Gunner wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
I believe you are right about the sugar and the cartoons. But I suspect you have to pay sales tax on the hairnets and the vats. At least that is the case in most states.
Ah! Nice! What kind of accuracy can one expect from one?
And the price? Ive not seen one of those before. California...tends to make me not bothering keeping up on that particular subject.
Gunner
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
I believe you would not pay sales tax on the sugar or the cartoons, but expect you would pay sales tax on the hairnets and vats. The idea is that you do not pay sales tax on things which are resold, but that does not include hairnets and vats. Indiana could be the exception, but most states do not have a sales tax goods on goods that are resold, but do have a sales tax on things that are not resold.
Dan The hairnets would be taxed, but the vats would come under Indiana's exemption for equipment used in manufacturing.
A quick google check shows a lot of states have a similar exemption,
Indiana, by the way repealed its inventory tax. they started phasing it out in 2002. I think it was completely eliminated by 07 or 08.
Rate of fire is far far too fast for much of anything handy.
Gunner
One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure
- and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.
Have you seen the show on cable, "The First 48"? They follow homocide investigators around? They recently had an update on a murder case from Miami. I remember seeing it a year or so ago. Basicly they found a guy stabbed to death on the street in the middle of the night, no witnesses, no one knows what happened. Eventually the investigation showed that what happened was you had two guys breaking into a truck to steal the radio. The owner saw it from his apartment, got a kitchen knife, went downstairs and chased after the two. He caught up with the one in the street. They had a grainy surveilance video that showed him chasing the guy down the street, then the two coming into contact. Hard to see exactly what the interaction was at that point, but the victim then staggers away.
So, the stabber initially denies the whole thing, saying he was never there. Eventually under questioning he changes his story, saying that he did stab the guy, but the guy had turned around and raised his hand toward him, so he pushed him away with one hand and stabbed him with the other.
They charged him with 1st degree murder. He lawyers up and now claims self defense under the "stand your ground" law. It went to a judge for a hearing to see if the charges should be dismissed. At that hearing the guy tells yet a third story, now saying that the victim swung a bag containing radios at him and he acted in self defense.
The interesting thing is that the judge bought it and dismissed the charges. So, here you have a guy actually chasing down the unarmed victim, clearly being the aggressor at that point, with only his word that the victim swung a bag at him and the judge found SYG applied. If any similar standard is applied with Zimmerman, there should be no question that he gets off.
Another rather strange thing, I thought, is that the police brought no other charges. I mean WTF? In FL you can stab someone in claimed self defense and then leave them to bleed to death in the street without calling 911? I would think there would be some lesser charge that would cover that, no?
Of course one difference here is also that the "victim" had committed a car burglary that instigated the whole thing. I don't know what FL law says about the right of someone to pursue someone who has done that. But I found it an interesting application on SYG. For sure if you did this in NJ or NYC you would go to trial.
The difference is that Obama and the DOJ haven't made this case a political circus. They have no business even charging Zimmerman. There is no evidence.
Agreed. That is bad.
There are many good reasons to not live in NJ or NYC.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.