On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:33:43 -0500, DSK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
For that, I'm willing to pay, right off the top - no excuses, 15% of what
I make every year even though I'm retired.

Sorry, but the way things are run nowadays 15% from everybody would
result in either disastrous deficits or huge cuts in gov't spending...
probably both.

Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be
a substantial reduction in government spending, or at the very least,
a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the
amount of spending more palatable.

Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich....
who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?

I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a
goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it
exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a
low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No. Do I get
food stamps? No. Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No. Do I
get rent assistance? No. Do I get day care assistance? No. Do I
get AFDC assistance? No. Do I get free healthcare? No.

So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive
that allows the government to take what it does, which is not
insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute?

What just what gives this low income individual the right to take more
of my money to them to use?

~~ snippage ~~

What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a
company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of
any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the
freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege.

You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem
like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing.

It's not that at all. There is no moral difference between allowing a
state worker to gain an additional 10% over and above already
established promotions because one company is competing for a state
contract and giving the Governor a new set of gutters for a road
contract in his home town.

What it is a bribe - flat out bribe.

~~ snippage ~~

I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or
we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained
about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect &
intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road
maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not
comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing.

I understand that universal griping had been around for as long as
human history has been recorded. The problem now is that we're just
not getting anywhere with it. We have politicians who just don't care
what we, the citizens, think. We have activist judges so out of touch
with the general population that they believe that they are all
powerful and can do whatever the hell they want - the voting citizens
be damned.

Damn - I'm off on another rant. Sorry.

Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said!

Thanks man. Only goes to prove that we can reach consensus on some
points anyway. :)

Later,

Tom

JimH wrote:
I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to
explain it to you.

Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and
includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking.

DSK

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be
a substantial reduction in government spending

Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't
cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents &
Congresses salary & benefits dramatically.

... or at the very least,
a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the
amount of spending more palatable.

Palatable to whom?

Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton
(and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal
welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of
no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with
handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith
Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the
taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it!




Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich....
who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a
goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it
exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a
low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No.

You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork.

... Do I get
food stamps? No.

You probably couldn't get those... do you want them?

... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No.

But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't,
provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with
carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the
background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you
can afford the best, lucky you.

... Do I
get rent assistance? No.

Do you want it?


So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive
that allows the government to take what it does, which is not
insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute?

Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't
assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't?

Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents
some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your
expensive toys.

A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they?

Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your
property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone
would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating
assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches
etc etc etc.

Think.

DSK



What just what gives this low income individual the right to take more
of my money to them to use?

~~ snippage ~~


What I object to are sweet heart deals with the State that allows a
company like Verizon to give a 10% discount to State workers on top of
any promotional discounts - real citizens of the state, who pay the
freakin' bills - aren't given that privilege.

You need to join a good collective bargaining pool. This doesn't seem
like a gov't issue to me, just the power of mass purchasing.


It's not that at all. There is no moral difference between allowing a
state worker to gain an additional 10% over and above already
established promotions because one company is competing for a state
contract and giving the Governor a new set of gutters for a road
contract in his home town.

What it is a bribe - flat out bribe.

~~ snippage ~~


I don't know what the answer is, but we need to solve it quickly or
we're just going to keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

I suspect that it will never be solved. The ancient Greeks complained
about the same things... along with the shameful lack of respect &
intelligence by the teenagers, appalling traffic & poor road
maintenance... AFAIK they did not sail for recreation and so did not
comlain about the lousy wind, but I bet they griped about poor fishing.


I understand that universal griping had been around for as long as
human history has been recorded. The problem now is that we're just
not getting anywhere with it. We have politicians who just don't care
what we, the citizens, think. We have activist judges so out of touch
with the general population that they believe that they are all
powerful and can do whatever the hell they want - the voting citizens
be damned.

Damn - I'm off on another rant. Sorry.


Other than that, I agree on all points. Well said!


Thanks man. Only goes to prove that we can reach consensus on some
points anyway. :)

Later,

Tom

"DSK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try to
explain it to you.

Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts and
includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking.

DSK


Such as?

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be
a substantial reduction in government spending

Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't
cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents &
Congresses salary & benefits dramatically.

... or at the very least,
a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the
amount of spending more palatable.

Palatable to whom?

Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton
(and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal
welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of
no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with
handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith
Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the
taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it!




Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich....
who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a
goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it
exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a
low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No.

You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork.

No I could not - it's income based.

... Do I get food stamps? No.

You probably couldn't get those... do you want them?

No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't
obtain.

... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No.

But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't,
provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with
carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the
background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you
can afford the best, lucky you.

That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance.

... Do I get rent assistance? No.

Do you want it?

Would I qualify if I did? No.

So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive
that allows the government to take what it does, which is not
insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute?

Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't
assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't?

No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the
git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income
that I have. That means direct government assistance - not that which
promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents
some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your
expensive toys.

Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on
the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for
somebody to do the deed.

It's also why I carry.

A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they?

They get better police protection I do. In fact, because most of the
lower income folks live in centralized locations, they are better
served because there are more officers patrolling less square milage
than that in which I live. - they are much better off. The average
response time to an emergency police call in my area is 27 minutes.
The average for Willimantic is 3 minutes. The average response time
to a emergency medical/fire call with an ambulance/apparatus is 35
minutes. The average in Willimantic is 6 minutes. It's about the
same for Norwich, Glastonbury and other towns similar to Willimantic.

So, in fact, they are better served that I am.

Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your
property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone
would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating
assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches
etc etc etc.

Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud.

Think.

I have. I might suggest the same for you.

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004

low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No.

You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork.


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
No I could not - it's income based.

In our area it's "need based" which I suppose could be code for "income
based." It seems to me that if you buy a huge house and can't afford to
heat it, you're still better off than somebody who cannot afford even a
small house, much less the heat.

BTW our power & gas companies both have assistance programs, it is not
just the gov't.



... Do I get food stamps? No.


You probably couldn't get those... do you want them?


No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't
obtain.

Once again it's "direct benefit." Do you truly believe that the *only*
possible benefit the gov't provides is to hand some people money?



... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No.

But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't,
provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with
carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the
background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you
can afford the best, lucky you.


That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance.

I see... if you benefit from it, but people who can't afford it don't,
then it's "general common wealth"...

How do you think people who can't afford a car feel about paying for
their share of the interstate highways?

If you are as wealthy as you imply, then you probably have
investments... stocks, bonds, etc etc. Do you pay for the operation of
the SEC? Who benefits from it? How about the Federal Reserve System?


Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't
assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't?


No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the
git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income
that I have.

And you do... however, you want to look at the lowly ant, and make
statements about elephants. You insist that only "benefits" to be
included in the discussion are cash subsidies.

BTW you might consider looking at where your income is derived... are
you 100% positive that absolutely none of it is derived from any kind of
gov't contracting at all?


... That means direct government assistance - not that which
promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Nope... *you* have decided that the only benefits *you* want to include
in your game are ones that you *think* you don't benefit from.

For example, day care assistance promotes "the general welfare" in that
provides a larger pool of labor and also feeds slightly better
socialized kids into the school system. And the public school system...
if you want to live in a society of cavemen, then you don't need public
schools... in the meantime, it promotes *your* well being by allowing
you to live in an industrialized and technical society with a higher
standard of knowledge & skill than would otherwise exist.



Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents
some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your
expensive toys.


Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately.

Oh? And there is absolutely *no* deterrent value in the presence of
police & the court system & prisons etc etc?

Email me your address ;)


It's also why I carry.

Hint- so do crooks... and they often shoot first.



Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud.

I am. You're the one insisting that the *only* beneficial function that
gov't has is to hand out checks, and crying that you ain't gettin' any
(or is it bragging?).




Think.


I have. I might suggest the same for you.

I have... and you have not. I suggest reading a few basic macro
economics texts, and using somewhat less narrow definitions of the term
"benefit."

Regards
Doug King

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
I guess my logic went right over your head. I will not bother to try
to
explain it to you.

Uh, yeah.... I often miss the point of "logic" that leaves out facts
and
includes a lot of prejudice & wishful thinking.

DSK


Such as?

Once again a liebral accuses others of what they are personally guilty of.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be
a substantial reduction in government spending

Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't
cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents &
Congresses salary & benefits dramatically.

... or at the very least,
a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the
amount of spending more palatable.

Palatable to whom?

Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton
(and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal
welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of
no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with
handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith
Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the
taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it!




Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de facto
penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich....
who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a
goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it
exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a
low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No.

You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of paperwork.

No I could not - it's income based.

... Do I get food stamps? No.

You probably couldn't get those... do you want them?

No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't
obtain.

... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No.

But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't,
provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with
carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the
background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you
can afford the best, lucky you.

That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance.

... Do I get rent assistance? No.

Do you want it?

Would I qualify if I did? No.

So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive
that allows the government to take what it does, which is not
insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute?

Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't
assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't?

No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the
git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income
that I have. That means direct government assistance - not that which
promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents
some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your
expensive toys.

Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on
the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for
somebody to do the deed.

It's also why I carry.

A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they?

They get better police protection I do. In fact, because most of the
lower income folks live in centralized locations, they are better
served because there are more officers patrolling less square milage
than that in which I live. - they are much better off. The average
response time to an emergency police call in my area is 27 minutes.
The average for Willimantic is 3 minutes. The average response time
to a emergency medical/fire call with an ambulance/apparatus is 35
minutes. The average in Willimantic is 6 minutes. It's about the
same for Norwich, Glastonbury and other towns similar to Willimantic.

So, in fact, they are better served that I am.

Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your
property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone
would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating
assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches
etc etc etc.

Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud.

Think.

I have. I might suggest the same for you.

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004


And the property taxes us so called wealthy pay is a lot greater
proportionately to the services we receive than the poor people. And there
will still be property taxes even with a flat income tax. What extra
services do I get for my $135 / year property tax on my boat, than the $12 /
year property tax boat guy? Say we both own 21' boats, mine is just more
expensive.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:44:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Where you and I differ is that I believe that there could very well be
a substantial reduction in government spending

Oh, we don't differ at all on that. I'd love to see the federal gov't
cut it's budget by 1/2. To start with, I'd cut the Presidents &
Congresses salary & benefits dramatically.

... or at the very least,
a redistribution of current spending priorities which would make the
amount of spending more palatable.

Palatable to whom?

Frankly, I disagree with handing bazillions of dollars to Halliburton
(and JimH insists that rich people don't get "gov't benefits" to equal
welfare!) for gods & services that they often don't deliver, and are of
no use to the American citizenry when they do. I also disagree with
handing millions of dollars in tax money to churches... let the Faith
Based Initiative close up shop and give all the money back to the
taxpayers, let *them* decide what to do with it!




Personally, I object to the flat tax on moral grounds. It is a de
facto
penalty on the poor, and trivializes tax expense to the super-rich....
who BTW gain the most from gov't services, so shouldn't they pay more?


I make, in the course of a year, with retirement income and such, a
goodly amount - some would call it "super-duper-rich". What is it
exactly that I gain in direct government services that someone with a
low income gets? Do I get home heating assistance? No.

You could if you wanted to stand in line and fill out a lot of
paperwork.

No I could not - it's income based.

... Do I get food stamps? No.

You probably couldn't get those... do you want them?

No, but the point is that it's a direct benefit that I don't and can't
obtain.

... Do I get Husky Healthcare for my kids? No.

But OTOH you do get medical care that is supervised by the gov't,
provided by doctors & nurses that have been trained in accordance with
carefully regulated programs... in short the gov't has provided all the
background services & infrastructure for your medical care... and you
can afford the best, lucky you.

That's part of the general common wealth - not direct assistance.

... Do I get rent assistance? No.

Do you want it?

Would I qualify if I did? No.

So, just out curiosity, what direct government assistance do I receive
that allows the government to take what it does, which is not
insubstantial I might add, that adds up to more than I contribute?

Ah, now you want to muddy the water... it has to be "direct gov't
assistance" now, in the form of cash handed to you by the gov't?

No - you ain't getting away with that one. You said, right from the
git go, that I was benefitting more than those who have less income
that I have. That means direct government assistance - not that which
promotes the general welfare. I'm sure you understand the difference.

Let me put it this way... at the most basic level, the gov't prevents
some low-life from smacking you over the head and taking away all your
expensive toys.

Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on
the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for
somebody to do the deed.

Its a false premise......the police are under NO obligation to protect
your toys from some low life



It's also why I carry.

A person with no expensive toys doesn't get this service, do they?

They get better police protection I do. In fact, because most of the
lower income folks live in centralized locations, they are better
served because there are more officers patrolling less square milage
than that in which I live. - they are much better off. The average
response time to an emergency police call in my area is 27 minutes.
The average for Willimantic is 3 minutes. The average response time
to a emergency medical/fire call with an ambulance/apparatus is 35
minutes. The average in Willimantic is 6 minutes. It's about the
same for Norwich, Glastonbury and other towns similar to Willimantic.

So, in fact, they are better served that I am.

Would you like to hire a couple of rent-a-cops to watch all of your
property, and one to follow you around all day every day? That alone
would probably be pretty expensive, far more than your heating
assistance and rent assistance and day care assistance and free lunches
etc etc etc.

Oh please. Make a rational argument for crying out loud.

Think.

I have. I might suggest the same for you.

All the best,

Tom
--------------

"What the hell's the deal with this newsgroup...
is there a computer terminal in the day room of
some looney bin somewhere?"

Bilgeman - circa 2004

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:15:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:



Really? How so? It takes an officer approximately a half hour to get
here from the local barracks - that's if there is one available at the
local barracks immediately. It can take an hour if the officer is on
the other side of the patrol area. That's more than enough time for
somebody to do the deed.

It's also why I carry.


OK, I am going to go OT on this one. Just this once to keep this newsgroup
in peace for a while.

I'll only speak about my experience in life to the point that my Father and
Uncles and Father in Law and Friends spoke with me about WWII and some
personal experiences. Not much. It was an unwritten rule in our family not
to talk about war except on the rarest occasions.

My father was a fighter pilot, obviously he survived and that is why I can
write today. My 1st Uncle was a photographer doing BDA over Africa. He was
lucky, only a couple of planes returned from a mission. He lost all of his
buddies. Did you know when you are firing twin 50's from the side of a
bomber at a fighter coming at you, you don't lead them, you lag them. Did
you know twin 50's are designed to crossfire at a specific distance?

Another Uncle contracted scarlet fever overseas. He died prematurely.

Another Uncle was in if I remember correctly Burma, he passed on to me a
Burma machete. Burma was a vicious part of the war.

My best friend when I started in the steel mills was a veteran of the
Pacific. His stories were nothing short of the humorous to the horrific. He
usually only talked about the dumb things he did. One time they thought the
enemy were hiding in a cave beneath their feet. They found a number of enemy
mortar rounds and began throwing them down into the hole. After 20 or 30
duds, they realized that if they all went off in the hole they would have
all been blown to kingdom come.

Another friend was a POW in a German prison. His stories were horrific.

My father in law has pictures of him in front of the last buildings left
standing in Hiroshima. On a business trip, I made a point of standing in the
exact spot as my father in law for a picture. Things have changed there, he
just happened to have stood in front of one of the few buildings left
standing that is now a national site. My Father, Uncles, and Father in
Law were buried with full military honors.

For myself, like my family before me, I was just a kid and I killed men in
the name of my county. I also saw and experienced unspeakable horrors. But
what the hell does a 19 year old know? I would rather forget.

But, that was war.

My son was car jacked in a major nearby city. Since he is a weight lifter,
he figured "screw this guy". The car jacker pulled a gun. They drove up to a
stop sign. My son said "F this" and reached across the center console of his
Mustang after the guy. He took a bullet through the neck. It just happened
to miss his esophagus and all the critical blood vessels. It barely touched
the inside of his neck bones. The bullet is still in his left shoulder. It
is a miracle he is alive. He will carry that bullet in his shoulder for the
rest of his life. Surgery to remove it is not worth the risk, at least for
now.

That was 4 years ago this coming December 23. What a Christmas that was.

The city detectives were the most incompetent bunch of boobs I had ever met
in my life. They didn't even bother coming to the hospital to interview my
son. We went to the police station after he was released and he identified
the car jacker from a photo on an Apple Laptop Computer. I was there.
Wouldn't you know it, they had him locked up as a suspect but all his pals
came to the station and swore he was with them, even before my son picked
him out. They had let him go before they ever talked to my son despite the
fact there were 2 witnesses in the neighborhood. Bungled, PREJUDICED police
work. The investigation just went nowhere. I was just too happy to have my
son alive to push it further.

Do I carry?, Yes. Would I ever use it in defense of my family or myself?
Yes, and without hesitation!





Regards
John S

I would rather be boating!