HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:


The Constitution hasn't had a problem so far keeping up with
techinology.
Along with rights go responsibilities. I seriously doubt those who
pack heat fully understand the dangers of firing bullets in an
airliner cabin.


Ever heard of frangible ammunition? It's issued to sky marshals.
Yes, but how many of those who would carry weapons on a flight would
have that loaded in their weapons?

:: Waving Hands ::


More likely steel-jacketed, teflon coated, pierce anything cartridges....

Nope. First two clips (10mm, S&W 1076) are loaded with Silvertip
Glasers (or equivalent) 3 up then 4 hydroshocks to follow. In-chamber
round is always a Silvertip Glaser (or equivalent). Third & fourth
clips are hydroshocks & fmj [respecitvely], just in case.

I'm not interested in penetrating car doors, I'm interested in putting
the bad guy down. Permanently. I'll take glasers or the equivalent
any day for doing that at the close range I'm probably ever going to
need them at. I've seen the difference in body damage one can make.
Longer range, I'd have time to switch clips while ducking behind
something.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article , Deep Reset
wrote:

"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ron
Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Bill Funk
wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:45:57 -0800, "William Graham"

wrote:


irrelevant junk snipped

Stick to the parameters of the original discussion, and quit escalating


Pentax?

further irrelevant junk snipped


Touché. :^)

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
In "William Graham"
wrote:

Oh, you can be sure that every Iraqi citizen, as well as every human
being that was even near the Iraqi border, who died from the inception
of the war, from any cause, can be laid directly on the shoulders of
George W. bush.....That's the, "presidential responsibility rule",
isn't it?


Really?

The Americans were actually responsible for the NAZI holocaust in WW-II?

I had no idea.

Whoops! - I left out a word....it's the "Republican Presidential
Responsibility Rule"......

"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Pudentame wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:


Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan depended
on
physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings.


To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the hijackers
out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the
courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew.

We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for
security. Surprisingly
we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found the
balance
between freedom and security.

We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we
have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it looks
kind of a lopsided exchange.

One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit!
As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before
2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not
carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no one
forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted
as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security
approached what you see on an airliner.

Ever heard of the 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



A search's "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment generally
depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued
upon probable cause. [U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83)].

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy
interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such
intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.'
[Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2]'

'Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has
stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement
for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' [Chambers v.
Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70)].'

'[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our
society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as
mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in
human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid
any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be
obtained.' [Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70].'

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in
the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v.
Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket
patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was
probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that
the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police
discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the
unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of
baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

Yes, but one might argue that entering an airplane could be contingent upon
the individual agreeing to give up his 4th amendment rights, and allow a
search to take place.....Sort of like if I gave a private party in my house,
and told everyone that they aren't invited unless they agree to be
searched.....Do the airlines have the right to force their customers to give
up their 4th amendment rights? And, if not, then why not?

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Bill Funk wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:45:00 -0800, "William Graham"

wrote:

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:
"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..
But how about having the ability to distill in in your garage?
Freedom from all those nasty gasoline taxes? Who would know
exactly how much you distilled? - And/or whether you drank what
you didn't burn?

Good idea, however you will most likely be required to purchase
some sort of tax stamp from the ATF.
Possibly from the state for road taxes.
Used to be ATF, now it's TTB - Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau.

http://www.ttb.gov/industrial/alcoho...egs_laws.shtml

If you divert any of it to drinking, you stand to lose your permit
to manufacture fuel alcohol.
Yeah.....Like they're really going to know that........I claim that
such stills will eliminate the federal taxes on alcohol
altogether.....Even in a liberal's wildest dreams, he can't come up
with any way to enforce that law....:^)
Actually, trying to put a still in everyone's garage will mean
automating he still operation.
This means storage of the raw materials, malting facilities (we would
need to use the cheapest stock, meaning it would have to be malted),
the grinder, the feeders, the still itself, the condensor, the
storage.
Since it would need to be automated, it's easy to require that all
steps be monitored (they would need to be anyway, or economy and
operation go out the window), and records kept.
Presto!

And someone would need to convince your neighbors that something that
explosive would be safe in their neighborhood.
There's no way to monitor that now....Meth labs blow up and start fires
regularly......
Yes, as do natural gas leaks (which is one reason I DON'T have natural
gas to my house). After my second life experience with natural gas and
its hazards, I had it cut off.

You too, huh? - My house is, "all electric". A few years back the gas
company would have installed NG for free, provided I bought two major gas
appliances. I love cooking on gas stoves, so that would have been one,
and installing a gas clothes dryer would have made two, and I already had
one of those sitting in storage......So, I considered taking up their
offer, but I decided that the comfort of knowing that a gas leak wouldn't
kill me in the middle of the night was worth sticking with
electricity......
When I was about 6, my mother asked me to see if the oven was hot (back
then, that meant opening it and checking the over thermometer). When I
opened the door, the gas inside got the oxygen it needed, and I was 'flash
burned' in the face. Lost all my eyebrows, eyelashes, much of my hair,
and got 1st degree burns on my face. Then a few years ago, I was sitting
watching TV and heard a 'POP' from the direction of the wall furnace.
Pieces of burning insulation from the thermostat wiring were blown out
onto the carpet. I quickly stomped them out, went outside and turned off
the gas, and it has been off since.

I have never felt that an open flame in the house was a safe idea.

Nor I....Especially if you've got pets or kids around....I've got no kids,
but we have four cats in the house.....Now, if I could just keep my wife
from lighting all those candles..........

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
news:f4-things.......

Most of the newer rural roads (and certainly ALL those as wide as the
road you were talking about driving on) in Texas have both reflectors,
and a reflective white line on the edge of the road. Some older county
roads don't.
I found Oregon roads to be quite decent, but was mostly on Hwy 84, and
the roads around Mt. Hood.

Yes.....Our major highways aren't much of a problem, and neither are our
city streets. I have no trouble driving a mile to the super from my house
when I need a loaf of bread or something.....the places that I can't
drive are the back country county maintained roads that are in between
those extremes....These roads are downright dangerous.....Not just
because of lighting, but other things, like one classic example about 30
miles West of my house, where the road has a sign that says, "passing
lane - one mile" Exactly one mile later, the road expands into two lanes,
but the right lane (100 yards further on) is a right turn only lane, and
leads you off the road, altogether! Just beyond that point is the road
expansion for passing purposes! They won't change it unless someone gets
killed there, which hasn't happened yet, apparently.......
Back country roads (called county roads here because they are county
maintained) can vary from nice, to dirt. Worse, most of them were laid
out following a drunk cow. One is sometimes in danger of running into his
own back bumper. Grin.
Driving on them at night is not an exercise for the person who is not
familiar with the specific area.

Yes, but familiarity with the road is a two edged sword......People tend to
overdrive their headlights (vision) when they are on a road they are
familiar with, and they could hit a pedestrian, or animal on such a road
just as easily as they could on an unfamiliar road. When I am driving close
to my house at night, I drive exceptionally slow, even though I am familiar
with the road....We have a lot of pedestrians here that don't wear
reflective clothing at night, and I would hate to run over a cat or dog,
too......

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 19:22:50 -0700, "Barry"
wrote:

You should have a plaque made up for your desk: "Usenet Winner!"
You know the old saying. Winning an argument on USENET is like winning
in
the special olympics, even though you won, you're still a retard.
Especially when you only won because the other retard shot himself in
the foot :-)

I drink in a pleasant, quiet club where many of the other members are
ex-services. They tend to conservative attitudes, and can get quite
boring on multi-cultural issues. Just once, a discussion ended with
"..hey, I'd never thought of it that way! Maybe I'd got it wrong". I
suppose that must SOMETIMES happen on usenet? :-)

Yes......Except that my essential point, that the roads are unsafe, and
could be greatly improved, wasn't (and isn't) "wrong" as you put
it.....So why should I "admit that I'm wrong" to you? You certainly
haven't done anything or added anything useful to the discussion of that
point, have you? - All you've done is harp on me for wanting (and
needing, on a personal level) to drive somewhere at night.
Nope, not for wanting, or needing, but for DOING.

Lets put it this way.....I am the only person who is completely familiar
with my own inadequacies and abilities. I have been driving for hundreds of
thousands of miles, over a 50+ year period, and have never had an accident.
There is a reason for this.....I don't overdrive my abilities, and only I
can know exactly what those are. I am approaching a stage in my life where
driving anywhere at night, even at a very slow speed is going to be
impossible, so I would like to see some improvement in the road
lighting....Apparently you guys don't agree.....Which is your right.....But
don't tell me that I am driving dangerously......Only I can know that, and I
don't drive dangerously. - Never have, and I never will......

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:01:22 -0500, "Michael Benveniste"
wrote:


You're wishing for still another law which would violate the First
Amendment? How ironic. John Adams would be proud.

Sure, if necessary. Why not?
It's foolish to keep harping on the letter of the Constitution. It's
required modification, and has been modified.

I certainly don't mind modifying the Constitution....The method for doing
this is outlined in the document itself....What I object to is redefining
the English language in order to make the document mean something that its
drafters never meant for it to mean, and thereby usurping the method
outlined in the document for modification.

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Pudentame wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:

Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan depended on
physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings.

To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the hijackers
out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the
courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew.

We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for
security. Surprisingly
we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found the
balance
between freedom and security.
We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we
have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it looks
kind of a lopsided exchange.
One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit!
As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before
2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not
carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no one
forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted
as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security
approached what you see on an airliner.

Ever heard of the 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



A search's "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment generally
depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued
upon probable cause. [U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83)].

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy
interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such
intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.'
[Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2]'

'Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has
stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement
for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' [Chambers v.
Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70)].'

'[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our
society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as
mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in
human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid
any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be
obtained.' [Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70].'

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in
the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v.
Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket
patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was
probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that
the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police
discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the
unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of
baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

That applies only to involuntary searches. You don't HAVE to be
searched at the airport. You are completely free to leave, or never to
have gone there in the first place.

Again, involuntary searches, only, are affected by the 4th amendment.

William Graham wrote:
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Pudentame wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:

Locked solid cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11 the plan depended
on
physical control of the airplane. The same controls hijackings.

To some extent, but there's evidence that at least one of the hijackers
out of Logan was dressed in a pilot's uniform and was "extended the
courtesy" of riding in the cockpit by the flight crew.

We collectively have given up a lot of freedoms in exchange for
security. Surprisingly
we critisize countries for oppression that may actually have found the
balance
between freedom and security.
We have collectively given up a lot of freedom. I don't see where we
have indeed have received security in return. From where I sit it looks
kind of a lopsided exchange.
One would need MUCH more that a uniform to get into the cockpit!
As for giving up freedoms relative to flying now, as opposed to before
2001, just what freedoms? You mean taking off your shoes, or not
carrying a pocket knife is an 'essential freedom' to you? Still, no one
forces you to fly, there are other means of transport not so restricted
as to what you can carry. Although on a recent cruise, the security
approached what you see on an airliner.
Ever heard of the 4th amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



A search's "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment generally
depends on whether the search was made pursuant to a warrant issued
upon probable cause. [U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701 ('83)].

'An essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy
interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such
intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.'
[Skinner, 489 U.S. at 421-2]'

'Except in certain narrowly limited cases, the Court repeatedly has
stated its 'insist[ence] upon probable cause as a minimum requirement
for a reasonable search permitted by the Constitution.' [Chambers v.
Moreny, 399 U.S. 42, 51 ('70)].'

'[t]he integrity of an individual's person is a cherished value in our
society,' searches that invade bodily integrity cannot be executed as
mere fishing expeditions to acquire useful evidence: 'The interests in
human dignity and privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects forbid
any such intrusions on the mere chance that desired evidence might be
obtained.' [Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 772, 769-70].'

Blanket searches are unreasonable, however 'evenhanded' they may be, in
the traditional criminal law enforcement context. See, e.g., Ybarra v.
Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91-2, 92 n.4 ('79) (invalidating a blanket
patdown search of all patrons in a tavern, even though there was
probable cause to search the bartender and the premises). The ill that
the Fourth Amendment prevents is not merely the arbitrariness of police
discretion to single out individuals for attention, but also the
unwarranted domination and control of the citizenry through fear of
baseless but 'evenhanded' general police searches.

Yes, but one might argue that entering an airplane could be contingent upon
the individual agreeing to give up his 4th amendment rights, and allow a
search to take place.....Sort of like if I gave a private party in my house,
and told everyone that they aren't invited unless they agree to be
searched.....Do the airlines have the right to force their customers to give
up their 4th amendment rights? And, if not, then why not?


Forced? In what way. One can always just walk away from that search.