Pro-Gun / Hunting Thread

[susiedriver]

Danny,

Sorry I'm not about to give you my name, or the names of my friends. Suffice it to say, it is fact. Like I said. I know of at least three driver/driver marriages (other than my own), and a few driver/clerk, driver/PT marriages. I also know of a number of mgmnt/hourly marriages, and in those cases, one had to resign.

Your friends should hire the best attorney in the State and sue, if that was the real reason one of them quit. Maybe they're just 'quitters'.


Oh, and I'm pretty sure taking pictures of dead combantants and distributing them is against the law; those silly Geneva Conventions, especially the fourth one.

 

[wkmac]

we have Delay, Frist and Rove all involved in possible criminal probes.

Concerning that statement and porn could you have comedic fun with that or what!

"Rove" took no "Delay" to "Frist" his probe while out looking for "Bush".

 

[ok2bclever]

wkmac,

You missed your chance about the various debacle that susie named in history.

I was sure you were going to come out with people don't kill and abuse people, governments do.

danny,

I think you are basing your assumptions on your small piece of UPS again as you are wrong regarding the marriage issue nationwide.

While they will not allow a driver's spouse to hire in as a full-time driver, they cannot stop two drivers from marrying or force either of them to quit in my area.

We have had several married couples in my building over the years.

If you had employees forced to quit you must have contractual language considerably inferior to my Central Supplemental or they got buffaloed and snookered.

 

[wkmac]

OK2BC,
Actually people don't generally kill in mass quantites when acting as individuals but when they amass in large collectives you do get Dresdens, Holocausts, Vietnams, etc. Large collectives tend to breed imperialist attitudes especially when these collectives are national in scale supported and fed with nationalistic purposes. Smaller collectives based upon very small geographic areas made up mostly of neighbors will have their internal disputes but they rarely venture outside their area of influence. The risk of losing it all is greater as the total number of represented persons is far less than in a larger populated collective. It would be like asking if Vietnam would have happened had the US population been 10 times smaller at the time? The answer is no because the capacity to place a large enough army in the field and then have the ability with the folks left at home to financially support would be nearly impossible.

This is also another reason the founding fathers had the 2nd amendment because they knew the country lacked the finacial ability to support a vast standing army nor did the new gov't have the authority under it's taxing and regulatory powers to raise the vast sums to support such. Men were already armed as a result of the needs to use the firearm in feeding families and the 2nd amendment basically just stated the obvious that the right of the people or in fact the need of the people to bare arms would not be infringed. Now here's the kicker most on the pro-gun side do not want to discuss but it is true. The 2nd amendment only forbades the federal gov't from using the police powers as it pertains to firearms but it did not prevent local or state govt's from doing so unless their State constitutions prohibited it. When Wyatt Earp for example prohibited the public display of firearms in Dodge City there was no US Constitutional violation at all. But here's the other dirty secret. 14th amendment changed all of that and granted the larger collective police powers in order to police citizen rights and actions.

You don't like the war in Iraq? You don't like George Bush? You don't like the republicans screwing up this country? We geez, you can't have it both ways my friend. You either gut the size of the collective thus reducing the risk of what we see or you live with the risk like Germany and that we may at some point in our future elect a Hilter like leader. People are suckers for someone who will convince them that they are their savior. We do it every 4 years!

Individuals don't kill, Collectives Do!
It takes a village you know.

 

[over9five]

"You may think you are the final authority on all matters; you really seem to just be a 'legend in your own mind'."

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[dannyboy]

"Oh, and I'm pretty sure taking pictures of dead combantants and distributing them is against the law; those silly Geneva Conventions, especially the fourth one."

Who would enforce that? And what would the punishment be?

"Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Cheney will resign as well." Bush - Speech Tomorrow

Hehehe, never give up do you?

At least you are consistant.

d

 

[dannyboy]

Oh and OK, just going by what happened and the information I was given by the company and the union. IT was very specific.

Glad you two are forthcoming in information, your micky mouse games really help.

d

 

[over9five]

We had two hourlys get married, there was no problem.
We also have a sup openly dating a driver.

 

[therodog]

suzi said "Sorry I'm not about to give you my name, or the names of my friends." but mine was ok?

hmmm

JA

(Message edited by therodog on September 27, 2005)

 

[susiedriver]

dog,

You posted your name. It was originally in your profile. I didn't put it there. Use your lexis-nexis account.

 

[susiedriver]

dBoy asked:
Who would enforce that? And what would the punishment be?

Now dBoy, you yourself said that the victors write history, so I doubt there would be trials. If there were to be, I would imagine they would be at The Hague, under the auspices of the UN, conducted by The International War Crimes Tribunal.

Of course, Lynndie England was just found guilty on six counts and faces up to seven years. The father of her child, Charles Graner, is serving ten years for related charges. So the US could take action on their own, and avoid an international tribunal.


You knew that though, didn't you?

 

[ok2bclever]

danny, sorry that I didn't put names out here for your official perusal.

Four driver couples that I know off the top of my head that are fairly contemporary, probably overlooking a few.

All were above board, legally married and fully known by management.

I won't put last names out here on a public net, but I would supply them to you in private if you think I am making them up or if you are serious about lawsuits, etc.

Bud and Pam
Ralph and Jan
Brent and Michelle
Bob and Rhonda
Marty and Rhonda

Bud and Pam married and both continued driving for several years until Pam quit so Bud could go into management.

Ralph and Jan married and both worked as drivers for decades until they both retired about six years ago.

Brent and Michelle married as drivers and divorced about two years later.

Bob and Rhonda married as drivers for about six years and then divorced.

Rhonda later married Marty, both drivers for about four years. Marty retired last year and Rhonda bid into a 22-3 position.

Again, perhaps your area has an inferior contract supplemental or your friends just got snookered.

Marriages happen and UPS cannot stop them or force either driver to quit here, period.

 

[susiedriver]

Latest on G.I. porn scandal, from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/international/middleeast/28site.html

Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said that if soldiers had posted the images, their actions could violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which defines conduct unbecoming an officer or enlisted soldier.

Another Pentagon official who reviewed the Web site said it raised questions, as well, of whether the acts could be viewed as a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which set standards for treatment of remains of those killed in a combat zone

 

[therodog]

yes your right suzi, you just posted my pix?

 

[susiedriver]

Darren Dog,
You posted your own picture, how else would I have come across it?

 

[therodog]

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051006/NEWS/210060405/1001/news01

or

 

[therodog]

California Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoed Anti-Gun Measure!



Monday, October 10, 2005

Thanks to the efforts of NRA members, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed anti-gun measure AB 996 this past Friday. Assembly Bill 996, authored by Assemblymember Ridley-Thomas (D - Los Angeles), would have required all retailers to display and sell ammunition in a manner that is only accessible by an employee, not the purchaser. Any violation of the measure would have resulted in a misdemeanor.



To view a copy of Governor Schwarzeneggers veto message,

please visit the Governor's Press Room .

 

[therodog]

Gun legislation seeks to support law-abiding Floridians
By A Times Editorial
Published October 10, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: The NRA at work, Oct. 7.

Your editorial attacking the bills of Sen. Durell Peaden Jr. and Rep. Dennis Baxley, which seek to protect people legally keeping guns in their vehicles, used bad data to support employers' antigun policies.

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, "for the most part, workplace homicides are not the result of disgruntled workers." In fact, because 75-82 percent of workplace homicides involve robbery, most are committed by strangers, according to the FBI and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Instead of using reliable national data, your editorial relied on two flawed "studies."

The other study only looked at workplace shootings in comparison to the employers' policies, and didn't bother to ask who brought the gun. But it's a fair bet that most armed robbers don't read their victims' employee handbooks.

Law-abiding employees have a right under Florida law to have firearms in their vehicles for lawful purposes. Carrying a firearm in your vehicle for protection while traveling to and from work and leaving that firearm locked securely in your vehicle while at work is a part of that right. This legislation doesn't give a new right. It protects an existing right by imposing penalties on those who are breaking the law by attempting to prohibit that right. Equally important is that it gives businesses immunity from liability if firearms stored on their property are misused or stolen.

Sen. Peaden and Rep. Baxley are simply trying to put Florida law on the side of law-abiding Floridians, not criminals. Their efforts deserve support.

 

[therodog]

Pantagraph Editorial

Monday, October 10, 2005
Gun-control group misfires

Under the guise of "warning" visitors about a change in Florida law, a gun-control group is needlessly and fraudulently scaring tourists.

The leafleting by the national (James) Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is nothing more than a political ploy.

The group doesn't like Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use force in self-defense without first attempting to retreat from a threatening situation. The Brady Campaign calls it the "Shoot First" law in its leaflets.

The group is entitled to its opinion. But it is dirty politics to imply that visitors' safety is at risk because of the law.

The leaflets, which have been distributed at airports in Miami and Orlando, proclaim "An Important Notice to Florida Visitors" in red type and advise people not to "argue unnecessarily with local people" and not to "shout or make threatening gestures" if someone seems angry with them.

In criticizing the law, Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm said, "It could cause the most aggressive people in society to overreact."

It looks more like members of the Brady Campaign are the ones overreacting.

 

[susiedriver]

The leaflets, which have been distributed at airports in Miami and Orlando, proclaim "An Important Notice to Florida Visitors" in red type and advise people not to "argue unnecessarily with local people" and not to "shout or make threatening gestures" if someone seems angry with them.


This is bad advice?