Re: [usa-tesla] MORE negative resistance?
- See ===>> below
David Knaack wrote:
>===>> So far, the kid has NOT been asked by those in charge. This
> From: Jim Farrer <jfarrer@...>
> > David Knaack wrote:
> > > Should they have been pointing the weapon at anyone? I don't
> > > know what the policy is, but I'd expect them to want to point
> > > it in order to keep people subdued, confused and suprised, to
> > > make them easier to control.
> > You missed the entire point, IMHO. The point was the one Janet
> > Reno SWORE that no guns were ever pointed at any people.
> That was a pretty stupid thing for her to say, unless she had
> personally observed the operation with her own little, beady
> > > >From what I'd heard, a court made a decision that the boy
> > > be returned, the family did not return him after a couple weeks,
> > > so he was removed by force. I don't see any problem at this
> > What court was this? The appellate court really reamed out the
> > administration for Not Following The Laws of This country in many
> > instances. Said that the boy should be consulted, and reamed out
> > INS for deciding the boy was unable to talk cogently without ever
> > having seen the boy.
> No idea, just an unsuppored piece of info related to me by
> someone who had an opinion on it. I'm glad to hear that
> the courts made an intelligent decision in this case.
> > > Should he be returned to his father? I dunno, as far as I am
> > > concerned he is plenty old enough to make the decision for
> > > Ask him who he wants to live with, put him there, then leave
> > > him alone.
> > I heard this but once on one talk show (not El Rushbo) Don't know
> > how true it is: The boy was born out of wedlock. The parents
> > never married. For an entire 3 yr. period, the father never once
> > visited the boy. The father now seems to be married to another
> > woman, and has 2 new children. We should 'return' the kid to
> > (He was neve there).
> If the kid would rather live with his father and his family
> I don't see why we should stop him.
is one of the major contentions.
>===>> Why does it *matter*? Because it illustrates the rank
> > > I think guns should be registered to an owner, and that
> > > owner punished (fined?) for accidental damage done with the gun,
> > > regardless of if it was lost or stolen.
> > THIS JUST IN (Mon. evening, 8:15 PM): 2 gangs of kids faced each
> > other at the National Zoo, then got into a shooting match, 3 taken
> > to a local Wash. D.C. Hospital, all 3 deemed critical condition.
> A 14
> > yr. old girl, two 16 yr. old boys. In all 8 kids injured, 6 by
> > gunfire.
> > 1. How many of these kids knew the gun laws (ANY 1 of the
> Why does it matter? Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
stupidity of the gun laws in general.
>===>> I'm talking about *reality*: most of the guns these kids and
> > 2. How many kids got their guns form their parent? (so that
> > said parent could be held accountable). GREAT law.
> IMO, both the registered owner of the gun and the person doing
> the shooting should be held accountable. The owner for not
> maintinging control of a deadly weapon, and the shooter for
> assult (or whatever).
other criminals have are illegal, and cannot be traced.
>===>> Once more, you missed my point. There is no mention of a gun
> > 3. Please, *puhleeze* feed me your proposed gun law wording
> > which will handle this situation. Or any other illicit
> > gun use.
> I'm not a lawyer, but in the event that a registered weapon
> was used in a crime of some sort, the owner would be subject
> to a fine (on the order of $10,000 or so I guess, perhaps
> depending on ability to pay, since a $10,000 fine would be
> nothing to folks with lots of money) and revocation of his
> license. The license could be regained once by applying again,
> and paying the standard fees and taking the standard classes.
> If lost again the revocation would be permanent and posession
> of a gun by the individual would be a felony, punishable by
> imprisonment for no less than one year. This would not apply
> to the use of weapons on firing ranges or in organized shooting
> competition, as long as the individual did not leave the area
> with the weapon (basicly, they would reqire professional
> supervision when operating a firearm, since they will have
> shown that they are not capable of maintaining control over
> the weapon).
> Obviously a law of this type would encourage the develompent
> of weapons that can positivly identify their owner, and only
> be operated by that owner. If such a weapon were stolen and
> the identfication device defeated and the weapon used to
> commit a crime, it could possably be argued sucessfully that
> the owner was not liable because he had taken reasonable
> precautions to secure the weapon.
> > 4. Regardless of whether it's lost or stolen? My car is
> > I'm thrown out on the street, and maybe shot. The car is used to
> > hold up a 7 Eleven. And you want ME held resoponsible?
> Yup, failure to maintain control of a weapon. If you are going
> to carry around a device of which the primary design is to kill
> or injure, you damn well better be prepaired to make sure that
> it isn't used against you or others without your consent. If you
> don't think you can maintain control of it, perhaps you should
> carry a pepper spray or something similar.
in my example. I'm considering a parallel example of a person
who had his car violently stolen; said car used in a holdup of a
7 Eleven (the thieves provided their own guns; then should we hold
the car owner responsible because his car was used in the crime?
No Way Jose, or even Hosey. I think this parallel example would
be used in determining the constitutionality of such a new gun law.
>===>> I fully believe that the government has, in the last 30 or 40
> > > Disarming the law abiding citizens is a dumb idea, IMO. You
> > > end up with criminals that know that their victims are unarmed.
> > >
> > > Kind of like banks posting 'no carry' signs.
> > (((Almost as effective as the 'Drug Free Zone' signs around our
> > schools.)))
> heh, some of the people in my high school class had great fun
> chilling out under the 'Drug Free Zone' sign, while they passed
> around a joint during lunch. Had they been amiable to the idea,
> I'd have loved to get a photo of it, but they had some kind of
> aversion to the idea of photographic evidence :)
> > > In short, guns are not the problem, violence is. Removing guns
> > > won't make people less violent, it will just move guns to the
> > > black-market and give you criminals that kill in more creative
> > I believe one of the most basic problems here is total lack of the
> > Sanctity Of Life (most especially, including such a person's
> > own life).
> I agree, although that seems to go along with what I would
> consider a larger issue of a lack of an ethical standard
> that is compatible with what people ought to have.
years, quite thoroughly taken over the morals of this contry, and
kicked the living daylights out of the ones we Americans held dear
for so many wonderful years. The Church has been quite effectively,