What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[Fletchette]

Quote:

That seems a bit harsh.

we'll then what's "reasonable" then?

I could say that negligent homocide is just as heinous as outright murder as the end result is the same. Which is a pretty absolutist take on things.


Quote:

Who decides? A jury of peers.

These are the same peers that may think that a safety test for buying a handgun is appropriate?
You see people tend to be "reasonable" more so then "absolutist/extremeist".
If you apply absolutist logic to the 2A how will you treat all other rights? Will there be any middle ground? Is the 2A the only one worthy of an absolute view?

I am not advocating anarchy, I am advocating that we not restrict our rights.

Let me give you an example:

Say a disgruntled bigot hates people of a certain race. He decides to go out one night, hide in a bush, and wait until he sees someone of the race he does not like. Then he shoots him.

The way society is going, this guy would be arrested for murder, carrying a gun concealed, using the a magazine with too many bullets, using the wrong "type" of bullet (like hollowpoints), buying the gun without a background check and no waiting period, hate thought and wearing sneakers (which obviously means he wanted to "sneak"...no honest person needs to walk quietly...)

I am advocating arresting him and charging him with murder. That's it.

No gun control. No thought control. No made up crimes that do nothing but restrict law adiding people.

A free society need not be anarchy. Inalienable rights do not need to be restricted.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Why is it that in a thread where the object is to discuss what might be reasonable restrictions on gun possession and/or time, place, or manner of carrying, that would NOT constitute "infringements" on the 2A, we get so many people stating that no restrictions should be allowed, no matter how absurd the results?

(Paraphrasing) "So what if it means that criminals and terrorists can easily obtain guns and carry them anywhere they go no questions asked? We'll have guns too and we will just shoot them."

"Criminals with guns? Oh, we'll just keep them locked up until they can be trusted, if ever." Of course, as one person pointed out, WHO MAKES THAT DECISION????????? And wouldn't that have the potential to lead to more government tyranny than some shall issue CHL requirement?

Of course, there was no response to this. Understandable, as it one of the myriad of messy details that mess up the "no restrictions" fantasy.

My guess is that we would need a whole crew of people who receive revealed truth to make all of these decisions. Because the Constitution, the law, and the courts seem far from being up to it. But where would we find them?

And that is supposed to represent a "reasonable" approach?

You would think the thread was titled, "What if everyday life was like an IDPA match with REAL PEOPLE as the targets?".

My advice is that people have to climb down off the top of the big pointy rock you're camped out on and start living in the real world. Talk to a woman once in a while. Get a date. Who knows how things might turn out?

 

[Fletchette]

Criminals with guns? Oh, we'll just keep them locked up until they can be trusted, if ever." Of course, as one person pointed out, WHO MAKES THAT DECISION????????? And wouldn't that have the potential to lead to more government tyranny than some shall issue CHL requirement?

Of course, there was no response to this. Understandable, as it one of the myriad of messy details that mess up the "no restrictions" fantasy.

I thought I did answer that question directly: a jury of one's peers decides if the accused is guilty.

I made it very clear that I did not say that everyone who commits any crime should "be locked up until they can be trusted, if ever". I said very clearly that the punishment should fit the crime.

How was this not clear?

 

[Soybomb]

we get so many people stating that no restrictions should be allowed, no matter how absurd the results?

(Paraphrasing) "So what if it means that criminals and terrorists can easily obtain guns and carry them anywhere they go no questions asked? We'll have guns too and we will just shoot them."

The only absurd thing going on is thinking the bolded portion of the quote won't happen because of laws and restrictions. That is already the way things are today. A man intent on murder won't care about breaking the rules and buying a guy illegally any more than a bank robber would care about leaving the get away car in a no parking zone. Guns are here, no matter how super duper extra illegal you make it for a criminal to get them, they will get them just like they'll get cocaine no matter how much we spend on the war on drugs. The sooner we accept reality and quit wasting time and money trying feel good laws that only disarm the law abiding the better we'll be.

 

[MakAttak]

Well put soybomb.

This is the point those objecting to restrictions are saying:

Criminals (and terrorists) don't care about the law. All these restrictions do is force them to the black market.

It does, however, prevent law abiding citizens from getting to exercise their right.

Why do we punish the law abiding?

 

[hnk45acp]

Why is it that in a thread where the object is to discuss what might be reasonable restrictions on gun possession and/or time, place, or manner of carrying, that would NOT constitute "infringements" on the 2A, we get so many people stating that no restrictions should be allowed, no matter how absurd the results?

here, here. I thought the point of this thread is to discuss reasonable restriction on this plane of reality, not some fantasy world where all righteous people behave "correctly" and "criminals never see the light of day.

Why do we punish the law abiding?

Is taking a driving test punishing the law abiding? Sure driving is a privalige we share with the rest of society but if you are carrying a gun in public don't you share the same responsibility with the general public?

knowledge of basic gun usage is in no way designed to stop criminals it's designed to educate people on how to properly use a gun in private as well as on our shared public streets. I don't believe knowledge equals punishment. Is it a restriction? yes. Is it reasonable? I think so. Some don't C'est la vie.

 

[M_Olson]

Sure driving is a privalige we share with the rest of society but if you are carrying a gun in public don't you share the same responsibility with the general public?

only if you go around shooting your gun constantly. when you are driving, you are in current use of the vehicle the majority of the time that it is in your possession. this is not so with guns. also, you just brush over the whole right vs priviledge issue even though there is a huge distinction to be made.

knowledge of basic gun usage is in no way designed to stop criminals it's designed to educate people on how to properly use a gun in private as well as on our shared public streets. I don't believe knowledge equals punishment.

then advocate gun safety classes starting in elementary school. not only will they grow up knowing about guns and, especially, safety, but they will learn varying levels of respect for other human beings which is a big part of firearms safety training.

 

[poor_richard]

then advocate gun safety classes starting in elementary school. not only will they grow up knowing about guns and, especially, safety, but they will learn varying levels of respect for other human beings which is a big part of firearms safety training.

That sounds reasonable.

 

[hnk45acp]

only if you go around shooting your gun constantly. when you are driving, you are in current use of the vehicle the majority of the time that it is in your possession. this is not so with guns. also, you just brush over the whole right vs priviledge issue even though there is a huge distinction to be made.

then advocate gun safety classes starting in elementary school. not only will they grow up knowing about guns and, especially, safety, but they will learn varying levels of respect for other human beings which is a big part of firearms safety training.

I would love to advocate classes at the grade/jr. high level. I'm not saying that the first time you buy a gun you need to sit for a 3 hour class but you should be able to answer some questions about gun handling and use of force in self defence.

BTW if you need to use your gun in public I would hope you would know what would be involved. I'm not saying you are going to be shooting up & down the street, but whenever you use it (at the range, on your property or in public) you should know your responsibilites.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie_the_yankee said:
we get so many people stating that no restrictions should be allowed, no matter how absurd the results?

(Paraphrasing) "So what if it means that criminals and terrorists can easily obtain guns and carry them anywhere they go no questions asked? We'll have guns too and we will just shoot them."

Soybomb responds:

The only absurd thing going on is thinking the bolded portion of the quote won't happen because of laws and restrictions. That is already the way things are today. A man intent on murder won't care about breaking the rules.......

Ah, I think that today if an Al Qaeda suicide squad tried to board an airliner toting MP-5's they might just be a wee bit conspicuous. Don't you think? Somehow, this seems to complicate their tactical problem to the point where it just doesn't seem feasible.

And this is leaving aside the issue of obtaining the MP-5's in the first place. After all, you don't just pick them up at the hardware store using a utility bill as "identification".

But if in some twisted bizzaro world fantasy, toting MP-5's around was commonplace, and if MP-5's could be bought anywhere with no need to produce ID, and carried anywhere with no questions asked, even an utter moron might see that the death squad could just blend in with the crowd. Carry them with you on the plane? Sure! A lot of people do that.

It follows, in logic that even an utter moron can follow, that having restrictions on who may purchase and possess MP-5's and where they may be transported or carried complicates things for the terrorists who may want to do such a thing, (shoot up an airliner at 35,000 feet) while at the same time imposing no burden whatsoever on anyone in their right mind.

Simple isn't it.

 

[poor_richard]

Frankie,
Not that I want to veer OT, but I did pose a question to you in post $147. Are you purposefully neglecting it, or did you just overlook it? I asked because I am interested in you input on it.

 

[packnrat]

18 to buy a gun.

20 to have a weapon in a crime

30 if some body gets hurt during your crime.

life if somebody goes to the hospital and stays there for a number of days.

death if you take a life during your crime.

pending the letter of the law.
aka: premated murder ver involatary manslaghter, etc.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Poor Richard writes...........

Frankie,
Not that I want to veer OT, but I did pose a question to you in post $147. Are you purposefully neglecting it, or did you just overlook it? I asked because I am interested in you input on it.

I overlooked it.

Poor Richard:

Okay, I’m not saying, “Your wrong and I’m right”. I can see your point, and appreciate you input. But I would like to know about the part in Article I, Section 2 that says, “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold or enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

I took it to mean that they could be tried and punished after impeachment (at least that’s what it sounds like). Yet, it sounds like your saying that they can't be tried (and I see your point, and did know about that). These seem to conflict to me. What say you?

I see it the same way. If an official is impeached he can be prosecuted for whatever crimes he committed that led to the impeachment. That's how I read it anyway.

But passing or enforcing an unconstitutional law is not an impeachable offense. As I posted before:

From Article 1, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

"All legislative powers". That means they can pass any law they like.

Further.........

From Article 1, Section 6: They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

And no matter what they say in debate, no matter what they advocate for, you can't touch them.

Congress' legislative power comes directly from Article 1 Section 1. There is no limitation on it whatsoever. "All legislative power..."

So no matter what law they pass, whether it is constitutional or not, they are immune from any punishment under the constitution or the law. No legislative act of theirs could ever be legitimate grounds for impeachment nor could it (legitimately) serve as the basis for any indictment after impeachment.

 

[IA_farmboy]

I have a feeling this thread is about to get locked so I'll chime in one more time before that happens.

On principle I think that a person should be somewhere around 18 years old before owning and handling a firearm without parental, or similar, supervision. There are a few problems with that. One is that people mature at different rates. There are some 14 year olds I would trust more that some 22 year olds. Another problem is abuse. I made a very outrageous claim before about how an age requirement could be taken to an extreme but it doesn't have to be taken to such extremes to make firearm ownership a problem.

Imagine an age requirement for firearm ownership. Imagine an anti-gun cop. Even though open carry is perfectly legal in a given area (state, city, county, etc.) that cop could make things quite unpleasant. Every person that cop sees with a firearm is stopped for a check of age. The cop pulls people aside while shopping or going for a stroll. It could also lead to a de facto registration as every firearm dealer is required to record ID numbers and firearm serial numbers in a book for review by law enforcement.

What determines if one is underage to purchase a firearm should be at the discretion of the seller and the parent/guardian. Any law on the minimum age is open for abuse and quite pointless in keeping them from minors, there are numerous examples of this.

Requiring a background check prior to purchase is equally pointless. If a person has been deemed unworthy by law for firearm ownership then the person will find other means to obtain a firearm. They will be stolen, bought under false pretenses (assumed identity for one), of manufactured. Gun control just means that nobody has guns... except the criminals.

People in this thread are all concerned about the one in a billion case of a firearm getting on a plane, or the one in a million of a mass murder getting a firearm because of an improper background check. Those people will get a firearm, no doubt about it. I'm worried about the one in a thousand thug that wants to rob me for my firearm or for my ID and money to buy a firearm. I'm concerned about these "reasonable" restrictions getting out of hand so that should I feel the need to arm myself I have to jump through all kinds of hoops while the criminal just smashes some windows under the night sky.

Education on firearms is also a good idea, in principle. I think that all the education one needs on the safe operation of a firearm is contained in the manual that came with the firearm. If the warning on my microwave oven to not place metal items inside is sufficient to keep people from injuring themselves and burning up their kitchen then the warnings stamped on a rifle like my own and placed in the manual should be sufficient to keep people safe.

The biggest problem is the first offender. No background check is going to catch them. I think this is what people fear. Nothing is going to stop a first offender since they have yet to get a felony conviction, no reason to be adjudicated mentally unfit, no outward signs of future crime.

There are those that are so motivated to cause others harm that they will go to great lengths to stay off the radar until it is too late to do anything. Ten day waiting period? Background check? Registration? Fingerprinting? Concealed carry permits? Even if you do all of that you will still get some wacko that will jump through any hoop you put in front of them so that they can get what they want... and do so legally. What you have also done is disarm those that are inconvenienced or find it difficult to pay for all the paperwork.

Take a look around. The UK has made firearm ownership nearly impossible and yet crime is out of control. Look at all the shootings in Washington DC. How can that be if ownership of a functioning firearm is illegal? The reason is very simple, the people have been disarmed and are unable to defend themselves. Criminals are emboldened because they know they can do their crimes with little fear of return fire or "castle doctrine" protections.

Gun control does nothing to reduce crime because it only disarms those that feel compelled to obey them. Gun control also infringes on our most basic of rights. No matter how you sugar coat it the second amendment is quite clear, no restrictions, none.

There is a term commonly associated with the first amendment, prior restraint. I think that is equally applicable to firearms. Any testing, checks, or classes before exercising my right to arm myself is prior restraint. I'm assumed to be a criminal until I prove to someone else's satisfaction that I am not. Guilty until proven innocent, that is something we as a nation should not be tolerating.

 

[Intune]

frankie the yankee

But if in some twisted bizzaro world fantasy, toting MP-5's around was commonplace, and if MP-5's could be bought anywhere with no need to produce ID, and carried anywhere with no questions asked, even an utter moron might see that the death squad could just blend in with the crowd. Carry them with you on the plane? Sure! A lot of people do that.

It follows, in logic that even an utter moron can follow, that having restrictions on who may purchase and possess MP-5's and where they may be transported or carried complicates things for the terrorists who may want to do such a thing, (shoot up an airliner at 35,000 feet) while at the same time imposing no burden whatsoever on anyone in their right mind.

Simple isn't it.

Is this post an example of what The High Road has become? Shameful. This post is a great example as to how well restrictions control behavior. :banghead: I must be one of the "utter morons" eh, frankie? The "logic" escapes me. Those who mean our country harm can stand down now, we're chewing our own limbs off...

 

[Soybomb]

Ah, I think that today if an Al Qaeda suicide squad tried to board an airliner toting MP-5's they might just be a wee bit conspicuous. Don't you think? Somehow, this seems to complicate their tactical problem to the point where it just doesn't seem feasible.

Why do they even have to? We've already seen what happens when you let people with razor blades go up against unarmed citizens.

And this is leaving aside the issue of obtaining the MP-5's in the first place. After all, you don't just pick them up at the hardware store using a utility bill as "identification".

Thats right, law abiding people have to go to gun stores and show ID and fill out a 4473 to buy a gun. Criminals can steal them or just have them illegally imported. I can't go to the local pharmacy and buy heroin yet all sorts of criminals have it. Criminals don't go through the legal channels to get things because they are criminals.

It follows, in logic that even an utter moron can follow, that having restrictions on who may purchase and possess MP-5's and where they may be transported or carried complicates things for the terrorists who may want to do such a thing, (shoot up an airliner at 35,000 feet) while at the same time imposing no burden whatsoever on anyone in their right mind.

An educated man should be able to make an argument without resorting to school yard insults. Build your case on logical well reasoned and stated thought. Lets try to keep this thread on the high road and not get it locked for the rest of us that are enjoying the discussion. I don't find your imagined outcome to hold true in real life. The real life scenario is that restrictions prevent me from owning any sort of automatic weapon legally. If I were a criminal and intent on doing harm to others though, that offense would concern me about as much as library late fees. The criminal who want the mp5 will get the mp5. If you're planning to murder a dozen people, do you really think the fear of getting punished for having a mp5 when you're not allowed to is going to prevent you getting on?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

An educated man should be able to make an argument without resorting to school yard insults. Build your case on logical well reasoned and stated thought.

You're correct. I can, and I have. Six ways from Sunday. But I can scroll through this thread and see more pointless nonsense, illogic, and lack of reading comprehension than I would have imagined seeing in 100 years.

People just don't seem to get it. If there were no rules, things would be very different than today. BG's toting (freely available) MP-5 could blend right in with the multitude of Good Guys toting freely available MP-5's.

And sure, BG's and terrorists can get weapons today, but why should we make it so easy for them? And with no ID required and no background checks, Al Qaeda people could buy weapons openly and carry them anywhere as soon as they set foot in America.

THEY CAN'T DO THAT NOW. THEY WOULD BE NOTICED. GET IT?

Change the rules so that they COULD, and they WOULD.

Is that so hard to grasp?

And sure, we good guys could shoot it out with them when necesasary. But is that how you want to spend your day?

Then, there are the tank and howitzer people..........................

Or the ones that are hyper-sensitive to any slightest "infringement" or "potential (Mere potential!) for abuse" of the 2A, while advocating keeping people locked up until we know (by some kind of magic I guess) that they can be trusted to possess guns again.

No potential for government abuse there, hey?

My point is, burden the bad guys a lot while burdening the good guys a little, and you have shifted the balance pf power in favor of the good guys. It's a pretty simple point.

 

[Shweboner]

In a perfect scenario, I would say there should not be any restrictions, period.

Since that will never happen... This would be my ideal compromise:

First off, an indefinite moratorium on any new gun laws passed. Essentially the last gun bill ever to be passed...

then, nationwide reciprocity of CCW laws.

Repeal the import ban, undo restrictions on FA, SBR/SBS.

Basically let us have whatever we want, and carry it concealed...

NO registration, or feature bans of any kind

The compromise would be: Trigger locks (external) req'd to be shipped with new guns. Instant background checks (like here in OR). Still req a class for ccw (teaches basic safety, laws on where not to carry, laws on use of force).

I think that is a fair compromise to settle the matter once and for all.

Thats as far as I am willing to go.

 

[rugerdude]

The repealing of all firearm ownership restrictions IS going to make full-autos easier to come by, both legally and illegally. However, why should this really concern us that much? The last shootout I remember involving FA guns was North Hollywood and exactly zero good guys lost their lives.

The armed police were able to contain and eventually dispatch them, even though they could not get very many shots on-target and they were severely outgunned. They didn't need to be incredible shots, they had numbers on their side. If anyone opened fire in a shopping mall after all restrictions were done away with, the same situation is going to happen. It is a losing proposition when you are on equal footing with the opposition.

Now if we want to look at the shootings with the largest body counts (Port Arthur and V Tech with over 30 people killed each) we see that they didn't need full-auto. Having full-auto wasn't going to make them any more lethal. The fact that neither shooter ever faced an armed person during their shooting spree made them deadly. THIS IS WHAT MAKES MASS SHOOTERS DANGEROUS! You don't hear of someone going on a shooting spree at a gun range! Wacko's pick their targets carefully.

I honestly can't think of a reason wh anyone would fear terrorists getting firearms. That doesn't strategically make sense, or fit their style. Terrorists are going to make a big bomb and set it off at a school or something, and bombs don't give anyone a fighting chance. That's how terrorists operate, and hell will freeze over before you read about them confronting only armed people or having anything resembling honor.

The last point I will make is that a person armed with a fully automatic weapon is no more dangerous than someone weilding a semi-auto. The rounds fired are no more lethal, the gun is no more concealable, but a huge difference is made when the people are able to shoot back.

 

[MakAttak]

You're correct. I can, and I have. Six ways from Sunday. But I can scroll through this thread and see more pointless nonsense, illogic, and lack of reading comprehension than I would have imagined seeing in 100 years.

Funny. I could say the same thing about you. My reasoning is totally consistent and logical and yet it keeps getting ignored.

Why is it that people think gun rights should be regulated PROACTIVELY, that is, restricted before ANY CRIME or HARM has been accomplished, but other rights are not? Why is it that we don't require someone to pass a background check before speaking on a college campus? Why don't we place a ban on "hate speech" being imported in books to the U.S.

For all your claims, IDEAS are far more dangerous than GUNS. As has been noted here before, it is a hard heart that kills. You keep saying terrorists running around with MP-5s!!!! Blowing away people on airplanes! This is a complete fabrication. How come the terrorists in Israel can't just blend in with all the others with Automatic weapons?

And please don't say we should regulate like Israel. The terrorists can get their weapons DESPITE Israeli regulations. They could just walk around with an Automatic weapon like other people. WHY DON'T THEY?

Every response you put forward is to punish the law abiding. Inalienable rights should not be subject to government permission to exercise them. Geee, I feel like I said that somewhere before- perhaps someone should explain why it is no one wants to respond to that statement. Is it that many people here think "owning a gun is a privilege, not a right?"

 

[MakAttak]

Also, well said rogerdude.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Why is it that we don't require someone to pass a background check before speaking on a college campus?

Guns are different.

You keep saying terrorists running around with MP-5s!!!! Blowing away people on airplanes! This is a complete fabrication.

No. It is a prediction of options that would be open to terrorists that are not open to them now. The reason those options are not open to them now is because MP-5's may not be openly toted around in public in America by non-LEO, so people doing so are immediately noticed. If anyone could do it, and tote them anywhere, the terrorists could blend in.

And if they could, they would.

How come the terrorists in Israel can't just blend in with all the others with Automatic weapons?

And please don't say we should regulate like Israel.

Why shouldn't I say that? Maybe it has something to do with why terrorists in Isreal do not routinely tote MP-5's.

Sounds to me that you want to be able to carry them around like they do in Isreal WITHOUT submitting to the strict regulations they have in Isreal.

The terrorists can get their weapons DESPITE Israeli regulations. They could just walk around with an Automatic weapon like other people. WHY DON'T THEY?

How do you know what they can get? Have you spent a lot of time in Isreal? From your postings, it doesn't appear so.

Finally, Isreal is a war zone. If America were ever in that situation, things here, including gun regulations, would be very different than today. But we would be facing very different risks and benefits than we are today too.

Every response you put forward is to punish the law abiding.

Read my posts. My proposals are intended to burden the criminal or terrorist a lot while burdening the LAC very little. And that is exactly what they do.

Inalienable rights should not be subject to government permission to exercise them. Geee, I feel like I said that somewhere before- perhaps someone should explain why it is no one wants to respond to that statement.

The 2A makes no mention of inalienable rights. It says that the RKBA "..shall not be infringed." The overwhelming majority of people believe that regulations that burden the bad guy a lot while burdening the good guy only a little do not meet the definition of "infringement" as it is intended and used in the 2A. From what I can tell, this opinion is shared by our courts as well.

In fact, many people are willing to go much further with regulations, to include regulations that DO burden the good guys. That is why we have so many such regulations today. And it is why we need to educate the general public, vote, and get the right kind of lawmakers elected and judges appointed. Hopefully, the SCOTUS is starting down a road leading to many of these true infringements being overturned.

Only the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe believes that no regulations whatsoever should be allowed.

 

[poor_richard]

Is that so hard to grasp?

Actually, it is, since it is the very same logic that opposes OC and shall issue CC. It's the same "blood in the streets" mantra that has been preached for years, even though its long been debunked. Most people don't even address it anymore since it's seen as bordering on inflammatory hysteria.

It wasn't knives and box cutters that allowed the terrorist to fly planes into buildings on 9/11. It was the Amerikan Sheeples (don't normally like to use that word, but in that particular case, they were led like lambs to slaughter, so it fits) attitude that allowed those events to transpire. Airline passengers have proven to be quite reactive towards potential threats since then.

One thing this thread demonstrates is that when people advocate any kind of restrictions (which really is another word for infringement in this case), what they are really advocating is that the government take up that burden of their security.

frankie stated it well when he implied that He'd rather kick back and relax then to concern himself with what others are doing. (paraphrasing here, so if I got it wrong, by all means say so).

P.S.

frankie,
If you don't want to answer my question about the USC, then fine. I don't have a problem with it as you are under no obligation, nor will I take offense. However, you could have at least responded as such. It is rude to just ignore it.

 

[jeep-2]

the most reasonable gun laws are NO gun laws, most laws are just about controll of the people passed by people that have more time on their hands than they know what to do with and many laws are voted on and passed without reading them just as a favor to repay a favor.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Poor Richard writes..

P.S.

frankie,
If you don't want to answer my question about the USC, then fine. I don't have a problem with it as you are under no obligation, nor will I take offense. However, you could have at least responded as such. It is rude to just ignore it.

I thought I did. See message #238.