From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:s_mdnZbJPeGdOH7WnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "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
>
> It's stupid enough; I don't know that it's unconstitutional.
>
>> 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
>
> I love her too. Wish we had more governors like her, not to mention
> congresscritters.
>
>> 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?
>
> Easy now. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't made any all-encompassing rulings
> on the Second Amendment, but what they've done in recent years has been
> pretty good. They threw out the Washington D.C. handgun ban, don't forget.
> If we got more justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas we'd be in
> good shape. Obviously we're not going to get any more decent justices
> while The Anointed One is in the White House, but the current and
> soon-to-be Senate may be able to prevent any more Sotomayors.
>
>> Neither can the leaders of the
>> great state of California....:^)
>
> The Left Coast is hopeless I think, not even salvageable. We probably
> should give California back to Mexico, which it seems to have effectively
> become part of anyway. Among other benefits giving it back would much
> improve the electoral college.
>
The problem with that is that the left coast has the nicest climate in the
whole country.....After being born and raised on the East coast, and
spending 17 miserable Summers there, finding the Pacific coast was like
going to heaven. I hate the political climate, but I am still unable to
leave it. When California became intolerable, I moved to Oregon, and the
senior citizens up here are politically in pretty close alignment with me,
so I will probably end up staying here.....But the California philosophy is
creeping up here, and things are getting politically worse and worse. I am
sure they will start a sales tax in the next 10 years of so. (for example)
When I speak out against it to anyone less than 50 years old, I can see
their eyes glass over, and I know they can't understand a word I say.....:^)

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:t_qdnWhr5LiusXnWnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010050621330636579-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-05-06 20:50:11 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:npd6u55qd9evqup3mdk0v3vdunr1g8tc6s(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 13:57:29 -0400, "Peter"
>>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:in64u5tiqur9h2uv1u9i6ghhva04get663(a)4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't buy that, and I'm a liberal on social issues. The two
>>>>>>>> criminals should be treated equally. The reason they committed a
>>>>>>>> criminal act of this type is not relevant to them becoming a
>>>>>>>> convicted
>>>>>>>> felon. It may be relevant to the sentence, but not the conviction
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> resulting status of a convicted felon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree. I don't think I said the circumstances I outlined should be
>>>>>>> considered on the question of whether a crime was comitted. But,
>>>>>>> circumstances certainly should be relevant in the determination of
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>> certain rights should be restored, which was the context of my
>>>>>>> comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't agree there, either. A person is, or is not, a convicted
>>>>>> felon. Certain crimes are designated as felonies. We don't need
>>>>>> another layer of government to decide if this convicted felon should
>>>>>> or should not be treated differently from that convicted felon.
>>>>>
>>>>> If circumstances of the crime have a bearing on sentencing why should
>>>>> they
>>>>> not have bearing on restoration of privelleges.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Who is going to decide?
>>>>
>>>> 2. The sentencing is set before the felon goes to jail. Any
>>>> restoration of privileges has be determined after the felon is
>>>> released and is off parole and probation and based partially on the
>>>> person's behavior while incarcerated and on parole or probation. This
>>>> means the setting up of some sort of review board that does not
>>>> presently exist.
>>>
>>> I should think at least the preliminary work could be done as part of
>>> the
>>> parole process. Whatever they need to consider during that, should have
>>> some
>>> bearing on the question of restoration of rights later.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most states are having trouble with the current budget in providing
>>>>>> court personnel. There's no room in the budget to hire people to
>>>>>> evaluate convicted felons about whether or not they get the vote,
>>>>>> right to sit on a jury, or ability to run for public office.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see budget as an excuse.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is. I don't know about your state, but my state is
>>>> cutting back vital services because of budget problems. Everything
>>>> from schools to the court system to emergency services is being cut
>>>> back because of budget problem.
>>>
>>> Unless your state is very unusual, I'll bet there's still an awful lot
>>> of
>>> waste after all the cutbacks.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The last thing we want to do is add a government department to review
>>>> the voting rights status of ex-felons. There is a system already in
>>>> place whereby the convicted felon can apply for reinstatement. Let
>>>> the felon initiate the process instead of making the government handle
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> I agree with that, but if the felon initiates the process the government
>>> still has to "handle it," doesn't it?
>>
>> BTW. The standard California conditions of parole with regard to weapons
>> are:
>>
>> "5. WEAPONS: You shall not own, use, have access to, or have under your
>> control:
>> (a) any type of firearm or instrument or device which a reasonable person
>> would believe to be capable of being used as a firearm or any ammunition
>> which could be used in a firearm:
>> (b) any weapon as defined in state or federal statutes or listed in
>> California Penal Code Section 12020 or any instrument or device which a
>> reasonable person would believe to be capable of being used as a weapon
>> as defined in Penal Code Section 12020;
>> (c) any knife with a blade longer than two inches, except kitchen knives
>> which must be kept in your residence and knives related to your
>> employment which may be used and carried only in connection with your
>> employment;
>> or (d) a crossbow of any kind."
>
> Great, that will sure put a stop to all these crossbow murders.
>
> Actually, we did have one right here in my small city (which has very,
> very few murders of any kind) several years ago. A woman put a bolt into
> her husband's head while he was sleeping. I assume the crossbow she used
> was his, since I don't think most women have much interest in that type of
> weapon.
>
Any woman could kill any sleeping person with an axe, too.....I wonder why
the liberals don't outlaw axes? Many years ago, in California, I went down
to my local service station to get some Kerosene, which they previously
sold. The guy told me that it was no longer available.....It had been
outlawed. I should have seen the handwriting on the wall then and left that
State, but it took another 30 years of creeping stupidity before I got that
message.

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:AfydncVLYOrRp3nWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:VcudneKJ7fsjOH7WnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:8dqdna1Y_8XUB37WnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
>>>
>>> In New England gun laws vary a lot from one little state to the next.
>>> Massachusetts and Rhode Island are very tough about guns, Connecticut
>>> has been getting tough, the other three states are generally pretty
>>> relaxed.
>>>
>> IIRC, in New York City, you couldn't even own a gun in your own home
>> during the years I lived there....(from 1935 to 1952) Judging from how
>> liberal they are there, I doubt if the law has changed at all......Bernie
>> Goetz doesn't even live there anymore.....
>
> When I was a kid on Long Island (1930 to 1945) most of the kids I knew had
> guns in their homes, sometimes many guns. Whether they were legal or not I
> don't know, but if not it didn't matter much as there was none of the
> anti-gun hysteria we've had since the '60s.
>
> In those days there was still the big Bannerman's store in NYC. Are you
> familiar with Bannerman's? They sold all sorts of arms, armor, ammunition,
> uniforms, etc., picked up from the battlefields of the world or bought
> cheap from governments that were upgrading their equipment and selling off
> their old stuff. Bannerman's had a huge catalog and all sorts of stuff in
> the store, and a lot more on Bannerman's private island in the Hudson.
> They had everything from suits of armor and lances to sabers, cannon and
> Gatling guns. And a great deal of Civil War equipment.
>
> A friend of mine (about 15 at the time) went in to the city and at
> Bannerman's bought a Joslyn single-shot carbine, a Civil War weapon that
> took the same .56 rimfire cartridges as the Spencer repeating carbine of
> the period. He also bought an original pack of seven cartridges (that was
> the magazine capacity of the Spencer). We took the Joslyn out to a nearby
> meadows to try it out. The 80-year-old cartridges still went off with a
> satisfying boom and cloud of black-powder smoke, and hit the old sign he'd
> picked as a target about 100 yards away. Gun and cartridges had only cost
> him a few dollars. Of course he had to carry them home via subway and then
> the L.I.R.R. -- nobody cared about such things in those days; high school
> and college students on rifle teams in the city used to carry their target
> rifles on the subway.
>
> Alas, I guess we will never see such days again. It was a much better and
> more innocent time.
>
Yes. When my brother-in-law (who was about my age) was a kid, he would take
his 22 rifle down to the bus stop, and take the bus to the outskirts of
town, and hunt for squirrels for a few hours, and then bring them home and
have his mom cook them up for dinner. Today, the bus driver would phone the
police and he would be busted for any of about a half dozen infractions of
the local laws before he would even be able to get on the bus....

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:vbKdnZiRRrAaonnWnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> news:a5-dnRbaBoOvPH7WnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 16:25:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>> <never(a)home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You really can be an idiot at times. Do a Google search for
>>>> "colored guns". Real guns that look like toy water pistols are for
>>>> sale. Would you know these were real?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.doobybrain.com/2008/03/23/the-bloomberg-collection-real-guns-painted-to-look-like-toys/
>>>
>>> I love it. Bloomberg is a jerk and so are you.
>>>
>>> During a citizens' course at the local police department they showed
>>> a water pistol (actually a faithful plastic copy of the Beretta
>>> Model 86) that had been spray painted matte black, the apparent
>>> reason being to make it suitable for use in a hold-up. Now that
>>> makes sense, a pretend-real gun.
>>>
>>> I can't see much real point to doing the reverse, making a real gun
>>> into a pretend-toy gun, but that evidently was not Lauer's reason
>>> for the paint jobs anyway.
>>>
>>> Anything that annoys Bloomberg is fine with me, whatever the
>>> motivation.
>> Of course, you know the real reason for this toy gun business, don't
>> you? In 1933 John Dillinger escaped from prison by using a toy gun,
>> or one that he made himself by carving it out of a bar of soap or
>> some such thing, and they are still so mad about that that they will
>> make toy guns illegal for the rest of time....:^)
>
> They would if they could. And even a toy gun isn't necessary to attract
> the wrath of the anti-gun loonies. Some time ago I saw in the news that a
> little kid in grammar school had been suspended for playing cops 'n'
> robbers or something during recess. He said "Bang! Bang!" while pointing a
> forefinger at a kid he was playing with -- HORRORS! -- that sort of
> behavior simply cannot be tolerated!
>
Hummmm.....I wonder why they didn't confiscate his forefinger?

From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
news:CsednYVA5t0C3HnWnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2010-05-06 22:28:29 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Left Coast is hopeless I think, not even salvageable. We
>>> probably should give California back to Mexico, which it seems to
>>> have effectively become part of anyway. Among other benefits giving
>>> it back would much improve the electoral college.
>>
>> Noooooooo!
>> My Spanish is terrible to nonexistent. My Spanglish is
>> uninterpretable.
>
> Some provision should be made. I have a nephew on the Left Coast, and I
> wouldn't want him subjected to the total Mexicization of California
> either. But really, what are the state's prospects? Leftist-liberals and
> unions seem to be succeeding in turning the state, for all its wealth and
> other blessings, into an economic basket case.
>
One of the saddest facts of my life is that all the people I like live in
Arizona, which has a climate I can't stand, and all the people I hate, live
on the West coast, which has the climate I love....Fortunately, I have found
a group of conservative friends here in Oregon, so life is tolerable, and I
am rapidly getting too old to care, anyway.