[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

JRake

Bil Kleb

12/18/2006 1:29:00 PM

Fowler points to some folks replacing Ant with Rake:

http://martinfowler.com/bliki/...

Regards,
--
Bil Kleb
http://kleb.tadalist.com/lists/pub...
12 Answers

Charles Oliver Nutter

12/18/2006 1:48:00 PM

0

Bil Kleb wrote:
> Fowler points to some folks replacing Ant with Rake:
>
> http://martinfowler.com/bliki/...
>

Yeah, cool stuff. I've been following the JRake development the past
week or so and it's starting to look pretty solid. I've figured this
would be a great application of JRuby, and I'm glad someone with more
time than me decided to start wiring it up :)

I had originally planned to make it use Ant tasks, but perhaps there's
more value in reimplementing the tasks from scratch to be more Rubyish?
My justification was in reusing all the many, many Ant tasks already
implemented within a Rake script, but I can see both sides.

--
Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer
Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com
Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec
headius@headius.com -- charles.nutter@sun.com

Charles Oliver Nutter

12/21/2006 2:37:00 AM

0

Uma Geller wrote:
> From what you've seen about JRake so far, would it be too
> difficult to generate Rakefiles out of Ant build.xml makefiles ?

It's hard to say, but if there's a straightfoward translation for tasks,
it shouldn't be hard to make that translation. Ant is almost exclusively
descriptive rather than procedural, so going to a more procedural build
script like JRake/Rake ought not to be too difficult.

--
Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer
Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com
Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec
headius@headius.com -- charles.nutter@sun.com

Caleb Powell

3/17/2007 5:51:00 PM

0

> > I had originally planned to make it use Ant tasks, but perhaps there's
> > more value in reimplementing the tasks from scratch to be more Rubyish?
> > My justification was in reusing all the many, many Ant tasks already
> > implemented within a Rake script, but I can see both sides.
> >
>
> From what you've seen about JRake so far, would it be too
> difficult to generate Rakefiles out of Ant build.xml makefiles ?
>
> best,

I know I'm posting to this forum a little late but....

In my opinion, the best approach is to invoke Ant tasks from within a
rake file. The best part of Ant is the multitude of tasks available. I
wrote awrapper called Antwrap which may be helpful to you:

http://rubyforge.org/project...
http://antwrap.ruby...

There is a convert.rb script available which will convert an Ant
build.xml file to a Rake file. Antwrap is a gem that allows you to
invoke Ant tasks from within a Ruby/JRuby script.

Cheers,

Caleb

JohnJohnsn

4/16/2013 7:14:00 PM

0

On Apr 15, 8:23 am, Tiefe Scheiße <dudu@vlillldm.dnc.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:28:27 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
> <D...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:17:11 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message
>>> news:7t9nm855e1q43fa4lopn6kdtv6tdp1j8mp@4ax.com...
>
>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:40 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>>>>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:7o0nm891t5v9b8noihbbq1d1pempes193q@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:44:21 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>"Tiefe Scheiße" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:50gmm8p40pu23rc16dddv1ktii0c7pp3to@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:28:37 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>> <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> You refuse to accept background checks even though they are
>>>>>>>>>> supported by well over 90% of ALL Americans (even gun owners)
>
>>>>>>>>> Where have I said that? Jesus you are a liar. I have said (several
>>>>>>>>> times, you stupid shit) that I have no problem with universal
>>>>>>>>> background checks but I do have a big problem with registration
>>>>>>>>> of my firearms.
>
>>>>>>>> Registration of your firearms has never been suggested.
>
>>>>>>> So, no personal information or firearm information will be necessary
>>>>>>> to conduct the BGC?
>
>>>>>>> So how does the system know who to run a check on?
>
>>>>>>> Oh, yea, you tell us that information won't be kept....just like
>>>>>>> the FBI isn't keeping the data from the BGCs through NICS?
>
>>>>>> It you are a CCW...
>
>>>>> Attempt to change the subject is noted. Oh, and not everyone
>>>>> who has a CCW does so in order to carry a gun...some use it to
>>>>> carry other weapons such as knives.
>
>>>> That's not changing the subject.
>
>>> It certainly is, unless you think every gun owner has a CCW.
>
>> It's my impression that the most vocal gun rights activists in these
>> forums complaining about registration seem to have already given
>> up their information to the authorities to obtain a CCW.
>
> Or just buy a gun from a dealer. Anybody who has ever bought from a
> dealer with an FFL has had a background check run on them and their
> information is supposedly in the FBI database.
>
The ILLEGAL gun owner database the FBI has been ILLEGALY creating
since 1994 in violation of the very federal laws they are suppose to
obey: ITIC, the prohibition within the Brady Background Check Law
(Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536):

[FYR: "the statement" = the ATF Form 4473]

General.
"(3) The statement referred to in paragraph (I)(A)(i)(D shall
contain only—
"(A) the name, address, and date of birth appearing on
a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(l))
of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee
and a description of the identification used;
"(B) a statement that the transferee—
"(i) is not imder indictment for, and has not been
convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding 1 year;
"(ii) is not a fugitive irom jiistice;
"(iii) is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any
controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act);
"(iv) has not been adjudicated as a mental defective
or been committed to a mental institution;
"(v) is not an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in
the United States;
"(vi) has not been discharged firom the Armed Forces
under dishonorable conditions; and
"(vii) is not a person who, having been a citizen of
the United States, has renounced such citizenship;
"(C) the date the statement is made; and
"(D) notice that the transferee intends to obtain a handgun
firom the transferor.
"(4) Any transferor of a handgun who, after such transfer,
receives a report from a chief law enforcement officer containing
information that receipt or possession of the handgun by the
transferee violates Federal, State, or local law shall, within 1
business
day afi«r receipt of such request, commimicate any information
related to the transfer that tne transferor has about the transfer
and the transferee to—
"(A) the chief law enforcement officer of the place of business
of the transferor; and
"(B) the chief law enforcement officer of the place of residence
of the transferee.
"(5) Any transferor who receives information, not otherwise
available to the public, in a report under this subsection shall
not disclose such information except to the transferee, to law
enforcement authorities, or pursuant to the direction of a court
of law.
"(6)(A) Any transferor who sells, delivers, or otherwise transfers
a handgun to a transferee shall retain the copy of the statement
of the transferee with respect to the handgun transaction, and
shall retain evidence that the transferor has complied with
subclauses (III) and (IV) of paragraph (I)(A)(i) with respect to
the statement.
"(B) Unless the chief law enforcement officer to whom a statement
is transmitted under paragraph (I)(A)(i)(IV) determines that
a transaction would violate Federal, State, or local law—
Records. "(i) the officer shall, within 20 business days after the
date the transferee made the statement on the basis of which
the notice was provided, destroy the statement, any record
containing information derived from the statement, and any
record created as a result of the notice required by paragraph
(I)(A)(i)(III);
"(ii) the information contained in the statement shall not
be conveyed to any person except a person who has a need
to know in order to carry out this subsection; and
"(iii) the information contained in the statement shall not
be used for any purpose other than to carry out this subsection.

If that's too complecated for you to "compress," the key phrase is:

"destroy the statement, any record containing information derived from
the statement, and any record created as a result of the notice
required..."

And the FBI has NOT been COMPLYING WITH THE LAW, Scheißekopf.

And FYI: the NICS Law added to, not replaced, the Brady Law by
applying the background check to all firearms sales through FFLs;
whether the sale occurs on the licensee's licensed premises OR at a
gun show.

So: no "Gun Show Loophole" exists.
>
> Or so they say.
>
The FBI has admitted it, Scheißekopf.
>
> Hell, I've bought guns from dealers.
>
Does that include your "unlicensed gun dealer neighbor," Scheißekopf ?

You know: the one you refuse to notify the ATF about his criminal
activity at "gun shows."
>
> I've passed background checks.
>
Prove it! Either post your identity or have Scout do it, and _I_ will
run a full background check on you to test your veracity.

Of course, since Klaus has all your lies documented ....

http://klaus.webege.com/dud...
Deep Dudu's FORTRESS OF LIES
Now With 320 Documented
Lies, Falsehoods, Fabrications, Distortions, and Deceptions!
>
> I don't give a shit.
>
Since you "don't give a shit" about giving your identity to the
government, then you shouldn't "give a shit" about giving it to us.

So; just like I challenged Slippy: post your identity -- right here,
right now; or admit you are the sniveling cowardly VLILLLDM gun
control propagandist/protagonist we all know you to be, Scheißekopf.
>
> I know the evil gummit isn't going to be coming for my guns in my lifetime.
>
They will when they run a search warrant on your place, based upon
your res gestae statements placed all over the Ether.

NOTE to Scout: It's time; WAY past time!

RD Sandman

4/16/2013 8:32:00 PM

0

deep wrote in news:lnjpm8l3hpcsbd3d704v717dhpla39vkng@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:40:45 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Or just buy a gun from a dealer. Anybody who has ever bought from a
>>> dealer with an FFL has had a background check run on them and their
>>> information is supposedly in the FBI database.
>>
>>Not legally, it isn't. The law specifically forbids that.
>>
> I'm not convinced it is even happening. That's just what Scout et al
> are all claiming. I don't think there's ever been any concrete proof
> it's ever happened.

Oh, well......


--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

RD Sandman

4/16/2013 8:36:00 PM

0

GOP_Decline_and_Fall <Dev@null.net> wrote in
news:33kpm891u6p39v4dc3gnt3c2fcv8nnk5ko@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 06:52:33 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:38:40 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>><Dev@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:44:21 -0400, "Scout"
>>><me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>news:50gmm8p40pu23rc16dddv1ktii0c7pp3to@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:28:37 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You refuse to accept background checks even though they are
>>>>>>> supported by well over 90% of ALL Americans (even gun owners)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where have I said that? Jesus you are a liar. I have said
>>>>>>(several times, you stupid shit) that I have no problem with
>>>>>>universal background checks but I do have a big problem with
>>>>>>registration of my firearms.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Registration of your firearms has never been suggested.
>>>>
>>>>So, no personal information or firearm information will be necessary
>>>>to conduct the BGC?
>>>>
>>>>So how does the system know who to run a check on?
>>>>
>>>>Oh, yea, you tell us that information won't be kept....just like the
>>>>FBI isn't keeping the data from the BGCs through NICS?
>>>
>>>It you are a CCW you have already given your information to the 16
>>>intelligence agencies that keep President Obama up to speed and
>>>840,000 folk with top security clearance have already got access to
>>>it.
>>>
>>>Yet, oddly enough, your weapons have not been confiscated have they?
>>>
>>>They aren't confiscating weapons just keeping a sharp eye on you so
>>>that they know where to come in the unlikely event that the SHTF.
>>
>>That's not an unlikely event. The shit is for sure hitting the fan.
>>But when it does the "gummit" ain't gonna have adequate manpower to
>>come and get everybody's guns. I keep telling these loons here, that
>>the numbers of owners/guns in this country makes it completely
>>impossible for any sort of universal confiscation scheme. It's just
>>paranoia talking.
>
> True.
>
> I suspect it would be more a case of revoking permits in a declared
> State of Emergency for those known to be in the habit of making
> terrorist threats online or elsewhere.
>

That's not what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.

--

Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,

And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

SaPeIsMa

4/16/2013 11:05:00 PM

0

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1A48A5F6CFAhopewell@216.196.121.131...
> GOP_Decline_and_Fall <Dev@null.net> wrote in
> news:33kpm891u6p39v4dc3gnt3c2fcv8nnk5ko@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 06:52:33 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:38:40 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>>><Dev@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:44:21 -0400, "Scout"
>>>><me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>>news:50gmm8p40pu23rc16dddv1ktii0c7pp3to@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:28:37 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You refuse to accept background checks even though they are
>>>>>>>> supported by well over 90% of ALL Americans (even gun owners)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Where have I said that? Jesus you are a liar. I have said
>>>>>>>(several times, you stupid shit) that I have no problem with
>>>>>>>universal background checks but I do have a big problem with
>>>>>>>registration of my firearms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Registration of your firearms has never been suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, no personal information or firearm information will be necessary
>>>>>to conduct the BGC?
>>>>>
>>>>>So how does the system know who to run a check on?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, yea, you tell us that information won't be kept....just like the
>>>>>FBI isn't keeping the data from the BGCs through NICS?
>>>>
>>>>It you are a CCW you have already given your information to the 16
>>>>intelligence agencies that keep President Obama up to speed and
>>>>840,000 folk with top security clearance have already got access to
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>Yet, oddly enough, your weapons have not been confiscated have they?
>>>>
>>>>They aren't confiscating weapons just keeping a sharp eye on you so
>>>>that they know where to come in the unlikely event that the SHTF.
>>>
>>>That's not an unlikely event. The shit is for sure hitting the fan.
>>>But when it does the "gummit" ain't gonna have adequate manpower to
>>>come and get everybody's guns. I keep telling these loons here, that
>>>the numbers of owners/guns in this country makes it completely
>>>impossible for any sort of universal confiscation scheme. It's just
>>>paranoia talking.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> I suspect it would be more a case of revoking permits in a declared
>> State of Emergency for those known to be in the habit of making
>> terrorist threats online or elsewhere.
>>
>
> That's not what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.
>

This is what happened to Patricia Konnie in New Orleans following Katrina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B...

Scout

4/16/2013 11:25:00 PM

0



"deep" wrote in message news:qi8rm8l25m47ddhlfgqufm4ut4jcpve4tj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:37:36 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"deep" wrote in message news:lnjpm8l3hpcsbd3d704v717dhpla39vkng@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:40:45 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Or just buy a gun from a dealer. Anybody who has ever bought from a
>>>>> dealer with an FFL has had a background check run on them and their
>>>>> information is supposedly in the FBI database.
>>>>
>>>>Not legally, it isn't. The law specifically forbids that.
>>>>
>>> I'm not convinced it is even happening. That's just what Scout et al
>>> are all claiming. I don't think there's ever been any concrete proof
>>> it's ever happened.
>>
>>Dudu, nothing presented to you which disagrees with your world view is
>>"concrete proof" no matter how authoritative. You simply deny anything
>>that
>>you don't want to hear. So, I'm hardly surprised that you disagree yet
>>again
>>given that the link to the evidence has already been posted.
>>
> No such proof has ever been offered. It's nothing but paranoid
> ravings at this point.

Really? What about the link that was posted?

What do you have to say about it?

GOP_Decline_and_Fall

4/17/2013 5:48:00 AM

0

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:23:12 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
<TopCop1988@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 15, 2:28 am, GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:17:11 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>>
>>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message
>>> news:7t9nm855e1q43fa4lopn6kdtv6tdp1j8mp@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:40 -0400, "Scout"
>>>> <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>"GOP_Decline_and_Fall" <D...@null.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:7o0nm891t5v9b8noihbbq1d1pempes193q@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:44:21 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>>> <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:50gmm8p40pu23rc16dddv1ktii0c7pp3to@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:28:37 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>>> <rdsandman@comcast,net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> You refuse to accept background checks even though they are
>>>>>>>>>> supported by well over 90% of ALL Americans (even gun owners)
>>
>>>>>>>>> Where have I said that? Jesus you are a liar. I have said (several
>>>>>>>>> times, you stupid shit) that I have no problem with universal
>>>>>>>>> background checks but I do have a big problem with registration
>>>>>>>>> of my firearms.
>>
>>>>>>>> Registration of your firearms has never been suggested.
>>
>The aide tells me this bill is the ?first step toward a national gun
>registry.?
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senate-aide-gun-law-wouldnt-have-stopped-newtown-massacre_7...
>>
>>>>>>> So, no personal information or firearm information will be
>>>>>>> necessary toconduct the BGC?
>>
>>>>>>>So how does the system know who to run a check on?
>>
>>>>>>> Oh, yea, you tell us that information won't be kept....just
>>>>>>> like the FBIisn't keeping the data from the BGCs through NICS?
>>
>>>>>> It you are a CCW
>>
>>>>> Attempt to change the subject is noted. Oh, and not everyone
>>>>> who has a CCW does so in order to carry a gun...some use it to
>>>>> carry other weapons such as knives.
>>
>>>> That's not changing the subject.
>>
>>> It certainly is, unless you think every gun owner has a CCW.
>>
>> It's my impression that the most vocal gun rights activists in these
>> forums complaining about registration seem to have already given up
>> their information to the authorities to obtain a CCW.
>>
>Well, Slippy; you ASSume way too much here, as several of us in this
>newsgroup who are against a nationsl registry of guns and gun owners
>require a CHL (or "CCW") in order to legally carry a concealed
>sidearm.
>
>Now, Slippy; it's time for you to "put your money where your mouth
>is:"
>
>Since you are for every gun owner to be required to expose their
>identity to the federal government as a condition of their exercising
>their 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms,

Where did you get that idea from?
Certainly from nothing I have said.

My focus has been on assault weapons not the general RTKBA.

>it's _way_ past time for _you_ to come out from behind that curtain of anonymity and expose
>_your_ true identity to the world as a condition of exercising your
>1st Amendment Right of Free Speech.
>
>After all; "If you have nothing to hide...."
>
>"Goose; meet Gander."

On the contrary, concern for privacy issues is a subject I have
brought up many times.

If I can drag you back to the subject

Why is giving personal information to register an assault weapon
so drastically different to supplying the same information to obtain
a concealed weapons permit?

GOP_Decline_and_Fall

4/17/2013 5:49:00 AM

0

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:36:07 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>GOP_Decline_and_Fall <Dev@null.net> wrote in
>news:33kpm891u6p39v4dc3gnt3c2fcv8nnk5ko@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 06:52:33 -0600, deep wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 21:38:40 -0700, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>>><Dev@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:44:21 -0400, "Scout"
>>>><me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"deep" wrote in message
>>>>>news:50gmm8p40pu23rc16dddv1ktii0c7pp3to@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:28:37 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You refuse to accept background checks even though they are
>>>>>>>> supported by well over 90% of ALL Americans (even gun owners)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Where have I said that? Jesus you are a liar. I have said
>>>>>>>(several times, you stupid shit) that I have no problem with
>>>>>>>universal background checks but I do have a big problem with
>>>>>>>registration of my firearms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Registration of your firearms has never been suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, no personal information or firearm information will be necessary
>>>>>to conduct the BGC?
>>>>>
>>>>>So how does the system know who to run a check on?
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, yea, you tell us that information won't be kept....just like the
>>>>>FBI isn't keeping the data from the BGCs through NICS?
>>>>
>>>>It you are a CCW you have already given your information to the 16
>>>>intelligence agencies that keep President Obama up to speed and
>>>>840,000 folk with top security clearance have already got access to
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>Yet, oddly enough, your weapons have not been confiscated have they?
>>>>
>>>>They aren't confiscating weapons just keeping a sharp eye on you so
>>>>that they know where to come in the unlikely event that the SHTF.
>>>
>>>That's not an unlikely event. The shit is for sure hitting the fan.
>>>But when it does the "gummit" ain't gonna have adequate manpower to
>>>come and get everybody's guns. I keep telling these loons here, that
>>>the numbers of owners/guns in this country makes it completely
>>>impossible for any sort of universal confiscation scheme. It's just
>>>paranoia talking.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> I suspect it would be more a case of revoking permits in a declared
>> State of Emergency for those known to be in the habit of making
>> terrorist threats online or elsewhere.
>>
>
>That's not what happened in New Orleans during Katrina.

The handling of Katrina was a disaster in itself IMHO.