response 333 of 406:

Oct 29 19:48 UTC 2000

Do these land trusts have some sort of escape clause, if development of
the land later becomes a good thing?  If a formerly rural area were to get
completely surrounded by a growing city, it would seem kind of rediculous to
insist on keeping farms in the middle of it.

response 335 of 406:

Oct 30 02:07 UTC 2000

Drifting back to ACLU vs. NRA, I think the problem (and yes, it IS a
problem) with the ACLU is that they refuse to consider the possibility 
that things might one day get so bad that suits and injunctions will
no longer work.  (I seem to recall that it once was that bad in this
nation, with someone saying something like "The court has made its
judgement; now let the court enforce it."  If it was that bad once...)

If you don't have a fallback strategy for this, you're screwed.  Carl's
point in #318 cannot be ignored.  If the system is so corrupt that
"every cop is a criminal" (eg. Mexico), the individual RKBA is one of
a very few ways to toss the crooks out of power quickly.  Trying to
wrest the RKBA back to an individual-rights interpretation after spending
several decades denying that there is any such thing would be a lot
tougher and require a much worse breakdown of authority to accomplish.
The damage resulting from the loss of public order in such a situation
would be a lot worse than any twenty David Koreshes could manage.

This is another argument for smaller government:  when it breaks, there
is less of it to fix and less of society breaks down with it.

Re #310:  I have no problem with background checks either, in principle.
The problem is that the systems are dishonestly implemented to try to
accomplish more than what they claim, and more than what is right.
One issue is that the gun ban^H^H^Hcontrol constituency wants these
checks to be as drawn-out as possible to try to prevent people from
buying guns (like the right-to-life strategy WRT abortions), and also
set up so that a "failure" in the system shuts down sales (like Brady);
this is unacceptable.  Another is that the systems are set up to record
what is being sold (what difference does it make?), creating a back-door
registration system not authorized by the enabling laws.  A third is that
a hit on the system identifies someone as being a gun buyer.

I would have no difficulty at all with a system which kept all relevant
instant-check related records (for all purposes, not just gun purchases)
on-line, and passed an encrypted version along upon request.  This
database should contain prohibitions relating to guns, driving, substances,
restraining orders, and everything else.  The terminal used to perform the
checks would only have the key to decrypt the part of the record relevant
to the check being performed, and would communicate with the servers via
an anonymizing network.  In other words, the police agencies would not
know why the records were being accessed.  This would protect the privacy
of buyers, would-be employees, and everyone else involved in purchases,
employment, and any other transactions.  It would also prevent the abuses 
that arms-rights advocates have warned of (and sometimes documented).

Since I don't believe for a minute that the gun-confiscationists would
allow the implementation of a system with sufficient safeguards to prevent
the collection of unauthorized data or the abuse of the rest, I am opposed
to background checks.  They are useless, as shown by the fact that criminals
by the thousands get around them easily.  They're a proven waste of money
and law-enforcement resources.  Get rid of them.

response 337 of 406:

Oct 30 12:43 UTC 2000

Janc, if you let the law change based on whim, then we are all screwed. 
Interpretation of the law can cchanged based on what ones defenition of "is"
is.

And constitutional law does not "grant" us any rights.  Rights come before
law, they have been here since before this country was founded.  The
Constitution recognized that as a fact, and if we start granting rights based
on our interpretations, or taking them away, then all is lost.

response 339 of 406:

Oct 30 18:07 UTC 2000

Indeed. Anytime anyone reads and thinks about what's in the Constitution (or
the Bible, for that matter) they're interpreting it. Situations change, and
while the guys who wrote the Constitution were smart guys, they still were just
guys, not gods. So, even were it possible to never interpret the Constitution,
it wouldn't be desireable.

response 341 of 406:

Oct 30 18:44 UTC 2000

We got the idea from the Egytians.

response 343 of 406:

Oct 30 18:56 UTC 2000

But WE don't have even a trace left of thinking the Egyptian Pharoahs
were gods - look how we muck around with their mummies. You would think
the Native Egyptians would object and ask for them back to rebury. All
we got from the Egyptians was the idea to BUILD BIG STUFF.

response 345 of 406:

Oct 30 19:15 UTC 2000

Good point. Is the Washington Monument higher than the Eiffel Tower? And,
if not, why not?

response 349 of 406:

Oct 31 09:33 UTC 2000

You know the problem I have with the 'gun control' advocates?  Its
simple, 'gun control' doesn't work.  It simply doesn't work.  Chicago
has had lots and lots of 'gun control' laws for over a quarter century.
And you know what?  Criminals don't obey the law.  Thats what makes them
criminals!  Duh!  I live in the south side of chicago, an area that for
well over a century has not exactly been noted for being peaceful and
quiet.
I gave away my guns, gave up a nice relaxing hobby when I moved here -
punching holes in defensless pieces of paper - and teaching women how to
defend themselves potentially against bigger stronger threats.  Fine, I
rely on hickory or oak axe handles and if I get really mad arms which
predate firearms (and are probably technically illegal as well - a
42-inch samurai sword probably exceeds the blade limit on 'pocket knife'
the couple of times I have chased a bad guy with one and respectfully
(and thankfully) the various chigagoland police departments sure ignored
my transgressions on those occasions (which they are not stupid, they
knew full well what I 'packed').  

As for firearms, even the local newspapers when they do an "expose'"
over 'gang warfare' (not LCN but street gangs) can come up with an
'arsenal' no more deadly than a couple revolvers and a couple rifles of
design over a century ago - no UZIs, no AK47s - and all with limited
ammunition.  Oh, sure your organized LCN types may dream of having an
UZI, or an 'K' but that is dreams, in reality...., think of the 'mob
hits' you read about, these days it is subsonic .22 with a silencer, not
a machine gun - or in chicagoland a 'car bomb'.  You don't get mob guys
shooting up the street with machine guns.  And in the few (three) times
where you might see a hint of 'automatic weapon's, it is 'churches' that
are mentioned (waco wackos, even if it were suspect as it is).

When the police do a 'gun buy back' what do they get?
Sophisticated and expensive modern weapons?  No, they get 'cheap'
'saturday night specials' - and a vintage 19th century Colt museum piece
thrown in that is worth 50-100K$US or more, but those 'disappear' into
who's ever hands they were lucky enough to notice.  When the 'innocent
citizen' prevents a crime and makes the news what kind of firearm is he
or she armed with?  A "K"?  An "UZI"?  An 900$US S&W?  No, he or she is
armed with a cheap 'saturday night special' which is all he or she can
afford and which incidently does the trick rather well for its cost. 
All the more reason *not* to ban 'saturday might specials' - doing so
descriminates against the poor and honest citizens.

I used to own a 'saturday night special', a brazilian 'knock off' of the
S&W .38 'police chief special', nickle finish (stain and finger print
resistant- oh yeah, they've had those for decades - you didn't want to
spoil the finish of the gun).  That Taurus, now on the banned list I am
told was a really good deal at less than 100$US imported even with lots
of markup.  You could even load 5 .357 cut back custom loads instead for
better stopping power. ;hammerless' - thus not to get caught if you had
to put it into action while drawing it from a pocket - or a purse. It
was the prefered weapon of the Philadelphia PD 'undercover' and
'detectives' branches - if you shot some mope you just substitued spend
.38 shell casings.  I never figured that one out, the USARMY developed
the .45 to perform better against the Moro bad guys in the philipines
almost a century ago, better than the .38 but restricted domestic police
for so long- to this day in fact the FBI with its 10mm are better armed
but do so less good than many police departments (and take credit for
same).  Thank goodness the poorly trained police now 'pack' 9's with
14 shots instead of six to substitute for poor marksmanship and
training.

Crime is down, murders are down, more restrictive 'gun control' laws
have nothing to do with it. Clinton/Gore has nothing to do with it.  The
Brady Bill has nothing to do with it. The NRA has nothing to do with it
nor probably do 'carry laws' in some states although they may have an
inpact of the measured increase of the decrease and may have had an
effect on the initial increase were they then in place.  The reduction
in crime is simply a result of the decreased population of criminals. 
Nothing more, nothing less.  (and some would suggest that Roe-v-Wade had
a significant impact on the number of criminals as well)  Its called
'population demographics'.  Criminals prey on the helpless, the extent
you are not, the extent you are not a victim.

Politicians prey on the gullible, 'the sky will fall' if bush/gore is
elected...Pick your poison, I am tempted to vote for Nader me self
(shocking as it might be, me being a registered republican who votes for
mostly democrats these days....) ( I hate 'big government' with a
passion.)  I have no idea who whats-her-name will vote for, I think she
is gonna vote for Bush as she is a Texas Democrat...

go figure.

response 351 of 406:

Oct 31 21:14 UTC 2000

Democrat vs Republican

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost.  He reduced altitude and
spotted a woman below.  He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, 
can you help me?  I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, 
but I don't know where I am."

The woman replied, "You are in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet
above the ground.  You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and
between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

"You must be a republican," said the balloonist. 

"I am," replied the woman.  "How did you know?" 

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact
is I am still lost.  Frankly, you've not been much help so far."

The woman below responded.  "You must be a democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you are going.
You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.
You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to
solve your problem.  The fact is you are in exactly the same position you
were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

response 353 of 406:

Oct 31 22:35 UTC 2000

I liked it better when it was about Microsoft tech support.

response 355 of 406:

Nov 1 08:37 UTC 2000

The need for a "professional" army became clear as early as the war of
1812.  A more interesting question is why do we need to be the world's
police force and arms dealer?