Casting Disaster

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
...
In article , Doug Kanter
wrote:

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2004 02:01:31 -0600, Warren wrote:

What if I didn't like Golden Retrievers but loved
Chihuahuas, should I be allowed to tell you that you can no longer
own or breed them? They are a pretty useless dog..... (not really,
but just for the sake of argument ;-) Wouldn't you argue that there
is a use for Goldens even though *I* didn't think so?


I can see it clear as day: an Attack Golden Retriever,
more powerful than a bag of marshmallows, meaner than
a week-old baby, capable of ripping you apart at the
slightest provocation....just like your average 38...

Did you ever see the Far Side cartoon about golden retrievers? "The 4
Moods
of Golden Retrievers" Four frames in the cartoon, showing the dog with
identical faces in each frame - mindless contentment, tongue hanging
out.
Each frame labeled: Happy, sad, angry, bored, or some such thing.

If not, Here you go.

http://www.johnstons.org/roy/comics/...s.cfm?Comic=26

Allen

Irish Setters also act like throw rugs? :-)

wrote...
That says "engaged in" and not 'on their way to be engaged
in'

You're still breaking the law.

There are a couple of exemptions that apply One is the "engaged
in" definition. It can be argued that driving to and from is still
being "engage in" and is a distinction that would most likely be
raised during any legal proceedings. The courts have better things
to do and would probably make an allowance for somebody obviously
going to or from any outdoor activities because of their intent.
The case would most likely never make it past the prosecutor because
of legal definitions, interpretations of the law and the laws
themselves. Another interesting fact is that "Montana has no
prohibitions against carrying a weapon in a motor vehicle, although
federal rules may apply in national parks."

http://www.doj.state.mt.us/enforceme...ledweapons.asp

Montana is different from other states and maybe that is what you
are basing your opinion on, but here a concealed weapon is only
considered "concealed" if it is hidden on your person. IIRC, a
weapon underneath a seat is considered concealed in California. I
actually learned much of this by asking a sheriff's deputy several
years ago and so my information is based upon something more other
than your (mis)interpretations of the law here.

Just to make sure, I just got off the phone with the Sheriff's
Department and asked again. I spoke to Sharon, you can give her a
call if you like at (406) 582-2100, who is the Sheriff's secretary.
The question I asked was that the law is clear on the exceptions for
carrying concealed weapons in regards to outdoor activities, but
what about if you are going to or from those activities. Would it
be alright to store the firearm underneath the truck seat? She said
yes, you can store it under your seat or in a "cubby hole" and that
is perfectly legal. It is only concealed if it is on your person,
I.e. in a coat pocket, purse, etc and only for those purposes would
you need a CWP. Basically, storing one under your seat or hidden
from view is somewhat encouraged for logical reasons. Having an
unlocked firearm visible in a locked vehicle is an invitation to
thieves, etc.

If a cop wanted to be an asshole because you failed the "attitude
test" by being a dick or if he was having a bad hair day, he could
still arrest you for having one "concealed" under your seat because
it isn't his job to prove guilt or innocence but to enforce laws.
This would not hold up in court, who combined with a jury are the
arbiters of guilt and innocence, so it would only be an
inconvenience. I run that risk (not being a dick because I am very
respectful to law enforcement officers and appreciate the hard work
that they do and what they put up with, but them having a bad day,
etc) every time I take my pistol anywhere and, as I have said
before, place my faith in the legal system. The benefits of storing
it under my seat outweigh the negatives IMO because my old truck is
very easy to break into.

You're another sorry example of the 'law-abiding' gun
owner.

Sorry, you lose. But thanks for playing. :-)

You lost.

Okay. :-)
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on either yahoo or earthlink to respond via email)

wrote...
I can see it clear as day: an Attack Golden Retriever,
more powerful than a bag of marshmallows, meaner than
a week-old baby, capable of ripping you apart at the
slightest provocation....just like your average 38...

No, the Goldens are just supposed to be useless. The Chihuahua is
supposed to be the mean one. some of those things are vicious ankle
biters! g

On a serious note, I think the reason why you dismiss and make fun
of such examples is that you are afraid to examine the logic and
rationale behind them. Doing so may shatter your beliefs in things
that you have long accepted as being right, proper or even factual.
I think that scares you and is why that it is such a problem for you
do anything but criticize or make fun of them. I am not making the
comparison that golden retrievers are as dangerous as firearms, I am
comparing perceptions of usefulness. I am saying that just because
you or Willi view concealed weapons as being useless, that doesn't
make them so for everybody else. I am saying that it is just as
wrong as the notion that you should be able to tell others what to
drive, eat, etc.

There are times where we as individuals use such rationale to set
limits on how we function as a society. Collectively we view murder
as wrong, believe abusing children is bad and limit other behaviors
as dangerous, offensive, etc. There does come a point when some
individuals take this too far IMO, try to force their vision on
everyone else and become tyrants of sorts. I place a great deal of
value in our Constitution and agree that it needs to be tweaked here
and there as we grow, learn and advance as a nation. I don't think
that just because I have the "right to bear arms" that I should be
allowed to drive a fully loaded and functional M-1 Abrams around or
that it should entitle me to a M-2 .50 cal machine gun. It seems we
simply disagree on where "usefulness" stops and "uselessness" begins
or where the benefits outweigh the negatives. Through the course of
this argument, I feel we have narrowed the extreme gap that
initially existed between our views. If nothing else, I hope that
you at least left with a better understanding of an opposing opinion
as I did. To me, that is far more important than ultimately
"winning."
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on either yahoo or earthlink to respond via email)

"Warren" wrote in message
...
wrote...
I can see it clear as day: an Attack Golden Retriever,
more powerful than a bag of marshmallows, meaner than
a week-old baby, capable of ripping you apart at the
slightest provocation....just like your average 38...

No, the Goldens are just supposed to be useless. The Chihuahua is
supposed to be the mean one. some of those things are vicious ankle
biters! g

On a serious note, I think the reason why you dismiss and make fun
of such examples is that you are afraid to examine the logic and
rationale behind them. Doing so may shatter your beliefs in things
that you have long accepted as being right, proper or even factual.
I think that scares you and is why that it is such a problem for you
do anything but criticize or make fun of them. I am not making the
comparison that golden retrievers are as dangerous as firearms, I am
comparing perceptions of usefulness. I am saying that just because
you or Willi view concealed weapons as being useless, that doesn't
make them so for everybody else. I am saying that it is just as
wrong as the notion that you should be able to tell others what to
drive, eat, etc.

There are times where we as individuals use such rationale to set
limits on how we function as a society. Collectively we view murder
as wrong, believe abusing children is bad and limit other behaviors
as dangerous, offensive, etc. There does come a point when some
individuals take this too far IMO, try to force their vision on
everyone else and become tyrants of sorts. I place a great deal of
value in our Constitution and agree that it needs to be tweaked here
and there as we grow, learn and advance as a nation. I don't think
that just because I have the "right to bear arms" that I should be
allowed to drive a fully loaded and functional M-1 Abrams around or
that it should entitle me to a M-2 .50 cal machine gun. It seems we
simply disagree on where "usefulness" stops and "uselessness" begins
or where the benefits outweigh the negatives. Through the course of
this argument, I feel we have narrowed the extreme gap that
initially existed between our views. If nothing else, I hope that
you at least left with a better understanding of an opposing opinion
as I did. To me, that is far more important than ultimately
"winning."
--
Warren

Wow. What an interesting pile of assumptions. I asked a question about a
dog's nature.

wrote...
Wow. What an interesting pile of assumptions. I asked a question about a
dog's nature.

If you didn't notice, the reply was to Greg and not your question.
But to answer your question, no I never saw the cartoon.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on either yahoo or earthlink to respond via email)

"Warren" wrote in message
...
wrote...
Wow. What an interesting pile of assumptions. I asked a question about a
dog's nature.

If you didn't notice, the reply was to Greg and not your question.
But to answer your question, no I never saw the cartoon.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on either yahoo or earthlink to respond via email)

Sorry. The messages have become so deeply nested in my newsreader, it's
getting hard to tell who's responding to whom, especially if one reads too
fast while doing eleven other things. I plead the fifth.

"Doug Kanter" wrote...
"Warren" wrote...
wrote...
Wow. What an interesting pile of assumptions. I asked a question about a
dog's nature.

If you didn't notice, the reply was to Greg and not your question.
But to answer your question, no I never saw the cartoon.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on either yahoo or earthlink to respond via email)

Sorry. The messages have become so deeply nested in my newsreader, it's
getting hard to tell who's responding to whom, especially if one reads too
fast while doing eleven other things. I plead the fifth.

That's okay, Warren. We all do it sometimes.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Tim J." wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote...
"Warren" wrote...
wrote...
Wow. What an interesting pile of assumptions. I asked a question
about a
dog's nature.

If you didn't notice, the reply was to Greg and not your question.
But to answer your question, no I never saw the cartoon.
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on either yahoo or earthlink to respond via email)

Sorry. The messages have become so deeply nested in my newsreader, it's
getting hard to tell who's responding to whom, especially if one reads
too
fast while doing eleven other things. I plead the fifth.

That's okay, Warren. We all do it sometimes.
--
TL,
Tim

Quiet, Margaret.

lid wrote...
That's okay, Warren. We all do it sometimes.

I accept your apology.

g
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt on either yahoo or earthlink to respond via email)

On Tue, 11 May 2004 17:08:25 -0400, Greg Pavlov
wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:45:04 -0600, Warren wrote:


On a serious note, I think the reason why you dismiss and make fun
of such examples is that you are afraid to examine the logic and
rationale behind them.


The reason I dismiss it is very, very simple:
I can take a gun, point it at your head, and
with a simple twitch of a finger I can kill
you with it. On the other hand, no matter
what I did I would not be able to get a Golden
to do any worse than lick your hand. And that
is the long and short of it.


You, lucky person that you are, never met Bongo. One of the most
vicious dogs I've known. Luckily, unlike most retriever breeds, he
had strong property rules and never left his own yard. Pure Golden,
parents, litter mates, and other household dog (one of his litter
mates, in fact) all the usual Golden sweetness. Bongo was otherwise
wired.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli