Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
-- "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country." - John Dickinson, 1771 - "Dan" wrote Perhaps you could read the text as written and deal with that, instead of ignoring what was written and arguing about something that was not even there? In a more chastened voice, Dan then proceeded to write: Perhaps I should read the text as written... Dang, hate when I do that! In my be Emilie Latella voice: "Never mind!" Dan |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Bray Haven" wrote in message
... To call these selective facts "lies" is an even worse distortion of the truth than the original selective "reporting" of facts. Greg Sefton No, it fits right into the definition, and into the intent, Greg, in an important sense that Webster's and others define the term: "to create a false or misleading impression." That's why propaganda, which is a mixture of truths and lies intended to create a false impression, is a form of lying. As I said at the outset, "Ford," should he actually exist, is either a fool or a liar. The whole statement is constructed to give the false impression that states where they have open carry and where there are no permits (there aren't 25 of them in any case, but it made a handy number for "Ford" to use) have vastly lower murder rates than other states. By mixing his fractions -- states in one case, people in the other -- he made the false impression. That's either a stupid mistake (the "fool" option) or an intentional lie. Ed Huntress |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:33:52 -0800, "Dan" wrote:
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Dan" wrote:
Gunner truly believes words mean what, and only what, he personally thinks they should mean. Makes it hard to communicate with him. I wasn't talking about Gunner.....I agree with him....I was talking about the guy who didn't know what an "arsenal" is and was trying to "technical" his way through it. ral Dan |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunshots are just that. Gunshots.
Likely Pegasus pawing the rooftop of the old Mobil Oil building with the towers all around it now. Once it was the skyline for 100 miles or so. But that was before the interstate system was carved through and around Dallas. Before 30, 20, 35, 635 etc. Martin -- Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn @ home at Lion's Lair with our computer NRA LOH, NRA Life NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Carl Byrns wrote:
Nope. I never mentioned the veracity of the quote. Check the time stamps or get a real newsreader. Ed said it was a lie or that Gunner/Ford were crazy which you agreed with by claiming that he couldn't refute the remark, idiot. Did you even graduate high school or did you pick up the pussified "I know you are but what am I?" method of debate from a comic book along the way? ral My post was: "Betcha a bagel he doesn't respond at all- that's his way of dealing with anything he can't refute. -Carl" -Carl |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Dan" wrote:
"Gunner" wrote Why would they be higher? An armed society is a polite society. At least in the US. Historically. Show us. Actual information, not just your favorite history book. Prove a negative, eh, Dan? You're better than that. The onus is on you to prove that crime has ever gone up due to firearms ownership. It's been tried hundreds of times and never been proven once....I doubt you will prove it this time ral Dan |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:01:31 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: The significance of the issue really is a sorry one to begin with. To suggest there's any relationship between a state's open-carry laws and crime rates is an incredible stretch, first, because so few people strap guns on and walk around "the streets," anyway. A note on the Packing.org site from a guy in Kansas, says it all: involved enough with guns to have written to his local sheriff for an explanation of open-carry, and to have posted the Sheriff's reply on the Packing.org site, he notes at the bottom that, in his 20+ years he's lived in the state, he's never seen anyone open-carry a handgun. I am NOT going to get involved in this debate! However... I'm not going to either , but this post I don't agree with. There are alot of places to get involved in this long debait over the sig. / quote. I've often thought that if people are going to carry guns, then they should be REQUIRED to carry them openly, visibly; and should not be allowed to conceal them. If we can all tell that someone is armed, just by looking at him/her, then each of us can make better, more fully informed decisions about our own behavior. (If Jehova's Witnesses knock on my door at 7:30 in the morning, and they're all wearing gunbelts and 357's, then I'm a lot more likely just to pretend I'm not home than to open the door and chase them away. If the weapons are concealed, however, and if I open the door and let the dog out, and THEN learn that the JW's are packing, things could get ugly.) Why should your behavior be different? You'd let the mean dog on me if you know I'm not packing? Thanks ! The night before last I'm backing up to my house and a guy is at the door and the wife looking through the blinds. I usually have a gun in my truck , but didn't cause I'm working on a CCW for a different gun. More or less, "Im jumping through hoops to be legal and its taking time and thus I'm unarmed. Sure, having the old one in the truck is illegal in most areas of the valley , but at least I have a registration card for it. Anyhow, I'm thinking that this could get nasty while this guy is coming up to the truck door as I'm getting out. This guy pulls out his wallet and starts on this cry for me speech and needs $. To late , but he could have pulled out a gun. I recognized this guy that had hit me up for $ a couple of weeks ago at a gas station. I told him so and I still won't give him any $ , and he gets all ****y and saying it wasn't him and we should get in a fight and better yet he should just shoot me ! I just had a feel for this guy cause he got ****y with me the first time , but if I had'nt run into him before I'd be very concerned. BTW he was going to show me a virgin marry card and tell me he is a trucker ( that's when I cut him off in his game) from NB and his father inlaw had a stroke and needs $ for a plane ticket home. That didn't make since the first time cause he should drive the truck home. It seems to me that a concealed weapon is more of a problem, and should be more of a concern than, say, a rifle or shotgun clearly visible in the back window of a pickup truck. I never think twice about that, when I happen to see it. The gun-owner is probably a farmer, or a rancher, or someone else who benefits from being able to prang a groundhog or a coyote when the need arises. Same with the handguns worn by cops. I know they're there. I know there's a reason for them that has nothing to do with threatening me. And I don't mind a bit. This is a troll , right? I'm from Texas and think rifles should be in the back window of every pick up. I bet if I had one in the window here in NV. it would'nt be there one or two days and I'd have a broken window. Don't think you can even hang one up like that in this state anyhow, but you can have one strapped on walking down the street. I see it once in awhile , and think nothing about it. oooh cops and guns , guess you've never had a cop pointing a gun at you when your doing nothing wrong. I have a couple of times and probably 5 times where they have it un-strapped and their hand on it. They have stole my gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into . Someone who wants to protect himself could probably, in most cases be better protected by announcing himself as armed, rather than by concealing his gun and looking like unarmed prey to a prospective criminal. Surprising the criminal might be fun or satisfying for someone who doesn't get killed while trying it; but it can't possibly be the best way to be safe. Announcing is the same to me as branishing it , except others will see it and call the cops. Try walking through a group of red colors , three on each of them , with a nice shiney gun and you know what they will be thinking? They will think its worth a big pile of DOPE and pull out a throw away gun and take it from you. They part way for me and don't think a thing about a crazy long haired craker who might just be packing. Fun or satisfying has nothing to do with being safe , or shall we say better off than being unarmed. When someone conceals a weapon, then it makes perfect sense for others to question the reason for the concealment, and the real purpose for which the weapon is intended. If I have to make the choice, I'd rather see "Open Carry Mandatory" laws, with VERY stiff penalties for concealment, than wasted attempts to outlaw guns that we don't even know are there. I could write a book on why I like to have a gun , but that shouldn't concern anyone else. Having one hidden has many advantages and that's what you want most of in a bad situation. The last part of the last sentence makes alot of sence cause the people that use them to hurt or rob others don't care what laws they have to go through to use it in their fasion , its all illegal so what's the point of a background check. And, if guns were as visible as, say, cigarrettes, then I suspect we'd do a much better job of policing ourselves through the time honored practice of "social pressure". My sister-in-law's house is an absolute no smoking zone. It's her house, and she has a right to make the rules, and everybody in the family knows it. And, SHE'LL know immediately if I decide to unwrap a cheap cigar and light up in her living room. If I did the same kind of thing, and decided that my home was a gun-free place, then anyone who wanted to visit, or some young man who came to pick up my stepdaughter for a date, or the delivery people bringing my new sofa, would have to make the same kinds of choices that smokers do, since their weapons would be as easy to detect as a plume of smoke. Better yet, I could do this WITHOUT having to limit the rights of any person to be as armed as he/she cares to be. I'd only be exercising my own right to detrimine what goes on in my own house. This reminds me of a customer that didn't want me smoking in her backyard cause her dogs are alergic to it and they are in the house. The results of peer pressure and widespread social disapproval of smoking have been pretty astonishing, and have developed pretty quickly, as large scale social trends go. I wonder if the public wearing of visible guns, even if completely legal, couldn't be moderated in the same way, and for very similar reasons. Peer/sheeple pressure... Hmmm , that's basically why I'm posting this and Gunner's reason to post his pro gun threads (I guess). To hopefully get the above turned around so they don't pressure us with voting or what ever to lessen gun rights. KG I know its a bad subject , but they might as well have a federal CCW. I'm sure they know who I am already and have way more info. than civil rights people could be able to handle. I wonder if you wanted to pack and traveled around the 48 states how many hoops you would have to jump through , how long it would take doing the paper work , and how much it would cost. Bet you'd need a team to do it for you and you couldn't start on your trip for months or maybe years ! Its obvious to me that the founding fathers had in mind that everyone should be able own one , hey they were up against death to even write the thing. And what a better time to set up a Gov't that should look over its own shoulder. Today , It would have to get really bad for the sheep to stand up , but that has nothing to do with what was meant. At least we should have them still even though mostly for self preservation against smaller everyday things no matter what city , county , or state your in or pass through. And should always be just in case it does get really bad and the sheep will be able to stand up. It really should be that you go through a check of you not the gun for free and only an obligation to report a missing one. How many registered gun owners kill people vs. all the others to the X/100,000 should be the question. It shouldn't matter how many you have it should be that you have been checked to own one no matter what kind. If you get caught with a outlawed one then it will be lost. I personally don't want to go down to the cop shop everytime I want to switch guns. Matter of fact the laws are so bad that you should have throw away guns so when they are taken away cause it should be unloaded or what ever it doesn't hurt so bad. Hell , I'm an idealist and this is a complex subject. |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote
Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. The size of a database is an irrelevant measure of research quality. Garbage in=garbage out. Lott's more guns, less crime research has been well-shredded and sent to the dump where it belongs. See Ayers & Donohue's articles and Maltz's article, among many others, which demonstrate that Lott's MGLC research is invalid. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message om... Gunner wrote Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. The size of a database is an irrelevant measure of research quality. Garbage in=garbage out. Lott's more guns, less crime research has been well-shredded and sent to the dump where it belongs. See Ayers & Donohue's articles and Maltz's article, among many others, which demonstrate that Lott's MGLC research is invalid. Carl, when your lovely wife, I'm assuming you have a lovely wife, if not you can fill in the blank with girlfriend, Mom, sis, any person you care deeply about that doesn't posess great strength and a violent attitude, is assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm to your loved one, just what would you consider the proper course of action? This against a person that your loved one has no chance of ever matching up to or beating in a physical confrontation. Where, just by chance, a weapon, like a firearm, would mean your loved one's survival, and without said weapon, your loved one is dead. Please give us your response to said senario. JTMcC. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Gunner wrote in message . ..
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35862 "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" -- Andrew Ford America's war on nature [ For decades, US corporate interests have systematically sabotaged efforts to protect the environment. But the Bush years have seen the polluters encouraged to despoil as never before. Robert F Kennedy Jr laments 04 December 2003 George Bush will go down in history as America's worst environmental president. In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife. Cloaked in meticulously crafted language designed to deceive the public, the administration intends to eliminate the nation's most important environmental laws by the end of the year. ....... ...... ] Mo http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=469820 -- Cliff |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:03:57 GMT, strabo wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:05:40 GMT, Carl Byrns wrote: Open carry will not protect you from a drive-by It might. In the movies, maybe. In real life, rarely if ever. or being run down by a drunk driver Irrelevant. No, it's not. Ford is implying that having a sidearm protects you from murder- but he doesn't take into account that not all murders are confrontational (like a hold up) and that in many states a death caused by a DWI driver is a capital murder charge. Like wise, child abuse death victims are considered murder victims and it's pretty obvious that an infant can't handle a sidearm. Ford is trying to compare apples to oranges. -Carl |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:52:46 GMT, Sunworshiper
wrote something .......and in reply I say!: The night before last I'm backing up to my house and a guy is at the snip he gets all ****y and saying it wasn't him and we should get in a fight and better yet he should just shoot me ! I just had a feel for this guy cause he got ****y with me the first time , but if I had'nt run into him before I'd be very concerned. This is a troll , right? I'm from Texas and think rifles should be in the back window of every pick up. I bet if I had one in the window snip , guess you've never had a cop pointing a gun at you when your doing nothing wrong. I have a couple of times and probably 5 times where they have it un-strapped and their hand on it. They have stole my gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into . Cops have stolen them? ANd the other stuff you shouldn't mention? They part way for me and don't think a thing about a crazy long haired craker who might just be packing. Fun or satisfying has nothing to do with being safe , or shall we say better off than being unarmed. I could write a book on why I like to have a gun , but that shouldn't concern anyone else. Well, it sure concerns ME! You sound like about the best anit-gun argument I have ever heard allowed out. ************************************************** ** sorry remove ns from my header address to reply via email Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured by man's. There would be nowhere to go. Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
... Ed said it was a lie or that Gunner/Ford were crazy which you agreed with by claiming that he couldn't refute the remark, idiot. Did you even graduate high school or did you pick up the pussified "I know you are but what am I?" method of debate from a comic book along the way? ral You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion. Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his position calmly and with solid fact. You, Gunner, and McCracken don't seem to posess those qualities: if you can't defend your argument you either make something up or start slingin' the mud. I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes. Ed Huntress |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my
postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes. Ed Huntress I thought about that too, having seen personal insults hurled by Mr Ed from time to time. BTW, as a breeder & trainer of mules, I hate to see that particular handle used maliciously. A vocation, by the way, which has helped me immesely in some of my discussions in this forum ). Greg Sefton http://members.aol.com/brayhaven/bj.htm "There is no character howsoever good and fine, but it can be destroyed by ridicule howsoever poor and witless. Observe the ass, for instance: his character is about perfect, he is the choicest spirit among all the humbler animals, yet see what ridicule has brought him to. Instead of feeling complimented when we are called an ass, we are left in doubt." Mark Twain, From Pudd'nhead Wilson, 1894 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"JTMcC" wrote
"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message om... Gunner wrote Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. The size of a database is an irrelevant measure of research quality. Garbage in=garbage out. Lott's more guns, less crime research has been well-shredded and sent to the dump where it belongs. See Ayers & Donohue's articles and Maltz's article, among many others, which demonstrate that Lott's MGLC research is invalid. Carl, when your lovely wife, I'm assuming you have a lovely wife, if not you can fill in the blank with girlfriend, Mom, sis, any person you care deeply about that doesn't posess great strength and a violent attitude, is assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm to your loved one, just what would you consider the proper course of action? Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to emotion fallacy? You're just demonstrating that you are not intelligent enough to figure out how to deal with life without a gun. Your moronic, and unoriginal, retort does not have anything to do with Lott's invalidated research. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Bray Haven" wrote in message
... I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes. Ed Huntress I thought about that too, having seen personal insults hurled by Mr Ed from time to time. BTW, as a breeder & trainer of mules, I hate to see that particular handle used maliciously. A vocation, by the way, which has helped me immesely in some of my discussions in this forum ). My apologies to all jack- and jenny asses of the four-legged type. Ed Huntress |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Carl Byrns wrote:
You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion. Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his position calmly and with solid fact. There you go again accusing me of "distorting facts" when all I ever do is address the exact point that you raised, idiot. Do you somehow, in your infinite wisdom, interpret "yeah, you said he's a liar and he can't refute it" to be other than an agreement on the statement? You, Gunner, and McCracken don't seem to posess those qualities: if you can't defend your argument you either make something up or start slingin' the mud. Don't lump me in with anyone, idiot. Gunner et al will always have more patience than I in dealing with your pathetic, idiotic arguments. If you keep the discussion sane and rational, so will I....but I have no regard for idiots and asses who have to resort to semantics to try to cover their ass. Now feel free to **** off and go whine somewhere out of my sight. ral PLONK! -Carl |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes. I have yet to see a "fact" from you, idiot....even though you have threatened us all with a ****storm of them time and again. They seem to be a long time in coming. Where are they? ral Ed Huntress |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Bert wrote:
Dang, I didn't think anyone would catch me trying to "technical" my way through it. Don't I feel silly for placing any credence in definitions from a fancy store-bought dictionary! After all, those are written by people who devote their careers to studying words and how they're used and their meanings and how they evolve and other useless stuff like that. What do they know? Next time I'll know better than to trust those yahoos; instead I'll put my faith in Gunner's and Richard's definitions. I don't really care what definition you go by, Bert. You don't reflect on me in any way because I sure as hell didn't instruct you. An "arsenal" is a place where firearms are constructed or maintained and an "armory" is a place where they are stored. Doesn't matter what the public has come to believe. While "armory" may be somewhat confusing, "arsenal" actually means "house of manufacturing". A building where arms were stored, at one time, would have been called a "magazine", but I won't fault you if you pick up your copy of Boy's Life and hope to argue that one. ral |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:44:18 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Carl Byrns" wrote in message .. . Ed said it was a lie or that Gunner/Ford were crazy which you agreed with by claiming that he couldn't refute the remark, idiot. Did you even graduate high school or did you pick up the pussified "I know you are but what am I?" method of debate from a comic book along the way? ral You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion. Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his position calmly and with solid fact. You, Gunner, and McCracken don't seem to posess those qualities: if you can't defend your argument you either make something up or start slingin' the mud. I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes. Ed Huntress Ed, "sanctimonious jackass" isn't an insult (well, the four legged kind might be insulted by the association). I've never seen you use the words f*cking idi*t m*r*n lowl*fe sh*thead pathet*c l*ser in reference to McCracken or Lewis (I'll cut Gunner some slack here- he does know a thing or two about machine tools) even though you probably have shouted the words inside your skull. -Carl |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Carl Byrns" wrote in message
... I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes. Ed Huntress Ed, "sanctimonious jackass" isn't an insult (well, the four legged kind might be insulted by the association). Hmm. You're a very tolerant guy, Carl. g I've never seen you use the words f*cking idi*t m*r*n lowl*fe sh*thead pathet*c l*ser in reference to McCracken or Lewis (I'll cut Gunner some slack here- he does know a thing or two about machine tools) even though you probably have shouted the words inside your skull. If you see me talk like that, send in the medics. Ed Huntress |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Carl Byrns says...
You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion. Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his position calmly and with solid fact. That was very well put and I agree with it. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:50:23 +0800, Old Nick
wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:52:46 GMT, Sunworshiper wrote something ......and in reply I say!: The night before last I'm backing up to my house and a guy is at the snip he gets all ****y and saying it wasn't him and we should get in a fight and better yet he should just shoot me ! I just had a feel for this guy cause he got ****y with me the first time , but if I had'nt run into him before I'd be very concerned. This is a troll , right? I'm from Texas and think rifles should be in the back window of every pick up. I bet if I had one in the window snip , guess you've never had a cop pointing a gun at you when your doing nothing wrong. I have a couple of times and probably 5 times where they have it un-strapped and their hand on it. They have stole my gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into . Cops have stolen them? ANd the other stuff you shouldn't mention? Yes & yes. They part way for me and don't think a thing about a crazy long haired craker who might just be packing. Fun or satisfying has nothing to do with being safe , or shall we say better off than being unarmed. I could write a book on why I like to have a gun , but that shouldn't concern anyone else. Well, it sure concerns ME! You sound like about the best anit-gun argument I have ever heard allowed out. ************************************************* *** sorry Well thanks alot . Just because you don't see the world as dangerous as I do doesn't mean I should feel safe. I have people approach me at least 2 times a week and sometimes twice a day 7 days in a row mostly for $ and alot of times I have $1500+ on me. A couple of months ago this huge black guy comes running across a parking lot real fast and right up to me as I getting up to the truck. All bloody , all frantic , and trying to get right up to me to show me the blood on his hands and arms. I could already see it on his face , shirt , and pants. He was saying his dog was just run over intentionally infront of him . All I could think of was to back away from this guy. Got him to back up and sit down and gave him a cig. saying yeah yeah yeah and left. Driving away I was thinking of all the things I should have done differently and then thought of how someone was jumping on Gunner for training for situations like this. About 2 weeks ago this mexican drives up to me at a gas station and askes for money with his wife and two kids in the back seat. I told him no , and he kept on and on and then asked for a cig. I gave him one to just go away and then he asked for a light. I gave him my only lighter and he started to drive away so I snapped the cig. from his lip and through it on the ground. While he was freaking on that I got MY lighter from his hand. And then he jumped out of the car after me. Again I could only back up away from him. I really don't want to get into it with anyone , I could have hurt this guy bad with my bare hands, but not that huge black dude. One would say I should move away from this , but that's not going to stop the crap from happening in the area. Say I did move , then I have to worry about say the middle of no where and the local rouge cops. In the early '80's I drove 2,000 miles up to Yopper country and just after the last big town a cop cruses up and hangs on my bumper for a good 15 mins. and pulls me over. He's like why does someone like you own a car like this and your going 63 mph in a 55mph with me behind you , I told him I was at 58 on this old car. He didn't give me a ticket and then told me close face to face that he will throw me in jail if he sees me driving around with my out of state plates even though I told him I would only be in his state about 2 or 3 weeks tops. I made the mistake of telling my mom that I couldn't stay long cause I couldn't get near this cops area and she made me change plates on her. Within 2 weeks I was back in my home state and pulled over again cause I had a valid inspection sticker with out of state plates. I told the cop that you can have two but not three different state tags. I sat there for 1.5 hours and then pulled out my "old" still up to date plates to match the inspection sticker so that he could find out who I was and let me on my way. OH, BTW that cop also asked me how I got a car like that. He freaks that I have my valid plates ( I already told him why I had to change plates) and then another cop car comes up. The two whisper to each other and the new cop walks up and asks "Who are you ? Are you a local Judge's son or something? " I said "What is it if I am?" That cop spun on his leather soles and got in his car and left his buddy flat. I got 5 tickets ! The Judge on the third trip to court cause the cop wouldn't show up on these bogas charges told me to shut up or I would be thrown in jail and dismissed it all. I was just uttering a sound when he cut me off. I tossed the Yopper plates and still had 6 months on my plates. Robbin Willums put it best as where the cops wear the mirror on the inside of their glasses. I know first hand that bad cops are real and not Holly Wood. What about cops that get BJ's for tickets , code of silence, and many many others . These are all make believe ? Last week a cop here in town so anxious to join a chace which was miles away with others on his tail lost control on a nice highway and slammed into a Merc. and totaled both cars going way over 120 mph from the looks of it. Yrs. ago a cop in about the same mode ran a stop sign with no lights or sirens on killed a chick in a Merc. and ya know they said it was justifiable... Out of all the shootings that cops do don't you think its a little weird that almost none are unjustifiable. Even the cop in SA TX that killed his partner cause he was gonna kill the mayor or the chief he said (can't remember) was let go. I can't count the times I've seen cops go through my car like its a shopping spree. What are you going to do with the law out on the highway that is stealing from you? Call the cops or shut up and get out of there? I've had a number of cops tell me that exact story out on the road ! Maybe if you have a CCW they won't get away with your gun. Everything else , but not the gun cause they know they will be caught. Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured by man's. There would be nowhere to go. Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine. Ignorance is bliss ? Maybe, until reality kicks you in the face. |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
My apologies to all jack- and jenny asses of the four-legged type.
Ed Huntress I'll convey that to my ass. I'm sure he'll accept. When he won the national show, My wife bragged to her friends that her husband had the best ass in America. She usually added that I show my ass a lot (But I always wash it first) ). Greg Sefton |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Carl Byrns" wrote in message ... On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:44:18 GMT, "Ed Huntress" Ed, "sanctimonious jackass" isn't an insult (well, the four legged kind might be insulted by the association). I've never seen you use the words f*cking idi*t m*r*n lowl*fe sh*thead pathet*c l*ser in reference to McCracken or Lewis (I'll cut Gunner some slack here- he does know a thing or two about machine tools) even though you probably have shouted the words inside your skull. -Carl Boy Carl, those are pretty harsh names you are calling me here. Did you forget your medicine? Your girlfriend dump you today? If you really want to call me that type of name you can feel free to contact me via telephone or some other method other than usenet. E mail and I'll give you my phone number, then you won't have to type those funny looking words, you can speak your mind like a man. And, I'm pretty sure you know little of my background or experience with machine tools, not that this is a machine tool newsgroup. I haven't followed this post much, but I have thrown in two comments, I stand by both, neither were part of an arguement as far as I can see. have a good Thursday evening, JTMcC. |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
-- "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country." - John Dickinson, 1771 - "Richard Lewis" wrote in message ink.net... (Carl Nisarel) wrote: Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to emotion fallacy? Idiotic? It happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. If you don't see that as enough of a reason to answer the question, there's no hope for you. ral Some people live in fear, others live. Been that way for thousands of years... The fearful ones buy guns, which may or may not improve their odds, but does nothing to reduce their fear. In fact, if this group is any indication, guns serve to heighten the fear of their owners. As an aside: Any one know of any statistics on the rate of gun injuries based on gun ownership (+/-)? I would think gun owner would, just by proximity, have more injuries than non-owners, but have no actual information to backup that hunch. The numbers published by gun enthusiasts do not address this question, as near as I can tell (I could be wrong). Dan |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
-- "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country." - John Dickinson, 1771 - "Richard Lewis" wrote in message ink.net... "Ed Huntress" wrote: I appreciate that, Carl, but I think you must have missed a few of my postings from time to time. g A sanctimonious jackass like Richard may be hard to penetrate with facts, so we'll see where that goes. I have yet to see a "fact" from you, idiot....even though you have threatened us all with a ****storm of them time and again. They seem to be a long time in coming. Where are they? Right on cue! Gotta love 'em... Dan |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
-- "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country." - John Dickinson, 1771 - "Richard Lewis" wrote in message ink.net... Carl Byrns wrote: You know, one of the things I admire about Ed is that he never not once resorts to insults when he's on the unpopular side of an opinion. Nor does he try to distort what others have written- he can defend his position calmly and with solid fact. There you go again accusing me of "distorting facts" when all I ever do is address the exact point that you raised, idiot. Bingo! Another bulls-eye! Dan |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
In article , Tom Quackenbush says...
Springfield Arsenal? Arsenal or armory? Dang, might have tripped gunner up on something, regarding firearms. A first. The dial indicator that I use on my lathe for carriage travel was obtained in a junk shop in the boston area, and on the face of it, in red letters, are the words "Springfield Armory." FWIW. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
Dan wrote:
-- "Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of truth, reason, and their country." - John Dickinson, 1771 - "Richard Lewis" wrote in message ink.net... (Carl Nisarel) wrote: Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to emotion fallacy? Idiotic? It happens hundreds of thousands of times a year. If you don't see that as enough of a reason to answer the question, there's no hope for you. ral Some people live in fear, others live. Been that way for thousands of years... The fearful ones buy guns, which may or may not improve their odds, but does nothing to reduce their fear. In fact, if this group is any indication, guns serve to heighten the fear of their owners. As an aside: Any one know of any statistics on the rate of gun injuries based on gun ownership (+/-)? I would think gun owner would, just by proximity, have more injuries than non-owners, but have no actual information to backup that hunch. The numbers published by gun enthusiasts do not address this question, as near as I can tell (I could be wrong). Dan Well, here's a start to your requested stats. At age 52 I have not had any gun injuries. During this half-century of time I at times owned no guns, and most of the time several. No injuries. Never threatened to kill my spouse(s), my kids, grandkids, aunts, uncles, or even a couple of very forgettable relatives, though it could be a blessing I'm thinking.... The closest anyone around me when I was in possession of a firearm was the dumbass trying to steal the Blaupunkt for my bud's car, outside the shop at 0330, and his 2 pals. But, alas, I did not excercise my vile bloodlust that most certainly lurks within, just made him sit in the car I found him in as the sirens summoned drew closer. Let the other 2 run off as they were not an immediate threat. They did get to be interviewed a couple hours later, and got some "hotel" time to boot. So, apply this bit of data toward your hunch. mj |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"JTMcC" wrote:
Boy Carl, those are pretty harsh names you are calling me here. Not at all, JT. Those are words I've used in relation to the idiot formerly known as "ed".... The above poster said that the idiot *hadn't* used them in regards to you. ral |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
"Dan" wrote:
Some people live in fear, others live. Been that way for thousands of years... The fearful ones buy guns, which may or may not improve their odds, but does nothing to reduce their fear. In fact, if this group is any indication, guns serve to heighten the fear of their owners. "The point was, thee was no logical connection between the true part of the statement and the conclusion drawn, which is standard technique for Gunner and Rush Limbaugh, to name but two practitioners or the art." Add your own name to that list there, Dan'l Back to ignoring you. Sorry. ral |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:50:23 +0800, Old Nick
wrote: They have stole my gun, wedding ring, chicks, and others I shouldn't get into . Cops have stolen them? ANd the other stuff you shouldn't mention? The primary reason I left law enforcement was corruption of police officers in the several agencies I worked with or around. I was not about to be associated with police officers that routinely shook down farm workers (they keep their money in their socks), sold drugs, or ran prostitutes for farm labor camps. I know a quite a number of instances, where an individual was stopped, a legal firearm was confiscated for "investigation", and no record was ever made, nor did the arms ever make it to the station. While they may be public servants..not all of them are Officer Friendly. And no..I dont trust many of them, even the ones I know well, I keep an eye on. Gunner The methodology of the left has always been: 1. Lie 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Barn conversion - how deep should the footings be.....? | UK diy | |||
Deep drawing of aluminum bottle | Metalworking | |||
Deep hole drill profile question | Metalworking |