Aardvark wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 22:29:11 -0500, Tom Watson wrote:

I picked up the CZ yesterday and there is no way that I am competent to
replicate the grip checkering. I thought that it would have been much
simpler but it is not.

It is a beautiful and delicately proportioned piece and I'm confident
that the boy will be able to handle it well.

Had I owned a similar rifle at his age I would have never let it leave
my sight.

To Aardvark: I am sorry to disagree with you and I believe this to be a
cultural divide. Where and when I grew up it was a rite of passage for
a twelve year old boy to get a .22 rifle for his twelfth birthday, or
the Christmas preceding. My son will be twelve in February.


I have taught my two lads (10 and 14) marksmanship and weapon safety with
a .22 air rifle which is always kept under lock and key. If I'm not
there, the rifle stays locked away and I'll only let them use it under my
supervision. I certainly wouldn't dream of allowing either of them to
have a REAL firearm even if it were less difficult to acquire one easily.


Wow. Locked up air rifles; nanny state indeed


As a lad I was fortunate enough to have always had firearms around and
learned to respect them and fear their potential. I'm from Northern
Ireland originally and my father was in a profession which gave him
access to a variety of smallarms, including fully automatic weapons. The
first handguns I ever fired on the local police range at the age of 13
were a Colt .45 Peacemaker and a WWII Luger 9mm Parabellum. I was pretty
pleased that I was able to hit a 'Figure 11' target at 25 metres with
every shot I fired from both weapons- one of the other lads who was on
the range only managed to hit the target once LOL.


Yet you want to deny that enjoyment to others

We here in the United States of America consider the entire populace to
be the "...well regulated militia..." that is described in our
Constitution. As such, it is not merely our right but our duty to
transmit the knowledge and wisdom that goes along with gun ownership to
our progeny.


I think that many Americans misinterpret your Second Amendment to mean
something it wasn't intended to mean. Perhaps members of official
'militias' are allowed to keep and bear arms, but it's a bit of a stretch
to insist that this right should extend to every member of the
population.


Umm, nope. The founders were pretty clear. They wrote WE THE PEOPLE into
the preamble, and the second amendment very clearly states "the right of
the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", not the "right of official militias" to
keep and bear arms. 'twould be a bit ridiculous to enshrine the right of
militias to be armed, wouldn't you think? Do you really think the
government would need to guarantee the right of the government to keep and
bear arms? No matter what permutations you place on that, it just doesn't
pass the reasonableness test that the ability of militias to be armed would
have to be specifically enumerated and not when the rest of the bill of
rights are affirmation of individual rights.


You folks had a similar right secured as far back as 1689 but you seem
to have lost your way.


We're a bit more civilised now than we were in the days of King James.


You stated in a previous post that you view GB as being more mature.

There's a big difference between maturity and senility.



We have a wonderful

Hmmmm.

organization called the National Rifle Association
that helps us to train our young people in the safe and effective use of
firearms.

Who took over when Chuck 'From my cold dead hand' Heston died?

They also lobby, very effectively, to keep our right to bear
arms as it was intended by the Founders of our country.


I would say 'vociferously misinterpret the Second Amendment', but who
says my opinion should amount to more than a pile of sheep ****?


Indeed. The misinterpretation is on the part of those who believe that
the government somehow had to guarantee the right of government entities to
be armed. The prolific writings of the founders leave no doubt as to the
intent of the second amendment. Even the intellectually honest anti-gun
people will say that and recognize that an amendment to repeal the right
would be the only correct means of changing that element of our bill of
rights.


It's difficult to think of any legitimate reason for anyone to keep a
firearm in their home. You may say that it's to protect your home against
intruders. I would say that if you were to shoot an intruder the fact
that you had a firearm in your home at all implies premeditation on your
part and therefore you should be prosecuted by the law in much the same
way as if you had walked into the street with a firearm and shot the
first person you came across.

Well, you certainly fit the model that your overlords want you to fit.
So, let's make this personal, if some thug breaks into *your* house, what
are you going to do? If, fearing for your life, you hit him with a
baseball bat, golf club, or lamp, would that fall under your idea of
pre-meditating harm to your assailant? I'm sure your argument will be that
those items are not weapons. So, let's say you use something more
effective like a knife, then does pre-meditation on your part then fall
into the equation? Especially since your reading this comment will make
you think about the possibility of such and event, you will thus have
thought through possible articles in your home with which you could defend
yourself.

Your previous paragraph has this whole aura of unbelievability about it.
Surely nobody can value the lives of themselves or their family so little
that they would rather be the victim of an intruder rather than defend
themselves. If they would defend themselves, then why not be able to do so
with the most effective tool available to them.





I am happy to be a member and I am happy to say that my son is now also
a member.


NASCAR fans too?


Much as I've enjoyed this little debate, I know that this is the wrong
place for this kind of discussion and so I'll leave it here. Thanks to
all who openly disagreed with me and those who said nothing but tacitly
agreed with me.

To Tom Watson- I do hope that you come to a satisfactory solution to your
checkering conundrum. I have a set of good carving chisels but I
certainly wouldn't take lightly the proposition of using them for the
task you describe. Hope it works out for you.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough