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"

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:50:33 -0600, 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"

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...

Mr. Johnson disputes characterization of "Assault Weapons" Shotguns
do more damage than the AR-15 of today.

Yet, only AR-14's should be by S 150.

"...Additionally, this broad category of repeating shotguns can be
continuously reloaded without disabling the gun. That is an attribute
that the prohibited class does not exhibit."

"...Another claim that supposedly distinguishes the prohibited class
of guns, is that they are equipped with pistol grips or barrel shrouds
and those things it is claimed, contribute to un-aimed, spray firing,
or firing a cloud of projectiles without aiming. First, this is a
dubious characterization of any rifle. But more importantly, it
actually better describes shotgun technology."

PDF file:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/2-27-13JohnsonTestimony.pdf

Faculty page:

http://law.fordham.edu/faculty/nicholasjohnson.htm

This guy is SMART

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:50:33 -0600, 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"

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...

Mr. Johnson disputes characterization of "Assault Weapons"
Shotguns
do more damage than the AR-15 of today.

Yet, only AR-14's should be by S 150.

"...Additionally, this broad category of repeating
shotguns can be
continuously reloaded without disabling the gun. That is
an attribute
that the prohibited class does not exhibit."

"...Another claim that supposedly distinguishes the
prohibited class
of guns, is that they are equipped with pistol grips or
barrel shrouds
and those things it is claimed, contribute to un-aimed,
spray firing,
or firing a cloud of projectiles without aiming. First,
this is a
dubious characterization of any rifle. But more
importantly, it
actually better describes shotgun technology."

PDF file:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/2-27-13JohnsonTestimony.pdf

Faculty page:

http://law.fordham.edu/faculty/nicholasjohnson.htm

This guy is SMART

This shows really well the difference
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...bly-ever-will/

On Feb 27, 11:08*pm, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:50:33 -0600, 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"

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...

Mr. Johnson disputes characterization of "Assault Weapons" *Shotguns
do more damage than the AR-15 of today.

Yet, only AR-14's should be by S 150.

"...Additionally, this broad category of repeating shotguns can be
continuously reloaded without disabling the gun. That is an attribute
that the prohibited class does not exhibit."

"...Another claim that supposedly distinguishes the prohibited class
of guns, is that they are equipped with pistol grips or barrel shrouds
and those things it is claimed, contribute to un-aimed, spray firing,
or firing a cloud of projectiles without aiming. First, this is a
dubious characterization of any rifle. But more importantly, it
actually better describes shotgun technology."

PDF file:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/2-27-13JohnsonTestimony.pdf

Faculty page:

http://law.fordham.edu/faculty/nicholasjohnson.htm

This guy is SMART

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.

On Feb 28, 6:39 am, "
wrote:
On Feb 27, 11:08 pm, Oren wrote:



On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:50:33 -0600, 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"

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...

Mr. Johnson disputes characterization of "Assault Weapons" Shotguns
do more damage than the AR-15 of today.

Yet, only AR-14's should be by S 150.

"...Additionally, this broad category of repeating shotguns can be
continuously reloaded without disabling the gun. That is an attribute
that the prohibited class does not exhibit."

"...Another claim that supposedly distinguishes the prohibited class
of guns, is that they are equipped with pistol grips or barrel shrouds
and those things it is claimed, contribute to un-aimed, spray firing,
or firing a cloud of projectiles without aiming. First, this is a
dubious characterization of any rifle. But more importantly, it
actually better describes shotgun technology."

PDF file:

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/2-27-13JohnsonTestimony.pdf

Faculty page:

http://law.fordham.edu/faculty/nicholasjohnson.htm

This guy is SMART

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.

If the lib government sends the Feds to confiscate our
guns, they should send them to Texas first.
That way there would be no one left to bother people
in the other states....

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.

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:

- 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.

Oren wrote:
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:

- 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.

You are right. Thanks for the correction.

Still, the essential fact is that there has been only ONE crime involving a
fully-automatic weapon since 1934.

"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..

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 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 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 03-04-2013 15:36, Oren wrote:
All wars are fought because of the penis. Except for Maggy. She
started a war.

If that's intended to imply started by males, maybe.

If you mean based on sex, not so. Majority are based on hunger or greed.

--
Wes Groleau

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/pants-fire/

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 03-04-2013 15:36, Oren wrote:
All wars are fought because of the penis. Except for Maggy. She
started a war.

If that's intended to imply started by males, maybe.

If you mean based on sex, not so. Majority are based on hunger or
greed.

Greed, yes. Hunger, no.

"Revolutions are started by those who have much and want more. The abject
poor are too busy finding their next meal to take up arms" (paraphrased)
"The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.

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.

On Feb 28, 3:50*am, 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"

There's some South African guy in trouble for doing just that.

On 2/27/2013 10:50 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"

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.

Biden's previous residence was surrounded by a stockade fence. You
could not even see the house.

We're not talking about the "common man" here.

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.

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.

Coming home today, I thought I might drive by Biden's house to see what
I might see. Didn't see anything and not even sure where the drive was.
Years ago I used to drive this road to work but when they expanded the
main road it leads to, I could no longer easily access the main road as
they changed the Biden road. It is a nice oasis of rich people in an
otherwise crowded area.

Frank wrote:

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.


As for shooting at a fleeing subject, you are correct regarding some
jurisdictions. In my state, however:

--- begin quote
Texas Penal Code § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section
9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is FLEEING immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from
escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other
means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of
death or serious bodily injury.
--- end quote

No cop would EVER tell you to drag the deceased inside! For starters, how
would you explain the trail of blood?

Remember, too, you always have the right to self-defense (unless you live in
the UK). Also, remember it's your word against nobody's*. "Officer, he kept
shouting 'I'm gonna kill you! I'm gonna kill you! And I, in fear of my life,
defended myself!"

---
* Or, if the stink-eye lives, it's the word of a righteous citizen against
that of an obvious, and probably well-known, goblin.

I've heard this is tampering with evidence,
and will get you in a lot more trouble.

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

"Frank" wrote in message
...

I've heard people told candidly by cops
that if they shoot someone outside to
drag him inside.

"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.

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

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.

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.

I wonder if that will lead to the Biden Defense.

"Well, the Vice President told me to....."

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

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

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...

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"

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?

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?

Don't know about skeet, but you can hunt Snipe ONLY at night.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

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?

Don't know about skeet, but you can hunt Snipe ONLY at night.

I grew up with a kid whose Dad was DNR. They both had a rather wicked
sense of humor, so when we were out having someone hunt snipe it wasn't
unusual for Dad to come through the woods, find the dude and write him
up for hunting snipe out of season.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Was the judge in on the act?

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

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

Is it legal to hunt skeet at night?

Don't know about skeet, but you can hunt Snipe ONLY at night.

I grew up with a kid whose Dad was DNR. They both had a rather wicked
sense of humor, so when we were out having someone hunt snipe it wasn't
unusual for Dad to come through the woods, find the dude and write him
up for hunting snipe out of season.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

"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.

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.

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. :-)

On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:46:30 -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

On 3/1/13 7:14 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:46:30 -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.

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. :-)

"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.

Dean Hoffman wrote the following on 2/27/2013 10:50 PM (ET):

So sez Vice President Biden. That will scare people away from the
house. http://tinyurl.com/d993qt2

The VP suffers from the same birth defect as I.
I was born without a filter between my brain and mouth.
Fortunately, I realize this and never ran for a political position.
Bidens greatest gaffes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlSX9TT2eo

At 2.26 in the video, at a meeting, Joe Biden asks Senator Chuck Graham
in the crowd to stand up and be recognized. Chuck is in a wheelchair!

He must be getting hold of the same stuff Cheech and Chong used years
ago. http://tinyurl.com/cnn37bc
"Daves not here"


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

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.

Harry (anal about facts) K

On Feb 28, 5:18*pm, 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.

Harry (anal about facts) K


We all know but firing shots outside when the thief is in your house
is the pussy Liberal response