From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:z4ednQ46xo8eJn_WnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> The Ninth Amendment is not the "anything goes" clause that you and some
> others seem to think it is. The Ninth Amendment is ONLY in there because
> some of the representatives at the convention strongly objected to the
> first eight amendments on the grounds that by listing certain rights they
> might disparage others, and so "enlarge the powers" of the federal
> government, which enlargement they were absolutely against.
>
> These representatives DID NOT WANT a Bill of Rights included in the
> Constitition AT ALL, precisely because for that reason. The Ninth
> Amendment was written to satisfy this objection, and for no other reason.
>
Precisely.....And they were right. Just because some rights were enumerated,
that doesn't mean that all rights in the future had to be enumerated in
order for the constitution to allow, or guarantee them. The right of gays to
marry is, (I claim) such a right. It hurts no one else, so there is no
reason why it shouldn't be allowed. St the time the constitution was
written, marriage was a religious ritual, and so only those who the religion
qualified to engage in it could have it. But since then, our government has
stuck their miserable fingers in the "Marriage pie", and so now it qualifies
as something that any citizen in good standing should have available to
them. Gays qualify.

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:ALWdnWPXY8-yXH_WnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010050522015797157-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-05-05 21:43:14 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:VdCdnVER5Ks0dHzWnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:KP2dnX6auNel9XzWnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4be14ba7$1$7706$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:846dndujn9PbRn3WnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4bdffec6$1$27720$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:feqdnRdL4qPZMELWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons
>>>>>>>>> should be allowed to participate in it. <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In what State are felons not permitted to marry?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>> I was speaking of the general fact that constitutional rights are
>>>>>>> available to all non felons......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that felons lose their
>>>>>> rights. And which rights are you talking about. Aside from possibly
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> under the Second Amendment, which has never been tested?
>>>>>
>>>>> In many (if not most) states, convicted felons lose the right to vote.
>>>>
>>>> Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are
>>>> other
>>>> rights they don't have.
>>>
>>> G. Gordon Liddy had an interesting comment on this. He said that being a
>>> convicted felon (after Watergate) he couldn't own a gun, "but my wife
>>> owns a
>>> gun -- and she keeps it on my side of the bed."
>>
>> That might work in Florida, or Virginia. In California the convicted
>> felon cannot have access to a firearm.
>> ...but I don't think Liddy, or Mrs. Liddy visit California packing.
>
> How exactly would that be enforceable, I wonder?
>
> Suppose you had a large household which included one convicted felon. Then
> none of the perfectly innocent and law-abiding folks there could own a gun
> either? . . . I suppose if they have one of those silly laws about all
> firearms being kept in a locked safe that might take care of it, but then
> again it might not. Logically the key to the gun safe would have to be
> locked up too, and then the key to THAT locked up, and so on ad infinitum.
> "Jane, wake up! There are men breaking in downstairs! Quick, where's the
> key to the key to the key to the . . . "
>
Yes.....the California law is 1. Stupid. and 2. Grossly unconstitutional,
for a variety of reasons. The founding fathers knew and understood that
everyone has the right to protect themselves. It had to take a California
liberal to trash that.

I love the new governor of Arizona....She just signed a bill into law that
gives all citizens the right to carry weapons concealed without any
licensing whatsoever.....It would seem that she can read and interpret the
very plain and easy to understand English of the second amendment. I wonder
why both she and my fifth grade teacher (Mrs. Hughes) can understand simple
English, but the US Supreme court judges can't seem to be able to do it?
Neither can the leaders of the great state of California....:^)

From: Bill Graham on

<nm5k(a)wt.net> wrote in message
news:6de3a290-532c-4c38-a7b5-e94c8d1c5342(a)k19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 5:29 pm, Jeff Jones <jj197109...(a)mailinator.com> wrote:

>
> >Felons don't have the right to own weapons, or vote, and there are other
> >rights they don't have.
>
> Not true. You can still hunt with and own firearms. I spent a season
> camping at a hunter's-camp one time that was owned by felons. We had an
> interesting discussion on what kinds of firearms they are allowed. They
> sold all sorts of fun "toys" in their tourist shop. There are only certain
> types of firearms not allowed. The Bill of Rights applies to EVERYONE. I
> bet a black-powder burn will hurt just as bad if not more as you are
> dying.


I don't think that is right, and I know that there are no distinctions
made between different types of firearms. If you are a felon, and
have not had the rights restored, you can't own ANY firearms.
Period. I think anyone that is telling you otherwise is mistaken.
Not I that I totally agree with it, but that's where it is..
Myself, I think only violent felony offenders should lose their
rights. I don't think it should apply to non violent felons.
But at this time, it does.. :(
I think they should bar violent offenders, but I think non violent
felons should be able to have their rights restored after a
period of time.. Say 5 years good behavior, or whatever.
But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
And besides, being as I'm not a felon, I can own all the guns
I want, and I do own a few. :)


The law is dumb on the face of it.....Any and all felons who need a gun will
own and carry one....That's a given. The only people who won't own and carry
any gun are those poor suckers who are so law abiding that they can't leave
their own houses without carrying a law book like their local preacher
carries his bible.

If you really want to protect yourself from crime, then get yourself a gun,
and learn how to use it, and carry it with you always and wherever you go.
Do this whether you are a convicted felon or not. Or, take your chances with
the suckers of this world who are stupid enough to think the police can
prevent crimes from happening. These people call themselves
"liberals".....:^)

From: J. Clarke on
On 5/6/2010 6:19 PM, nm5k(a)wt.net wrote:
> On May 6, 3:38 pm, "Neil Harrington"<ne...(a)home.com> wrote:
>> n...(a)wt.net wrote:
>>> On May 5, 7:46 pm, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Also in California, convicted felons cannot possess, or have access
>>>> to firearms or ammunition even after completion of parole.
>>
>>> Far as I know, that applies to all 50 states. It's a federal thang..
>>
>> Yep. Every time I bought a handgun at a dealer's, one of the forms I had to
>> fill out was a federal one asking among several other things if I'd ever
>> been convicted of a felony. All the questions on that form had to be
>> answered "No" or the dealer couldn't make the sale.
>>
>
> Now they usually do the deal on the phone. That's what they
> did the last time I bought a new pistol, which was in 2007 or so..
> You fill out the form, and then they call it in over the phone.
> It depends how busy they are, but sometimes they can get the
> "proceed" in one shot on the phone. But they can also need
> more time and put a "hold" on it, and you have to wait.
> In my case, they put me on a "hold", and I had to go home
> and wait. But they called me back first thing the next morning
> and said it was cleared, and I could come get it. It was kind
> of late in the evening when I bought it...
> I hear a lot of people get temporary holds for any number
> of reasons. They can be busy, or you might have something
> on your record that makes them want to do a double check.

There is a Federally mandated instant check system in place.
From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:UIqdneem09FeuH7WnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:hruv1g$brq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:grmdne439N7Lb3_WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>
>>>
>>> I must be missing something here. What on earth is the evil and unlawful
>>> thing about a firearm being colored bright green or bright orange?
>>> (Bright pink would be OK, I suppose?)
>>
>> Toy guns are marked with orange and green plastic, such as a thick orange
>> band around the end of the barrel, so police know the gun is a toy and
>> not to mistakenly fire on someone who is holding a toy. If real weapons
>> were colored like that, the police would then think a real weapon is a
>> toy.
>
> Ah! Now that reminds me of something:
>
> Several years ago a little girl, I think about seven or eight, was
> expelled or suspended for bringing a water pistol to school. I believe
> this was in Chicago but am not sure. There was a video clip of the
> miscreant on TV, and I remember her, near tears, saying "It was just a
> squirt gun," in obvious puzzlement as to why she was being punished in
> this way.
>
> The principal or some other school official was interviewed about it, and
> explained that the punishment was called for because the other children
> might have mistaken it for a real gun and become traumatized, and the
> school had to act to prevent blah blah blah blah.
>
> Then they showed a shot of the offending weapon. It was a little water
> pistol made of orange TRANSLUCENT plastic with some green plastic parts.
> No one but a monumentally stupid, officious pecksniff of a bureaucrat
> could possibly have imagined it something that could have been "mistaken
> for a real gun."
>
> But yes, I guess that actually is the explanation for the orange and green
> business.
>
It's only a question of time before the chemical engineers come up with a
plastic that is translucent and colored bright green or orange, and is
strong and heat resistant as steel and can be used for a gun......(Ford is
working on a plastic automobile engine right now.) Then the liberals will
have to outlaw plastic.....:^)