Yes, and reloading is much less expensive.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...

Is it legal to hunt skeet at night?

Sure, they are caged in this little machine and we turn them loose on
demand, under the lights.


A real sportsman would use a bow. :-)

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:29:12 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:13:13 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:00:30 -0600, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

Is it legal to hunt skeet at night?

Sure, they are caged in this little machine and we turn them loose on
demand, under the lights.


A real sportsman would use a bow. :-)

See Rufus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ieWrWLjii0


Wow. He doesn't seem to aim.
This guy isn't bad either:
http://tinyurl.com/bjg3bdz

I had no idea anyone could actually do this.

Nice video. I've seen gator's killed with one shot in the eye with a
Ruger 10/22. Knocked the top part of the skull off with HP mag rounds.
This was at night with a light. The eye was red, about the size of a
quarter, maybe 30 yards. Same gun you could shoot a deer in the left
ear at 40 yards.

I knew a woman who bagged a black bear with a 10/22. One shot, right
between the eyes (head hanging in the den). She used a little bigger
artillery (3030) to get her polar bear rug, though.

My BIL was in front of me one day. Walking on a cow path, back to the
truck. I had a bow --

He jumped more feet in the air that I had seen before. Came down
firing the 10/22. Shot a rattlesnake in tenderloins. The next day he
found out the snake did strike his boot.

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:14:50 -0500, wrote:

I wasn't picking a nit, but for the past few weeks I had been trying
to remember this incident. Where known criminals illegally modified a
weapon to automatic.

You can't do THAT, the law says so. Just steal them from a cop car.

Criminals would never break the law. Only Joe "Plugs" Biden would do
that.

When you said PLUG, I got to thinking. Some shotguns have a plug in
the magazine - preventing 6 rounds and limited to five. Some states?

I hate thinking :-\

Shotgun ban.


http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2013/03/0...ndard-shotgun/

Greg

On Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:00:42 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:14:50 -0500, wrote:

I wasn't picking a nit, but for the past few weeks I had been trying
to remember this incident. Where known criminals illegally modified a
weapon to automatic.

You can't do THAT, the law says so. Just steal them from a cop car.

Criminals would never break the law. Only Joe "Plugs" Biden would do
that.

When you said PLUG, I got to thinking. Some shotguns have a plug in
the magazine - preventing 6 rounds and limited to five. Some states?

Nope.

http://plasticsurgerystar.com/joe-bi...fore-and-after

I hate thinking :-\

wrote in message
...

We went to a gun show today. Showed up at 9:30 and there were several
hundred people (line stretched 4-500') standing in line outside in the
cold. OK, it was 35F but that's damned cold here. We went back in
the afternoon when it was more sane but it was pretty picked over (did
score three gun rugs for $12).

I did not think there would be anything worth while to go to a gun show now.
Most likely any gun, magazine, or ammo worth having has already been sold.
If anyting is left, it is probably way over priced.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 23:51:38 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

We went to a gun show today. Showed up at 9:30 and there were several
hundred people (line stretched 4-500') standing in line outside in the
cold. OK, it was 35F but that's damned cold here. We went back in
the afternoon when it was more sane but it was pretty picked over (did
score three gun rugs for $12).

I did not think there would be anything worth while to go to a gun show now.
Most likely any gun, magazine, or ammo worth having has already been sold.
If anyting is left, it is probably way over priced.

Exactly. Most of what was interesting was *way* overpriced. It's
still a day out playing with toys (went to a few woodworking stores,
too).

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:47:07 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Yesterdday CBS news showed a video that Feinstein played
at the hearings showing the weapons that the libs want to ban.
It featured an obviously fully automatic rifle going full speed, with
Feinstein saying in the background "This weapon is legal today......"

Which of course is a gross distortion and not what the
core of the gun debate about "assault weapons" is
even about. No such weapon was used in any of the
shootings. Just another lib lie, repeated with relish by
the lib media.

Since the 1934 Gun Control Act, which regulated fully-automatic weapons,
there has been exactly ONE crime committed with an automtic weapon.

And that crime was undertaken by a police officer who scored his weapon
from
his police department's weapons locker.


North Hollywood shootout:



NOPE
NOT LEGALLY REGISTERED machine guns.



- Phillips and Matasareanu are believed to have robbed two other
banks using virtually identical methods by taking control of the
entire bank and firing automatic weapons for control and entry past
'bullet-proof' security doors,

- Phillips and Matasareanu carried illegally modified fully automatic
AKMs and an HK-91 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and
ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore
body armor of their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Of bourse these were modified to automatic and not taken from LEO.

Not legally obtained either through a class III FFL..

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 2/28/2013 4:53 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Frank wrote:

With secret service living/renting a guest house on his property in
Chateau Country you probably can't get within a half mile of his
house.
It would also be illegal to fire a shot out the door, as well as it
would be illegal to shoot someone outside the house. Castle doctrine
only allows you to shoot an intruder inside.


Not so. "Castle Doctrine" or no, you are allowed to use deadly force in
defense of yourself. It could be "up close and personal" as was the
claimed
case of Trevon Martin or it could be some distance away.

If my assailant is standing ACROSS THE STREET and taking pot-shots at me,
I
have an absolute right to shoot back (assuming other facts not in
evidence).

If, to zero in on your scenario, the malefactor is chopping on my front
door
with an axe and screaming "I'm gonna cut off your head ! I'll teach you
to
trample my petunias!" It would be not only legal, but meritorious, to
shoot
through the door.

Inside, outside, might make a difference in the "reasonable man" test,
but
is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.



Right but people that get in trouble for example are the guy that shot
someone stealing his motorcycle outside going away from him. Police said
since he was not threatened he should not have been shot. I've heard
people told candidly by cops that if they shoot someone outside to drag
him inside.


Nonsense.
Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:54:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:23:05 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Did you see the video with the women firing
shotguns, and getting bowled over? Versus the
woman sending well aimed 5.56 down range?

That just demonstrated a training problem. We had tiny women shooting
a 12 gauge all night at the skeet league.


Is it legal to hunt skeet at night?



With good lighting, ABSOLUTELY.

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
On 3/1/13 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:17:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:54:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:23:05 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Did you see the video with the women firing
shotguns, and getting bowled over? Versus the
woman sending well aimed 5.56 down range?

That just demonstrated a training problem. We had tiny women shooting
a 12 gauge all night at the skeet league.


Is it legal to hunt skeet at night?

Sure, they are caged in this little machine and we turn them loose on
demand, under the lights.


A real sportsman would use a bow. :-)



And a REALLY "real sportsman" uses a slingshot.

On Mar 3, 7:48*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:34:22 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

Maybe Texas but far from "most states".
In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)
If you shoot someone running away in a "blue" state, you are going to
jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200

Correct. Even the police are not allowed to shoot fleeing felons in
most states unless there is a very good reson to do so, the act of
fleeing in and of itself is not sufficient.

Harry K

On 02-27-2013 23:08, Oren wrote:
This testimony today, in the Senate, is worth a read. In WW I, the
Germans wanted shotguns banned on the battle field. Shotguns were
against the rules of war or it was claimed...

The notion that war is some sort of civilized GAME that must be played
according to rules is really stupid.

There can't be a war unless at least one side is NOT being civilized.

--
Wes Groleau

€œIdeas are more powerful than guns,
We would not let our enemies have guns;
why should we let them have ideas?€�
€” Jozef Stalin

On Feb 28, 9:43*am, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:18:52 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Feb 27, 7:50*pm, Dean Hoffman "
wrote:
* * So sez Vice President Biden. *That will scare people away from the
house. *http://tinyurl.com/d993qt2
* *He must be getting hold of the same stuff Cheech and Chong used years
ago. *http://tinyurl.com/cnn37bc
* "Daves not here"

Umm...no. He did not say anything about shooting through a door. *He
said to step out on the balcony and fire two shots in the air.

Dear Harry (anal about facts) K

...an interview with Field & Stream magazine

"“Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15,
because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the
shotgun through the door.”

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/2013/02/gun-control-joe-b...

Those pesky "facts" LOL

Ah but that was _after_ the initial stupidity. He took the
opportunity to prove that he can be even stupider.

Harry K

This is how the progressive liberal mind works.

Bingo!
Be careful. They change colors like a chameleon. Much like a convict.
Just when you get them figured out, they change right in front of you.
Be diligent, I say.

That's not the "progressive liberal mind"
It's the political mind of any kind.

--
Wes Groleau

€œIf it wasn't for that blasted back-hoe,
a hundred of us could be working with shovels€�
€œYeah, and if it weren't for our shovels,
a thousand of us could be working with spoons."

If you have good lighting, is it night?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Attila Iskander" wrote in message
...


Is it legal to hunt skeet at night?

With good lighting, ABSOLUTELY.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:34:22 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

Maybe Texas but far from "most states".
In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)
If you shoot someone running away in a "blue" state, you are going to
jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200



I'm so sorry that you don't read what was written.
Running away is not the same as running away while committing a felony.
Eg running away with a stolen gun or anything that's worth more than (usual)
$50.

Stopping a crime being committed is generally covered by "deadly force"
laws.
And the reason most states have such a provision is to cover for the police
when they actually shoot a perp "running away" if they believe he has or
still is committing a felony
It just happens that such laws are NOT exclusive to LEOs, and they apply to
citizens as well.

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Mar 3, 7:48 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:34:22 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

Maybe Texas but far from "most states".
In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)
If you shoot someone running away in a "blue" state, you are going to
jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200
#
# Correct. Even the police are not allowed to shoot fleeing felons in
# most states unless there is a very good reson to do so, the act of
# fleeing in and of itself is not sufficient.


What is wrong with your reading skills
Notice the "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY " at the end of the sentence ?
Or was that phrase too complex for you two ?

On Mar 4, 6:32*am, "Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

....
On Mar 3, 7:48 pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:34:22 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

Maybe Texas but far from "most states".
In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)
If you shoot someone running away in a "blue" state, you are going to
jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200

#
# Correct. *Even the police are not allowed to shoot fleeing felons in
# most states unless there is a very good reson to do so, the act of
# fleeing in and of itself is not sufficient.

What is wrong with your reading skills
* * Notice the "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY " at the end of the sentence ?
Or was that phrase too complex for you two *?

Did you not notice that you mentioned shooting someone running away?

They are not allowed to shoot even "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY" except
to preserve life.

Harry K

Attila Iskander wrote:



I'm so sorry that you don't read what was written.
Running away is not the same as running away while committing a
felony. Eg running away with a stolen gun or anything that's worth more
than
(usual) $50.

Stopping a crime being committed is generally covered by "deadly
force" laws.
And the reason most states have such a provision is to cover for the
police when they actually shoot a perp "running away" if they believe
he has or still is committing a felony
It just happens that such laws are NOT exclusive to LEOs, and they
apply to citizens as well.

It works like this:

"The alleged perp was running away, but he stopped and pointed what I
believed to be a weapon in my direction. In fear of my life, I discharged my
service pistol. While the bullet was in flight, the perp turned around to
continue his escape..."

On Mar 4, 6:31*am, "Attila Iskander" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:34:22 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

Maybe Texas but far from "most states".
In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)
If you shoot someone running away in a "blue" state, you are going to
jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200

I'm so sorry that you don't read what was written.
Running away is not the same as running away while committing a felony.
Eg running away with a stolen gun or anything that's worth more than (usual)
$50.

Stopping a crime being committed is generally covered by "deadly force"
laws.
And the reason most states have such a provision is to cover for the police
when they actually shoot a perp "running away" if they believe he has or
still is committing a felony
It just happens that such laws are NOT exclusive to LEOs, and they apply to
citizens as well.

And as I pointed out above, you are wrong. Police are NOT allowed to
shoot "fleeing felons" unless there is a very good reason to do so.
CLUE for the CLUELESS - there are lots of grades of felonies and damn
few of them would justfy being shot at while fleeing.

Yes, I see that my original post was to fgretw, not you. So why did
you step in there and then prove my point of your wrongness in the
next post?

Harry K

On 3/4/2013 9:22 AM, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 4, 6:32 am, "Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

...
On Mar 3, 7:48 pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:34:22 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

Maybe Texas but far from "most states".
In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)
If you shoot someone running away in a "blue" state, you are going to
jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200

#
# Correct. Even the police are not allowed to shoot fleeing felons in
# most states unless there is a very good reson to do so, the act of
# fleeing in and of itself is not sufficient.

What is wrong with your reading skills
Notice the "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY " at the end of the sentence ?
Or was that phrase too complex for you two ?

Did you not notice that you mentioned shooting someone running away?

They are not allowed to shoot even "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY" except
to preserve life.

Harry K


It really depends on the jurisdiction they're in and whether or not
their boss will back them up. Of course there's always the throw down
gun some cops carry. O_o

TDD

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:09:13 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

"“Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15,
because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the
shotgun through the door.”

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/2013/02/gun-control-joe-b...

Those pesky "facts" LOL

Ah but that was _after_ the initial stupidity. He took the
opportunity to prove that he can be even stupider.

Harry K

Well it had to happened. Somebody took Biden's advice and got
arrested.

"A 22-year-old Virginia man has been charged with firing a shotgun
through the door of his house on the same day that Vice President Joe
Biden said that if “you want to keep someone away from your house,
just fire the shotgun through the door.”

[...]

"...He then grabbed his shotgun and fired several shots through his
closed bedroom door, toward the window."

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Biden-shotgun-advice-arrested/2013/03/01/id/492759#ixzz2MaoAMrae

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:05:15 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

Even the police are not allowed to shoot fleeing felons in
most states unless there is a very good reson to do so, the act of
fleeing in and of itself is not sufficient.

Harry K

I'm only familiar with one LEO agency that can shoot an unarmed
fleeing felons, running away. That is the federal prison system. Many
years ago there had to be a verbal command to halt and then one
warning shot before an escape could be shot. That changed over the
years. No verbal command or warning shot. Shoot 'em dead. No matter
is they are armed or not. Walking or running.

Before the policy changes there was an unwritten rule - shoot all your
ammo.

In those days even the FBI could not shoot a fleeing felon in the
back. We had a LEO here shoot a teenager in the back as he ran away.
The officer was cleared. Don't know specifics, maybe the kid was
wearing "felony shoes" and looked dangerous.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 22:48:54 -0500, wrote:

In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)

"Retreat to the wall" ... Florida _used_ to have this law. A person
was required to back to the wall (retreat) AND when he felt an
"imminent threat" could he use deadly force.

Thank God Florida got their minds right and change the law.

Nevada law specifically states a person has NO duty to retreat when
under threat.

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:24:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

It works like this:

"The alleged perp was running away, but he stopped and pointed what I
believed to be a weapon in my direction. In fear of my life, I discharged my
service pistol. While the bullet was in flight, the perp turned around to
continue his escape..."


LOL

Never let facts interfere with the writing of a good report.

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:53:52 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Did you not notice that you mentioned shooting someone running away?

They are not allowed to shoot even "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY" except
to preserve life.

Harry K


It really depends on the jurisdiction they're in and whether or not
their boss will back them up. Of course there's always the throw down
gun some cops carry. O_o

TDD

In my city a gun it not required for a throw down. The officer
writes; the subject made a "furtive move".

1.secretive: done in a way that is intended to escape notice

2.shifty: presenting the appearance, or giving the impression, of
somebody who has something to hide

Cops will shoot you dead, here.

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:07:40 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 02-27-2013 23:08, Oren wrote:
This testimony today, in the Senate, is worth a read. In WW I, the
Germans wanted shotguns banned on the battle field. Shotguns were
against the rules of war or it was claimed...

The notion that war is some sort of civilized GAME that must be played
according to rules is really stupid.

No, it really isn't. The presumption is that one day the war will end
and we will have to live with each other again. It's best to leave
war on the battlefield and not make it too ugly for the general
population. The Japanese didn't follow these prescriptions and have
been suffering, economically, since WWII. Even if Americans have a
"short" memory, the Chinese and Koreans don't.

There can't be a war unless at least one side is NOT being civilized.

What is your definition of "it"?

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:03:00 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:24:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Attila Iskander wrote:



I'm so sorry that you don't read what was written.
Running away is not the same as running away while committing a
felony. Eg running away with a stolen gun or anything that's worth more
than
(usual) $50.

Stopping a crime being committed is generally covered by "deadly
force" laws.
And the reason most states have such a provision is to cover for the
police when they actually shoot a perp "running away" if they believe
he has or still is committing a felony
It just happens that such laws are NOT exclusive to LEOs, and they
apply to citizens as well.

It works like this:

"The alleged perp was running away, but he stopped and pointed what I
believed to be a weapon in my direction. In fear of my life, I discharged my
service pistol. While the bullet was in flight, the perp turned around to
continue his escape..."


That may work in Texas but you are getting arrested in any North East
state. A $250,000 lawyer bill may get you off but that is quite a fine
for shooting a guy who stole your wallet. If you shot the guy square
in the back, $250k might not get you off.

There is are *very* good reasons I moved out of the NE.

As a reference, even in Florida Zimmerman has paid over $200,000 in
legal fees and he hasn't even been to trial yet ... on a case that
the state is going to lose.

Yes, someone should be disbarred for that one.

On 3/4/2013 12:23 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:53:52 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Did you not notice that you mentioned shooting someone running away?

They are not allowed to shoot even "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY" except
to preserve life.

Harry K


It really depends on the jurisdiction they're in and whether or not
their boss will back them up. Of course there's always the throw down
gun some cops carry. O_o

TDD

In my city a gun it not required for a throw down. The officer
writes; the subject made a "furtive move".

1.secretive: done in a way that is intended to escape notice

2.shifty: presenting the appearance, or giving the impression, of
somebody who has something to hide

Cops will shoot you dead, here.


I had a cop brag to me about how easy it was to kill someone and get
away with it. Me, I just avoid trouble and don't make a scene in any
confrontation with law enforcement. ^_^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

TDD

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 07:25:23 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

And as I pointed out above, you are wrong. Police are NOT allowed to
shoot "fleeing felons" unless there is a very good reason to do so.
CLUE for the CLUELESS - there are lots of grades of felonies and damn
few of them would justfy being shot at while fleeing.

Here is clue. Cops do not stand there to check what level of felony
was just committed. Got a law that shows the this distinction as to
when a fleeing felon can be shot and when he cannot be shot?

.... call out to the fleeing felon and ask if he is a minor?

Federal laws did prevent an escaped "youthful offender" from being
shot. A person aged 18, crime committed as a minor, serving time in
adult prisons.The Federal Youth Corrections Act (YCA).

"Federal Youth Corrections Act was enacted to provide a system for the
treatment and rehabilitation of youth offenders, to improve the
administration of criminal justice, and for other purposes. The Act
was repealed in 1984. [18 USCS § 5005]."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/federal-youth-corrections-act/

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:07:40 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 02-27-2013 23:08, Oren wrote:
This testimony today, in the Senate, is worth a read. In WW I, the
Germans wanted shotguns banned on the battle field. Shotguns were
against the rules of war or it was claimed...

The notion that war is some sort of civilized GAME that must be played
according to rules is really stupid.


The testimony in my link gets to the same point about gun control. An
AR-15 cannot be more dangerous than a shotgun. Yet because of
cosmetics hair-burners want them banned. Banning guns is not
civilized.

All wars are fought because of the penis. Except for Maggy. She
started a war.

There can't be a war unless at least one side is NOT being civilized.

Like the guys wearing explosive vets - NOT in uniform? Those guys?

--
"Dodgeball in Burkas" -- Greg Gutfeld

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:54:15 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

This is how the progressive liberal mind works.

Bingo!
Be careful. They change colors like a chameleon. Much like a convict.
Just when you get them figured out, they change right in front of you.
Be diligent, I say.

That's not the "progressive liberal mind"
It's the political mind of any kind.


It is the liberal mind. I don't change my mind for the most part.

Politicians ought not, tell folks to shoot through the door. The
liberal political mind. They try to get away from "progressive" masks
they wear.

You know the kind.

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:29:29 -0500, wrote:

That may work in Texas but you are getting arrested in any North East
state. A $250,000 lawyer bill may get you off but that is quite a fine
for shooting a guy who stole your wallet. If you shot the guy square
in the back, $250k might not get you off.

There is are *very* good reasons I moved out of the NE.


My uncle asked why I was moving to New York. For money, I said.

He said, there is nothing up there but Yankees.

As a reference, even in Florida Zimmerman has paid over $200,000 in
legal fees and he hasn't even been to trial yet ... on a case that
the state is going to lose.

Yes, someone should be disbarred for that one.

The Prosecutor to be exact, borders criminal, did she pray with the
victim's family in private?

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:13:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:29:29 -0500, wrote:

That may work in Texas but you are getting arrested in any North East
state. A $250,000 lawyer bill may get you off but that is quite a fine
for shooting a guy who stole your wallet. If you shot the guy square
in the back, $250k might not get you off.

There is are *very* good reasons I moved out of the NE.


My uncle asked why I was moving to New York. For money, I said.

I lived there for 19 years; for the money. Disgusting place.

He said, there is nothing up there but Yankees.

They're not scary. I are one. ;-)

As a reference, even in Florida Zimmerman has paid over $200,000 in
legal fees and he hasn't even been to trial yet ... on a case that
the state is going to lose.

Yes, someone should be disbarred for that one.

The Prosecutor to be exact, borders criminal, did she pray with the
victim's family in private?

She *prayed*?! She should be hanged!

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:01:31 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:13:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:29:29 -0500, wrote:

That may work in Texas but you are getting arrested in any North East
state. A $250,000 lawyer bill may get you off but that is quite a fine
for shooting a guy who stole your wallet. If you shot the guy square
in the back, $250k might not get you off.

There is are *very* good reasons I moved out of the NE.


My uncle asked why I was moving to New York. For money, I said.

I lived there for 19 years; for the money. Disgusting place.


I was in out in a year.

He said, there is nothing up there but Yankees.

They're not scary. I are one. ;-)


You have my sympathy...

As a reference, even in Florida Zimmerman has paid over $200,000 in
legal fees and he hasn't even been to trial yet ... on a case that
the state is going to lose.

Yes, someone should be disbarred for that one.

The Prosecutor to be exact, borders criminal, did she pray with the
victim's family in private?

She *prayed*?! She should be hanged!

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:40:00 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:01:31 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:13:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:29:29 -0500, wrote:

That may work in Texas but you are getting arrested in any North East
state. A $250,000 lawyer bill may get you off but that is quite a fine
for shooting a guy who stole your wallet. If you shot the guy square
in the back, $250k might not get you off.

There is are *very* good reasons I moved out of the NE.


My uncle asked why I was moving to New York. For money, I said.

I lived there for 19 years; for the money. Disgusting place.


I was in out in a year.

He said, there is nothing up there but Yankees.

They're not scary. I are one. ;-)


You have my sympathy...

I be a Southerner, now! ;-) SWMBO still claims she has a Texas
passport. ;-)

As a reference, even in Florida Zimmerman has paid over $200,000 in
legal fees and he hasn't even been to trial yet ... on a case that
the state is going to lose.

Yes, someone should be disbarred for that one.

The Prosecutor to be exact, borders criminal, did she pray with the
victim's family in private?

She *prayed*?! She should be hanged!

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:01:31 -0500, wrote:

As a reference, even in Florida Zimmerman has paid over $200,000 in
legal fees and he hasn't even been to trial yet ... on a case that
the state is going to lose.

Yes, someone should be disbarred for that one.

The Prosecutor to be exact, borders criminal, did she pray with the
victim's family in private?

She *prayed*?! She should be hanged!

It was reported she did. But....

Alan Dershowitz is on her case. ,,,said that the Florida prosecutor
"gave a campaign speech" yesterday and that she will "win popularity
contests." Dershowitz concluded that "she has a lot of answering to
do."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/12/Dershowitz-Slams-Zimmerman-Prosecutor-Arrest-Unethical-Irresponsible

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:48:22 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:01:31 -0500, wrote:

As a reference, even in Florida Zimmerman has paid over $200,000 in
legal fees and he hasn't even been to trial yet ... on a case that
the state is going to lose.

Yes, someone should be disbarred for that one.

The Prosecutor to be exact, borders criminal, did she pray with the
victim's family in private?

She *prayed*?! She should be hanged!

It was reported she did. But....

Alan Dershowitz is on her case. ,,,said that the Florida prosecutor
"gave a campaign speech" yesterday and that she will "win popularity
contests." Dershowitz concluded that "she has a lot of answering to
do."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/12/Dershowitz-Slams-Zimmerman-Prosecutor-Arrest-Unethical-Irresponsible

Dershowitz has been all over her from the beginning. He's a lefty, to
be sure, but he doesn't much like it when anyone is lynched.

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 02-27-2013 23:08, Oren wrote:
This testimony today, in the Senate, is worth a read. In WW I, the
Germans wanted shotguns banned on the battle field. Shotguns were
against the rules of war or it was claimed...

The notion that war is some sort of civilized GAME that must be played
according to rules is really stupid.

There can't be a war unless at least one side is NOT being civilized.

Not so. There are the "customary rules of war" to be violated at your peril.
The Nazis abused the Soviet "sub-humans" and got paid back in spades.