On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 02:23:40 GMT, Carl Byrns
wrote:

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.
Cites?


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

And you still are ****ed that the original Ford Statement is true but
contrary to your mindset.

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

"michael" wrote in message
...
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



I never would have guessed you were so old, Michael. :)

But, alas, I did not excercise my vile bloodlust that most
certainly lurks within

Yes, but you have not met the Usual Suspects (copyright Vic
Mimoni) yet. Probably a good thing. ;) Much better to want
to reach through your screen and choke the living **** out
of two of them than spend time in the big house for actually
doing it. ;)


jon

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:19:55 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

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.

I believe it. BTW , the guy that shot his buddy in SA TX was Tucker.
He was going to kill the DA and I think his name was Fox. They found
something like 1800 guns in the dead cop's house. Around 1986.

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

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:22:42 -0800, "Dan"
brought forth from the murky depths:

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).

The CDC shows your hunch to be right, but don't rule out the
Darwin theory.

I don't have the stats handy, but alcoholics are injured less
often (flying miles) than the weekend warriors who just tie one
on and jump in the car, then try to drive home. The drunks are
used to driving impaired and more aware of it (amazingly) than
the occasional drunks. (As an ex-drunk, I know this to be true.)
But you get a bunch of drunk teens together with guns and the
odds swap ends quickly. The CDC report below would probably
show that if they had tracked it.

This came up with a google search: "risk of injury gun owner"

Fatalities:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
Apparently, more people "fall down, go dead" than die by the gun.

Non-fatal Injuries:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm

Regarding info about CCW results, read this chapter in a book
reviewed by The Brookings Institution:
http://www.brook.edu/press/books/cha...ggunpolicy.pdf
I got crosseyed by page 12, but I hate PDF files. I felt much
ambiguity (probably tracking his) while reading it. I wonder if
this was one of the guys who helped the CDC on their commission.


G'nite.


-----------------------------------------------------------
--This post conscientiously crafted from 100% Recycled Pixels--
http://diversify.com Websites: PHP Programming, MySQL databases
================================================== ===============

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:19:55 GMT, Gunner wrote:
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.

Indeed. In 1986 there was a burglary of my home while I was on vacation.
Among other items, several guns were stolen. The detective assigned to
the case wasn't really interested in solving it (long story). I was. So I did
the legwork and tracked down the thief myself.

I caught him as he was coming out of another house and held him for
the police. They were then able to get a search warrant for his place,
and recovered some of my property.

One item the detective *said* he didn't recover was a custom Browning
Hi-Power. Imagine my lack of surprise a few weeks later when I spotted
that same detective *wearing* my Browning in my custom holster.

I wasn't stupid enough to accost him about it, but I've lived here a long
time and know some people. I made a phone call, and the next day I got
a call from the detective telling me that the Browning had mysteriously
turned up.

Gary

jim rozen wrote:

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.

From http://www.nps.gov/spar/home.html, web site for the Springfield
Armory National Historic Site:

"From 1794 to 1968 the Springfield Armory was a center for
the manufacture of U.S. Military small arms and the site of many
important technological advances. A large weapons museum is
now housed in the original Main Arsenal Building.
"The Armory site was selected by President George Washington
as the most strategic place to build the arsenal. Due to its position
atop the area's tallest hill, potential intruders could be seen from
miles away."

So contrary to Gunner's assertions that "Springfield rifles were
manufactured in Springfield Arsenal", it appears that the rifles were
actually manufactured at the Springfield *Armory* (possibly in the
Main Arsenal Building, though that isn't specified). Of course, this
could just be a case of egregious historical and lexicographical
errors by the liberal National Park Service. Likewise, the liberal
publishers of the American Heritage Dictionary could have erred when
writing that the Springfield rifle was "first made at the former U.S.
Armory at Springfield, Massachusetts."

As for definitions, there's this from the Houghton Mifflin "Reader's
Companion to Military History"
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/ml_003700_arsenals.htm:

"Arsenals. Places for the centralized manufacture and storage of the
tools of war, arsenals appeared in Europe late in the middle ages. The
fact that arsenal comes from Arabic words meaning "house of
manufacture" bears witness to the Mediterranean origins of the
institution. Today the word has been generalized so that it can mean
the total assemblage of arms held by a state or even by an individual.
In Europe, but not in the United States, the term applies to naval
yards as well as to weapons plants and depots." [Various dictionaries
note that the English word arsenal comes from the Italian arsenale
(itself derived from an Arabic term), which originally referred to
naval shipyards.]

The same article refers to arms production at the "Springfield
arsenal" (with lower-case "a").

In addition to these references, I ran across the website for
Springfield Armory http://www.springfield-armory.com/, which
apparently is a present-day private gun manufacturer in Illinois. (I
imagine Richard will chime in here to tell us that it's run by a bunch
of idiots who don't know the difference between an armory and an
arsenal.)

Bert

Bert wrote:

(Bob Summers) wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:24:20 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:08:45 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Good question. Email the author and ask him. Then report back to us.

Nah. I think since you're the one who spewed this inconsistent prose
into the newsgroup, you should report back to us.

3 x 1.1 = ~3.2 looks like a consistent statement to me at 2 digit precision.

True but irrelevant. Let me spell it out for you. The inconsistency is
due to Gunner claiming in one paragraph that "In Japan, the United
Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000," while in
another paragraph he claims that "the murder rate in Japan, with
weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand." If it's 3.2
with weapons other than firearms, it can't very well be 1.1 in total,
can it? Maybe Gunner wrote in error in one place or the other, or
maybe he correctly quoted inconsistent sources, but he's not admitting
to either. In any case, the net result is that what he wrote was
inconsistent.

And BTW, that's not the only inconsistency in that particular post. He
also states, for example, that "In the U.S., our combined murder and
suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according
to the Department of Justice)." Two paragraphs later, he says "the
murder rate currently in the US is 5.5." Maybe he had some valid (but
unspecified) reason for citing two different numbers (7.0 and 5.5),
but then again, maybe he's misquoting numbers from memory, or
misinterpreting numbers he read somewhere.

The thing is, Gunner has a propensity to use statistics to bolster his
positions, which isn't a bad strategy in principle, but when he throws
out inconsistent statistics like these it adversely impacts both the
strength of his arguments and his credibility, IMO.

Bert

Gunner wrote:

Correct, why would they attempt to restore the voting rights of people
whom would vote Republican, if the felons tended to vote that way?

Where's Abrasha when we need him? There must be at least a half-dozen
places in this thread where you've used "whom" when it should have
been "who." Maybe it's just me (and Abrasha?), but the sound of "whom"
in the above sentence is more grating to me than the sound of
fingernails on a chalkboard. Just an observation...

Bert

In article , Gary Coffman says...

I wasn't stupid enough to accost him about it,

He was stupid enough to wear the damn thing out in
the open, to be seen by all. Does not speak well
of the IQ standards for that force.

but I've lived here a long
time and know some people. I made a phone call, and the next day I got
a call from the detective telling me that the Browning had mysteriously
turned up.

Heh. It's nice to have friends.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

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



I never would have guessed you were so old, Michael. :)

But, alas, I did not excercise my vile bloodlust that most
certainly lurks within

Yes, but you have not met the Usual Suspects (copyright Vic
Mimoni) yet. Probably a good thing. ;) Much better to want
to reach through your screen and choke the living **** out
of two of them than spend time in the big house for actually
doing it. ;)

jon

Thanks for the (I think) compliment.

And the laugh from the second part. You are probably correct about that
potential scenario.

mj

(Richard Lewis) wrote

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

Why do you gunners keep using that irrelevant and idiotic appeal to
emotion fallacy?

Idiotic?

Yes, idiotic.

It happens hundreds of thousands of times a year.

Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.

Most assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. IOW, the
chances are greater that your wife or daughter would be assaulted by
you than by some "unethical criminal".

"Dan" wrote .....

Any one know of any statistics on the rate of gun injuries based on
gun ownership (+/-)?

See:

Kellerman, A., et al. 1993 "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for
Homicide in the Home." New England Journal of Medicine. 329, pgs.
1084-1091.

(Watch the gunnuts go crazy on this one)

See also:

Grossman DC, Reay DT, Baker SA. 1999. "Self inflicted and
unintentional firearm injuries among children and adolescents: the
source of the firearm," Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 153, pgs. 875-878.

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
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) ).

Are you serious? You raise asses to show? Jeez, we have an AKC wirehaired
dachsund (Jake's Ghost Buster, but "Buster" to us), but...do you let them
get up on the sofa? Do they get fancy registered names?

Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
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.

Jeez. I'm going to have to fix that. I'll go look at the stupid crap Richard
has been posting, and see what I can do to correct your impression.

Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
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.

Jeez. I'm going to have to fix that. I'll go look at the stupid crap Richard
has been posting, and see what I can do to correct your impression.

Ed Huntress

(Carl Nisarel) wrote:

Yes, idiotic.

Define "idiotic" as it pertains to the scenario you critiqued, Carl.

It happens hundreds of thousands of times a year.

Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on
taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of
thousands of times a year.

Doesn't?

Oh, I get it. You're making the same old mistake that the idiot
formerly known as ed was above....you're assuming I meant perhaps one
state etc and that I would intentionally lie to you rather than simply
state the facts and let them prove themselves?

Armed robberies in the US in 2000....408K; rape....90K;
assault....910K etc etc etc.

Sure looks like "hundreds of thousands of times a year" to
me.....idiot.

ral

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:42:39 GMT, Sunworshiper
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:


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.

NO ****! So shoot them!

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.

NO ****! So shoot ...him!

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.

So thropw the lighter down the gas tank and blow the hole thing to
pieces, man! ****! You so weak!

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.

WelL those mestizos, ya know? I tol yya to blo the blak dude away! He
biger than u! Sheeit!

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.

So jus blo m away, man!

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.

So he blew away the other driver, and nobody to know differnt, huh?
Smart move I reckon!

Like I said. you are the best argument for gun control......

************************************************** ** 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.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:11:58 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Hey Dick!

Arsenal (right after arsehole BTW) is in the _third_ instance a
manufactury. The first instance ios for storage. The second is a place
where troops hang out, but which will probably contain arms.

Again, only after that does the manufacture get mentioned.

Armoury. A place where arms are stored. An armourer's shop.

You are ****ing into the wind. They are so intermingled it's not worth
discussion.

Anyway. So what?

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.


************************************************** ** 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.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:58:13 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
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.

Jeez. I'm going to have to fix that. I'll go look at the stupid crap Richard
has been posting, and see what I can do to correct your impression.

Ed Huntress


Don't do it- you'll wind up melting down your arsenal (or is it
armory?) just to disassociate yourself from him.

-Carl

P.S. I always understood a collection of small arms was called a
"cannon", but maybe that's an old term.

In article , Carl Byrns says...

P.S. I always understood a collection of small arms was called a
"cannon", but maybe that's an old term.

No, it's a person who collects microphone connectors. Really.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

--

"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
nk.net...
"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


Bwahahahahahaha.

I see some people don't pay attention.

Dan

--

"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 -

"Carl Nisarel" wrote in message
om...
"Dan" wrote .....

Any one know of any statistics on the rate of gun injuries based on
gun ownership (+/-)?

See:

Kellerman, A., et al. 1993 "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for
Homicide in the Home." New England Journal of Medicine. 329, pgs.
1084-1091.

(Watch the gunnuts go crazy on this one)

See also:

Grossman DC, Reay DT, Baker SA. 1999. "Self inflicted and
unintentional firearm injuries among children and adolescents: the
source of the firearm," Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 153, pgs. 875-878.

Can you post some of the numbers?

Dan

**** off, idiot. There's enough of your kind in this discussion
already.

ral

"michael" wrote in message
...




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



I never would have guessed you were so old, Michael. :)

But, alas, I did not excercise my vile bloodlust that most
certainly lurks within

Yes, but you have not met the Usual Suspects (copyright Vic
Mimoni) yet. Probably a good thing. ;) Much better to want
to reach through your screen and choke the living **** out
of two of them than spend time in the big house for actually
doing it. ;)

jon

Thanks for the (I think) compliment.

And the laugh from the second part. You are probably correct about that
potential scenario.

mj


Thanks for the (I think) compliment.

You have it right.

BTW, thanks for letting me have a little go after months of
taking the Usual Suspects (copyright Vic Mimoni) lies and
knowing I would not continue down their path.... or hoping
anyway. LOL

Very much appreciated. :)

If I have sometime this weekend I will try and find some
links on why pent heads rule. Don't know if anyone will have
much to say about the laser that gets fired across the
combustion chamber to ignite the mixture in a F1 motor.

It is the limited quench area that is the problem with a
hemi head. You can get around this somewhat buy using dual
plugs and putting a flat on top of the piston... still not
as good as the pent head design. I know you Mopar guys can't
deal with this though. LOL.

jon

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:10:45 GMT, Bert wrote:

Bert wrote:

(Bob Summers) wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:24:20 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:08:45 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Hummm and your state is a hotbed of murders and terror compared to
North Dakota with its 1.1

snip

Perhaps we should compare this to Japans rate of 1.1
Japan has a total ban on any firearm of any sort btw
However...the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand.

snip

In Japan, the United Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per
100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people
each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if
firearms in the U.S. could be magically eliminated, we would still
have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.

If "the murder rate in Japan, with weapons other than firearms,
is 3.2 per hundred thousand" and "in the U.S., there are about 3.2
murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms",
how is it that "we would still have three times the murder rate of the
Japanese" if firearms were eliminated?

Good question. Email the author and ask him. Then report back to us.

Nah. I think since you're the one who spewed this inconsistent prose
into the newsgroup, you should report back to us.

3 x 1.1 = ~3.2 looks like a consistent statement to me at 2 digit precision.

True but irrelevant. Let me spell it out for you. The inconsistency is
due to Gunner claiming in one paragraph that "In Japan, the United
Nations reports the murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000," while in
another paragraph he claims that "the murder rate in Japan, with
weapons other than firearms, is 3.2 per hundred thousand." If it's 3.2
with weapons other than firearms, it can't very well be 1.1 in total,
can it? Maybe Gunner wrote in error in one place or the other, or
maybe he correctly quoted inconsistent sources, but he's not admitting
to either. In any case, the net result is that what he wrote was
inconsistent.

And BTW, that's not the only inconsistency in that particular post. He
also states, for example, that "In the U.S., our combined murder and
suicide rate is about 18 also (7.0 and 11.1, respectively, according
to the Department of Justice)." Two paragraphs later, he says "the
murder rate currently in the US is 5.5." Maybe he had some valid (but
unspecified) reason for citing two different numbers (7.0 and 5.5),
but then again, maybe he's misquoting numbers from memory, or
misinterpreting numbers he read somewhere.

I believe you will find that those figures are in reference to murders
done by firearms and murders done by all means, including firearms.

Folks kill other folks on a regular basis with weapons other than
firearms. Without firearms..the figures may be a bit lower..a smidgen
perhaps..but as was indicated..the murder rate in japan is 1.1 by
firearms, but 3.5 by all other weapons, meaning 2.4 by methods other
than firearms.

As has been noted when firearms were restricted in many states by
waiting period etc..the Suicide by firearms rate went down, but the
suicide by other means went up.

If someone wants you dead, it makes no difference if they shoot you or
cut your throat. You are still dead.



The thing is, Gunner has a propensity to use statistics to bolster his
positions, which isn't a bad strategy in principle, but when he throws
out inconsistent statistics like these it adversely impacts both the
strength of his arguments and his credibility, IMO.

Bert

Quite frankly Bert, your opinion of me is really a non-issue.

Gunner

"No man shall be debarred the use of arms.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.
They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes,
produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by
thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
- Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:15:29 GMT, Bert wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Correct, why would they attempt to restore the voting rights of people
whom would vote Republican, if the felons tended to vote that way?

Where's Abrasha when we need him? There must be at least a half-dozen
places in this thread where you've used "whom" when it should have
been "who." Maybe it's just me (and Abrasha?), but the sound of "whom"
in the above sentence is more grating to me than the sound of
fingernails on a chalkboard. Just an observation...

Bert

Sorry..its just one of my many quirks. Shrug.
But if it really bugs you..Ill use it more.

Gunner

"No man shall be debarred the use of arms.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm those only who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.
They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes,
produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by
thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."
- Thomas Jefferson

jon banquer wrote:






I never would have guessed you were so old, Michael. :)

But, alas, I did not excercise my vile bloodlust that most
certainly lurks within

Yes, but you have not met the Usual Suspects (copyright Vic
Mimoni) yet. Probably a good thing. ;) Much better to want
to reach through your screen and choke the living **** out
of two of them than spend time in the big house for actually
doing it. ;)

jon

Thanks for the (I think) compliment.

And the laugh from the second part. You are probably correct about that
potential scenario.

mj


Thanks for the (I think) compliment.

You have it right.

BTW, thanks for letting me have a little go after months of
taking the Usual Suspects (copyright Vic Mimoni) lies and
knowing I would not continue down their path.... or hoping
anyway. LOL

Very much appreciated. :)

Got me gigglin again.




If I have sometime this weekend I will try and find some
links on why pent heads rule. Don't know if anyone will have
much to say about the laser that gets fired across the
combustion chamber to ignite the mixture in a F1 motor.


By all means, I would be interested in reading some "Pent-head
Propaganda".grin
I was going to just put the "g" in there, but something just does not feel right
when I do that. Maybe it is this nagging mental picture......


It is the limited quench area that is the problem with a
hemi head. You can get around this somewhat buy using dual
plugs and putting a flat on top of the piston... still not
as good as the pent head design. I know you Mopar guys can't
deal with this though. LOL.

jon

Yes, truly tough to deal with some things, as you are aware. Just wondering, do
you have any stats on the relative use of pent vs. Hemi head design by the top
classes in the NHRA? I could be wrong, as I haven't been following the sport
much the last few years, but I think the ratio may be skewed heavily toward one
design.

Your turn, Jon.

Seriously, send the links you mentioned whenever time permits to my email if you
would. I lose track of news threads sometimes. Thanks, bud.

mj

Are you serious? You raise asses to show? Jeez, we have an AKC wirehaired
dachsund (Jake's Ghost Buster, but "Buster" to us), but...do you let them
get up on the sofa? Do they get fancy registered names?

Ed Huntress


Here's my herd sire, General Pershing (BJ) for "Black Jack". He's a little
big for the sofa but would if we'd let him.
http://members.aol.com/brayhaven/bj.htm
Greg Sefton

"michael" wrote in message
...
jon banquer wrote:






I never would have guessed you were so old, Michael. :)

But, alas, I did not excercise my vile bloodlust that most
certainly lurks within

Yes, but you have not met the Usual Suspects (copyright Vic
Mimoni) yet. Probably a good thing. ;) Much better to want
to reach through your screen and choke the living **** out
of two of them than spend time in the big house for actually
doing it. ;)

jon

Thanks for the (I think) compliment.

And the laugh from the second part. You are probably correct about
that
potential scenario.

mj


Thanks for the (I think) compliment.

You have it right.

BTW, thanks for letting me have a little go after months of
taking the Usual Suspects (copyright Vic Mimoni) lies and
knowing I would not continue down their path.... or hoping
anyway. LOL

Very much appreciated. :)

Got me gigglin again.




If I have sometime this weekend I will try and find some
links on why pent heads rule. Don't know if anyone will have
much to say about the laser that gets fired across the
combustion chamber to ignite the mixture in a F1 motor.


By all means, I would be interested in reading some "Pent-head
Propaganda".grin
I was going to just put the "g" in there, but something just does not feel
right
when I do that. Maybe it is this nagging mental picture......


It is the limited quench area that is the problem with a
hemi head. You can get around this somewhat buy using dual
plugs and putting a flat on top of the piston... still not
as good as the pent head design. I know you Mopar guys can't
deal with this though. LOL.

jon

Yes, truly tough to deal with some things, as you are aware. Just
wondering, do
you have any stats on the relative use of pent vs. Hemi head design by the
top
classes in the NHRA? I could be wrong, as I haven't been following the
sport
much the last few years, but I think the ratio may be skewed heavily
toward one
design.

Your turn, Jon.

Seriously, send the links you mentioned whenever time permits to my email
if you
would. I lose track of news threads sometimes. Thanks, bud.

mj




"By all means, I would be interested in reading some "Pent-head
Propaganda".grin"

Okay. Now I'm really motivated. LOL :)

I was going to just put the "g" in there, but something just does not feel
right when I do that. Maybe it is this nagging mental picture......

It sucks when someone destroys something you want to use because it is now
gives off bad karma to use it.

Yes, truly tough to deal with some things, as you are aware. Just
wondering, do you have any stats on the relative use of pent vs.
Hemi head design by the top classes in the NHRA?

Drag racing is Bob's forte. I still know nothing about it. Roadracing is
where my interests have always been. I would think drag racing is still Hemi
dominated. Pent heads and multi valves are probably restricted / banned by
the rules. Lots of valve placement advantages to the pent head design as
well. I believe *every* F1 car uses the pent head design.

Seriously, send the links you mentioned whenever time permits to my email
if you would. I lose track of news threads sometimes. Thanks, bud.

I'll do both. Sometimes when I post this stuff someone who does not want to
participate in the newsgroup e-mails with something interesting.

jon

On 06 Dec 2003 13:57:00 GMT, (Bray Haven) wrote:

Are you serious? You raise asses to show? Jeez, we have an AKC wirehaired
dachsund (Jake's Ghost Buster, but "Buster" to us), but...do you let them
get up on the sofa? Do they get fancy registered names?

Ed Huntress


Here's my herd sire, General Pershing (BJ) for "Black Jack". He's a little
big for the sofa but would if we'd let him.
http://members.aol.com/brayhaven/bj.htm
Greg Sefton

Damn, "Buster" is gonna be a fine looking mule.

Any of the family work cattle worth a crap?

I gave away my mule when I started on the road fixing machine tools
about 8 yrs ago and stopped being regularly active in team
roping/penning and cattle ranch rough work.

I gave him to the then 12 yr old daughter of a good friend. Morgan
cross, 17hs. She looked like a tick bird sitting up there. She and
that mule are to this day still inseprable and since she has gotten to
about 19-20 yrs old now...can rope really well together. Its a marvel
watching her set the rope and Frank lock em up and bust that steer.
******* always had a really big sense of humor and will screw with
anybody but Sandy. He would have been a good barrel racer if he was
smaller, he could turn on a time and give you 8 cents change, but he
is just too big to be fast on the short course.

Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
nk.net...

Ok, Richard, I laid a gift under your nose a couple of days ago, laid my
neck right out there for you to chop it off, betting that you really don't
check out anything you say, and you proved me right. I even gave you the URL
to look it up with a click of the mouse. There's no doubt you would have
hooted your head off if you really knew what you're talking about. It's
clear that you're a complete phony.

But I'll get to that in a minute. First, a few turds you dropped need to be
shoveled under:


Snipped a bunch of useless excuses and bull**** explaining.....

Is that all too complicated for you, Richard? You have trouble seeing that a
piece of paper that certifies you passed a background check is exactly the
same thing as an electronic authorization that's returned by the state to
authorize you to buy a handgun? And that they're both a "permit," since you
don't get permission to buy the gun until the state or the FBI returns an
authorization number and an approval to the dealer? And that either one is
less of an impediment than a mandatory waiting period is? Is that all to
much to think about, Richard?

Well, we'll make it simpler so you don't get confused. And we'll stick to
the literal definitions of words so you have a place to look it all up.


The quote says "buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind". It does NOT say "only wear a gun openly with
no permit needed", idiot. It also does NOT say "buy a gun; strap it
on; and walk down the street with no permit" etc.

No it doesn't, Richard. You just edited it down. If you're going to hang
your hat on the exact words, then stick to it. Here's what it actually says:

"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

"Ford," if there is a Ford, was full of **** from the first words of that
quote. There aren't 25 states that allow "anyone" to buy a gun and "strap it
on." There is exactly one state that does: Vermont. And if "strap it on"
doesn't mean to carry openly, then where do you strap it? Onto your dick?

Your pussified re-interpreting of the quote to fit your own bull****
argument is worse than what you accused Gunner of.

See above. It appears you "pussified re-interpreting of the quote" (what a
stupid phrase) to fit your own bull**** argument. If you're going to stick
to what it said, idiot, then stick to the words.


His, at least, was
a simple quote that left it up to you to interpret....yours is nothing
but the bull**** re-interpretation of it by a whining baby.

See above, you phony dickhead.


If you care to check the NRA-ILA site, they list the laws that apply
by state and you can simply open your ****ing eyes and READ which
states require a permit to buy/carry etc.

That's what I figured. You didn't check a damned thing. You just
cut-and-pasted some predigested list from the NRA/ILA. You didn't even check
out that URL to an ACTUAL LAW I gave you. I put it right into your lap, you
blustering phony.

I'll give it to you again. You say that Utah allows open carry "with some
strict restrictions." What "strict restrictions"? Utah is wide open...except
that you can't carry a loaded gun on the streets. If you'd actually checked
this out, instead of trying to bluster your way through, you would have seen
what Utah considers a "loaded gun." It was right on the page of statutes I
posted. All you had to do was click.

Here's a hint: In the case of a revolver, if you pull the trigger once and
the gun fires, that's a loaded gun. If you have to pull the trigger twice,
that's an UNLOADED gun.

You really should look it up. It's a hoot. If you weren't such a freaking
phony, saying, for example, that Wisconsin has "no open carry restrictions
that I could find," you would have tripped over it. That you could "find"?
Is that supposed to mean that you looked the laws of these states up?

This is one of the first things that hits you when you actually LOOK AT
Utah's gun laws. But you just get down on your knees before some K Street
lobbyists and swallow whatever they feed you. You missed an opportunity to
really get some kicks, Richard. It's the kind of thing, as you've proven
here by your churlish and insulting behavior, that would have been right up
your alley.

Here it is in simple language, which shouldn't give you any reading
problems.
Look for "When weapon deemed loaded." You can look up "deemed" in your
dictionary if you need to:

http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/76_0C.htm


Pathetic idiot.

And here I thought I was in for a good 2nd Amend conversation devoid
of any bull****. You idiots disappoint me sorely.

Twelve years ago I lobbied for the NJ affiliate of the NRA. You're the kind
of blustering jerk who made me realize I was fighting for the rights of
dickheads. Go to any meeting of state-level gun-rights activists, and you'll
fit right it. They're full of blustering fools who don't know what they're
talking about.

Go get your dictionary and look up "anyone," Richard. Then tell us about
another state that allows "anyone" to buy a gun and strap it on. You're
defending a lying fool.

Idiot.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Are you serious? You raise asses to show? Jeez, we have an AKC wirehaired
dachsund (Jake's Ghost Buster, but "Buster" to us), but...do you let them
get up on the sofa? Do they get fancy registered names?

Ed Huntress


Here's my herd sire, General Pershing (BJ) for "Black Jack". He's a
little
big for the sofa but would if we'd let him.
http://members.aol.com/brayhaven/bj.htm
Greg Sefton

Damn, some of them DO have fancy names! Nice looking animals, Greg.

Ed Huntress

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:02:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Ford," if there is a Ford, was full of **** from the first words of that
quote. There aren't 25 states that allow "anyone" to buy a gun and "strap it
on." There is exactly one state that does: Vermont. And if "strap it on"
doesn't mean to carry openly, then where do you strap it? Onto your dick?

Alabama(1);

Alaska(2);

Arizona;

Arkansas(3);

California(4);

Colorado;

Connecticut

Delaware(2);

Georgia


Idaho

Indiana

Iowa(5);

Kansas(2);

Kentucky;

Louisiana;

Maine;

Maryland(5);


Michigan(1);

Minnesota

Mississippi;

Missouri(2);

Montana;

Nebraska(2);

Nevada(2);

New Hampshire(1);

New Mexico;

North Carolina;

Ohio(2);

Oregon(2);

Pennsylvania(1)--Philadelphia(1,5);

Rhode Island(5);

South Dakota;

Texas(3);

Vermont;

Virginia(2)--Alexandria and some other counties (5);

Washington;

West Virginia;

Wisconsin(6);

Wyoming


1. CCW required for open carry in a vehicle

2. Additional restrictions may be at a local level

3. Only allowed when traveling

4. Only allowed with special permit or license; additional
restrictions may apply

5. Open carry requires CCW permit

6. Open carry prohibited in vehicle; permitted on person.

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith

In article , Ed Huntress says...

...churlish ...

I think he's gonna have to look that one
up too.

:^)

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:02:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Ford," if there is a Ford, was full of **** from the first words of that
quote. There aren't 25 states that allow "anyone" to buy a gun and "strap
it
on." There is exactly one state that does: Vermont. And if "strap it on"
doesn't mean to carry openly, then where do you strap it? Onto your dick?

Alabama(1);

Alaska(2);

snip

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a list of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun -- or a gun of any
kind, in many states. The list ranges from felons, to people who have a
restraining order on them, to adults who were convicted of possessing pot as
a kid, to people who are addicted to painkillers (Ohio), depending on the
state.

You can get the whole list compiled in one place from the DoJ's "Survey of
State Procedures to Firearm Sales," which is compiled for several recent
years. If you can't find it, I'll send you a PDF file of it.

(Vermont, FWIW, doesn't allow sales to buyers under 16, but it otherwise
defaults to the federal NICS background check.)

Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

...churlish ...

I think he's gonna have to look that one
up too.

:^)

Just so he sticks to the actual words of the definition. As he says, you
have to be able to read to keep up with this thread. g

Ed Huntress

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:44:55 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 19:02:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Ford," if there is a Ford, was full of **** from the first words of that
quote. There aren't 25 states that allow "anyone" to buy a gun and "strap
it
on." There is exactly one state that does: Vermont. And if "strap it on"
doesn't mean to carry openly, then where do you strap it? Onto your dick?

Alabama(1);

Alaska(2);

snip

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a list of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun -- or a gun of any
kind, in many states. The list ranges from felons, to people who have a
restraining order on them, to adults who were convicted of possessing pot as
a kid, to people who are addicted to painkillers (Ohio), depending on the
state.

You can get the whole list compiled in one place from the DoJ's "Survey of
State Procedures to Firearm Sales," which is compiled for several recent
years. If you can't find it, I'll send you a PDF file of it.

(Vermont, FWIW, doesn't allow sales to buyers under 16, but it otherwise
defaults to the federal NICS background check.)

Ed Huntress

Ah..every state has a Prohibited persons list..at the least related to
federal law where a felon whom has not has his/her rights restored may
not posess or own a firearm.

Including Vermont which defaults to Federal standards.

It was assumed that the In 25 states comment, that only those not
prohibited from owning (GCA 68 IRRC) were the ones in discussion. Of
course in all 50 states and assorted territories, those prohibited
persons will obtain a firearm from less than legal sources and carry
any which way they chose, no matter how unlawful their status makes
the practice.

Symantic word games are where you are going as some form of disproof?
Or simply changing the rules in mid game?

If so, "anyone can simply drive from LA to New York."


Gunner

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a list
of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun -- or a gun of
any
kind, in many states. The list ranges from felons, to people who have a
restraining order on them, to adults who were convicted of possessing pot
as
a kid, to people who are addicted to painkillers (Ohio), depending on the
state.



Ah..every state has a Prohibited persons list..at the least related to
federal law where a felon whom has not has his/her rights restored may
not posess or own a firearm.

And many of them quite a bit more extensive. 'Want to see the list?

Including Vermont which defaults to Federal standards.

It was assumed that the In 25 states comment, that only those not
prohibited from owning (GCA 68 IRRC) were the ones in discussion.

"Assumed"? By whom? Isn't that what Richard and you were getting on my case
about in the first place?

And as I said, want to see the list?

Of
course in all 50 states and assorted territories, those prohibited
persons will obtain a firearm from less than legal sources and carry
any which way they chose, no matter how unlawful their status makes
the practice.

Wait a minute. I thought the discussion was about those states that ALLOW
"anyone" to buy a gun, etc. Now you want to switch it to criminals?

If your argument has any meaning here, it's that the laws don't matter
anyway, and that everybody can buy a gun anywhere, etc. In which case,
"Ford's" point about those states that ALLOW you to buy a gun, etc., is
completely meaningless. Is that where you really want to go? I didn't think
so.


Symantic word games are where you are going as some form of disproof?
Or simply changing the rules in mid game?

No, symantic word games is where YOU and RICHARD are going as some form of
proof. Richard seems to want to follow exactly what the words mean,
including his strict definition of "permit." So, you can stick to what
"anyone" means. Fair enough?

Ed Huntress

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:11:03 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Sorry, Gunner. Every one of those states, except for Vermont, has a list
of
"Prohibited Persons" who are not allowed to buy a handgun -- or a gun of
any
kind, in many states. The list ranges from felons, to people who have a
restraining order on them, to adults who were convicted of possessing pot
as
a kid, to people who are addicted to painkillers (Ohio), depending on the
state.



Ah..every state has a Prohibited persons list..at the least related to
federal law where a felon whom has not has his/her rights restored may
not posess or own a firearm.

And many of them quite a bit more extensive. 'Want to see the list?

No..its a given. Including Vermont btw.

Including Vermont which defaults to Federal standards.

It was assumed that the In 25 states comment, that only those not
prohibited from owning (GCA 68 IRRC) were the ones in discussion.

"Assumed"? By whom? Isn't that what Richard and you were getting on my case
about in the first place?

No, it wasnt.


And as I said, want to see the list?

No, its a given, including Vermont law.

Of
course in all 50 states and assorted territories, those prohibited
persons will obtain a firearm from less than legal sources and carry
any which way they chose, no matter how unlawful their status makes
the practice.

Wait a minute. I thought the discussion was about those states that ALLOW
"anyone" to buy a gun, etc. Now you want to switch it to criminals?

If your argument has any meaning here, it's that the laws don't matter
anyway, and that everybody can buy a gun anywhere, etc. In which case,
"Ford's" point about those states that ALLOW you to buy a gun, etc., is
completely meaningless. Is that where you really want to go? I didn't think
so.


Symantic word games are where you are going as some form of disproof?
Or simply changing the rules in mid game?

No, symantic word games is where YOU and RICHARD are going as some form of
proof. Richard seems to want to follow exactly what the words mean,
including his strict definition of "permit." So, you can stick to what
"anyone" means. Fair enough?

Ed Huntress

Not me. I simply used the sig, which is true, with the exception of
criminals or those judged to be a danger to another or society as
stated by various state and Federal rules

The part the argument want off on..was about the 4/5 murders being
done in the other 25 states, or do you not recall that? Recent head
injury?
G

Gunner


No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.
- L. Neil Smith

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...

Ok, Richard, I laid a gift under your nose a couple of days ago,

Sorry, idiot. I only give idiots so many chances, and if yours
doesn't start off with something to the effect of "here's the data I
claimed", you get ****canned just like this last post of yours.

Still waiting on the info, idiot.

ral