In article <b04g54$2f1$1@bent.twistedbits.net> you wrote:
: Then again, the situation I described was in Canada not the States. We're
: not communist yet are we? But I imagine it is the right of the company to
: manage their risk. My problem wasn't that they denied insurance, but that
: they ignored information provided by us and the local government ministry
: that said it was legal and SAFE.
: On the gun issue, I never said anything about guns. Just enough gunpowder to
: make a really cool pyrotechnics display.
Just to clarify, Adam was referring to the original post, where Amica
cancelled a policy simply because the policy holder owned a gun.
: Have you heard about our latest gov't boondoggle? A 2 million dollar gun
: registry program has now cost us over 1 billion dollars and there is
: significant resistance and non-compliance. They keep quoting bogus numbers
: on how many lives have been saved. Most of the benefit (they even admit
: themselves) has been gun-owner registration, and we already had that. Every
: time someone gets shot here it they point out how the gun registry would
: have saved that life. MOST of the shootings are done by illegally imported
: handguns from the US. While I don't disagree with the registry in principle
: (after all I register my vehicles) I do take issue with their reasoning for
: implementing it. That is, that it will stop killings by gunshot. I can make
: the leap to their logical fallacy.
Indeed. Unfortunately I don't have a source to back up the following
info, but I believe it - maybe someone in the know can confirm or deny it;
There is a big push on here in the US for ballistic fingerprinting,
supposedly as a way to reduce crime - it is actually yet another disguised
gun registration attempt. Anyway, the statistic I am referring to is
I believe Canada has had ballistic fingerprinting for something like 20
years now, and it has yet to solve a single crime. Sure did do a good
job of letting the gov't know where to go to collect the handguns of law
abiding citizens though! Strangely enough, the criminal element did not
bother to register their handguns. ;-)
: Every person I've met who is rabidly anti gun has never used one or had a
: use for one. Therefore, no one else can have a use for one. This may not be
: true, fits with all the people I've met.
That probably covers the majority of them - but there are also some
who are worse - the hypocrites! For example, Rosie O'Donnell who is
vehemently anti-gun, yet required her bodyguard to get a concealed
carry permit to guard her son. (Oh, I get it, only the rich and famous
are allowed to own guns? Wouldn't want the peasants running around with
the things, would we?) There was also an interesting tidbit in the
latest "Concealed Carry" magazine about the current state of CCW laws
in the various states. In CA, which does not have a "shall issue" law,
you have to prove a need in order to get a CCW; in the bay area there
are a total of 6 CCW permits that were granted, most were to board
members, and one is "a certain United States Senator, one of the
most vehemently anti-gun politicians on Capitol Hill today". The Senator
isn't mentioned by name, so I guess it is referring to either
dianne feinstein or barbara boxer, both of which are anti-gun. Anti-gun
for *everyone else* it would seem. Its one thing to be ignorant of the
facts and trying to push an agenda, but being a hypocrite really drops
you down a few more levels, IMHO. It shows you either don't even care
about your own agenda and are merely using it to usurp political power,
or you consider US citizens to be ignorant peasants, a lower class that
you need to protect from themselves, or you are attempting to disarm the
nation in order to create a pure socialist state. IMHO, if you are going
to take a stance and try to take away people's rights to own a gun, at
least have the decency to NOT OWN A GUN YOURSELF!
Hmmmmm, not to be a hypocrite myself, I suppose if we want to
discuss this much further, we should move it over to the dmlofftopic
list. I'll take the initiative and crosspost this there.
: Dak content: When I transported gunpowder in Ontario in significant
: quantities (I can't remember what constitutes significant), I needed to
: display the orange '1.3' explosive diamond on the truck. People would come
: up real fast do a little tailgating then fall WAAAY back when they saw the
: sticker.
Heh heh heh! Where can I get one of those? ;-)
---Jon-
.---- Jon Steiger ------ jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com ------. | I'm the: AOPA, DoD, EAA, NMA, NRA, SPA, USUA. Rec & UL Pilot - SEL | | 70 Cuda, 90 Dak 'vert, 92 Ram 4x4, 96 Dak, 96 Intruder 1400, 96 FireFly | `------------------------------------------ http://www.jonsteiger.com ----'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:45:43 EST