guns that occasionally spill over the border into Canada.
But it quite evident that fewer guns around leads to less gun violence; criminals can always get and use guns, often illegally imported from the USA. In Canada there are far fewer guns around in private hands for them to steal/get their hands on. Also the illegal (unregistered) possession of a gun, especially hand guns, is a crime in itself. So for a criminal to use a gun at all in the commission of crime becomes much clearer than "My neighbour was being an a**ole so I waved my hand gun at him and unfortunately it went off!"; illegal gun use is considered serious and carries a higher penalty.
We do have trouble spots in a couple of major cities mainly due to gangs. But gun crime and related death rates overall are extremely low.
My high school English teacher hated bumper sticker wisdom, claiming that a short, catchy phrase does not an argument make.
But I still think this says it all:
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
duh...
If that has to be explained to someone, well, then they probably should not be carrying a gun.
Well, there is that little thing called the SECOND AMENDMENT.
Oh, wait, you live in Canadia...nevermind.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.