Ed Huntress wrote:

gak! just checked in here, what seemed like a nice on topic
thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:20:11 +0100, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
wrote:

"A.Gent" writes:

"Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
understand).

Europeans will, too. The Americans had to invent "libertarian" to
replace "liberal" after they changed the meaning of that word...

Language is fun! :-)

-tih

Ah..no. Libertarian is a completly different term
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwlib.html#Liberals

Jeez, that's a lot of words. It's much simpler if you define it in terms of
behavior. A libertarian is someone who opposes aggression against others,
unless they think the others may initiate aggression against them. This
opens the door for unlimited pre-emptive aggression, under the principle of
preventing pre-emptive aggression. ?

A libertarian is someone who favors legalizing psychotropic drugs, until a
drug taker goes nuts behind the wheel of a car and starts running people
over, at which time a good libertarian will shoot them. ?

Even simpler is their politics: A libertarian is someone who favors
individual liberty, which is why they vote for right-wing neo-fascists. ?

Libertarians are very confused people. g

Ed Huntress

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message
news:acT1c.461903$I06.5240340@attbi_s01...
Ed Huntress wrote:

gak! just checked in here, what seemed like a nice on topic
thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren

I know what you mean. All good threads seem to go bad.

I didn't even look at this thread until it had gone on so long that it just
*had* to be revealing some amazing facts about sharpening a knife. But when
I got here, what I found was Gunner sharpening his sword. g

Ed Huntress

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message
news:acT1c.461903$I06.5240340@attbi_s01...
gak! just checked in here, what seemed like a nice on topic
thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren

Gnaw, I don't think I've seen many threads stay on topic without arguing for
more than the 15 post levels seen at this particular point.

Tim

--
"I have misplaced my pants." - Homer Simpson | Electronics,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --+ Metalcasting
and Games: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Of course. In the US, the terms are reversed. Liberals are socialists.

Hehehe
That sounds so silly.

Hummm rummage rummage..lets see here....

Lets try this one

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

Gunner

Hey!
That's a good'un.

Just a few edits and it becomes:


"Gun Freedom, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
lose her pistol to a 250lb 19yr old criminal... and then be shot with it."


Jeff

"Gerald Miller" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:46:06 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:

I approve of gun control.
The stricter the better.

I most strongly agree, most automatic weapons absolutely demand a two
handed grip!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

LOL!
Good response.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 04:18:14 GMT, "Loren A. Coe"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

gak! just checked in here, what seemed like a nice on topic
thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren


Cant blame this one on me, this time.

Gunner


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:20:11 +0100, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
wrote:

"A.Gent" writes:

"Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
understand).

Europeans will, too. The Americans had to invent "libertarian" to
replace "liberal" after they changed the meaning of that word...

Language is fun! :-)

-tih

Ah..no. Libertarian is a completly different term
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwlib.html#Liberals

Jeez, that's a lot of words. It's much simpler if you define it in terms of
behavior. A libertarian is someone who opposes aggression against others,
unless they think the others may initiate aggression against them. This
opens the door for unlimited pre-emptive aggression, under the principle of
preventing pre-emptive aggression. ?

A libertarian is someone who favors legalizing psychotropic drugs, until a
drug taker goes nuts behind the wheel of a car and starts running people
over, at which time a good libertarian will shoot them. ?

Even simpler is their politics: A libertarian is someone who favors
individual liberty, which is why they vote for right-wing neo-fascists. ?

Libertarians are very confused people. g

Ed Huntress


"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 04:30:38 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Loren A. Coe" wrote in message
news:acT1c.461903$I06.5240340@attbi_s01...
Ed Huntress wrote:

gak! just checked in here, what seemed like a nice on topic
thread is now yet another WAY OT polictical diatribe. maybe
we HAVE lost something here (in rcm?). --Loren

I know what you mean. All good threads seem to go bad.

I didn't even look at this thread until it had gone on so long that it just
*had* to be revealing some amazing facts about sharpening a knife. But when
I got here, what I found was Gunner sharpening his sword. g

Ed Huntress

No..you found me mentioning that I use a ceramic crock stick in lue of
a steel. Another posted pushed the magic button.

Gunner

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Ed Huntress" writes:

Jeez, that's a lot of words. It's much simpler if you define it in
terms of behavior.

Gotta say, Ed, I liked Gunner's version much better. :-)

-tih
--
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:06:17 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Of course. In the US, the terms are reversed. Liberals are socialists.

Hehehe
That sounds so silly.

But true nontheless. We can thank the Lefties for the redefiniton.
They are busy at work again, since Liberal now has many negative
connotations. The new buzz word they use...is Progressive.

Hummm rummage rummage..lets see here....

Lets try this one

"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

Gunner

Hey!
That's a good'un.

Just a few edits and it becomes:


"Gun Freedom, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
lose her pistol to a 250lb 19yr old criminal... and then be shot with it."

And with a few edits, "jeff" becomes "Child Molester"

Of course, neither edit has any validity, but as you apparently
delight in the exercise.... Shrug.

Gunner



Jeff



"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:06:17 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gun Freedom, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
lose her pistol to a 250lb 19yr old criminal... and then be shot with it."

And with a few edits, "jeff" becomes "Child Molester"

A *few* edits?
There's only one letter in common, and that's in the wrong place.
Poor analogy, Gunner. More "anal" than "Gee!"

Nahhhhh.


Of course, neither edit has any validity, but as you apparently
delight in the exercise.... Shrug.

Shrug away.

It'll help you loosen up, and relieve some of your oh-so-obvious tension.

But don't you think that 110lb Granny is probably *less* likely to be packing heat
than a criminally-minded 19 y.o.?

"If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns", (as you would probably say)
*but*
if anyone can get guns down at the local WalMart, then what makes you think that
Granny will and 19 y.o. won't?

You don't think background checks would stop a naughty 19 y.o. do you?

=================

Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)

Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and "Shane"
and so on) than here and now?

Just wondering....

Jeff

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 20:31:14 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 18:06:17 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gun Freedom, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
lose her pistol to a 250lb 19yr old criminal... and then be shot with it."

And with a few edits, "jeff" becomes "Child Molester"

A *few* edits?
There's only one letter in common, and that's in the wrong place.
Poor analogy, Gunner. More "anal" than "Gee!"

Nahhhhh.


Of course, neither edit has any validity, but as you apparently
delight in the exercise.... Shrug.

Shrug away.

It'll help you loosen up, and relieve some of your oh-so-obvious tension.

But don't you think that 110lb Granny is probably *less* likely to be packing heat
than a criminally-minded 19 y.o.?

Its largely dependant on which part of the US you are referring to,
and then in large part because its illegal for either party to carry
without a permit. Which granny will generally follow..but there is no
such reluctance on the part of the kid. Now as to having Granny
keeping a shotgun or handgun around the house..Id say there are
millions of such. News reports often feature Granny chasing off, or
blowing the 19 yr old pukes **** away.

"If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns", (as you would probably say)
*but*
if anyone can get guns down at the local WalMart, then what makes you think that
Granny will and 19 y.o. won't?

First you have to be 21 to purchase a firearm at Walmart, so the 19yr
old cannot do so legally. Secondly most amateur bad guys in this age
range tend to rely on their size and strength (its a psychological
thing) when confronting Granny. Which often leads to 19 yr olds being
killed or wounded in the commission of a crime, by Granny.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...e.asp?CatID=43

In fact, a good many women are now arming themselves, both at home and
on the street. Women getting CCW permits is at an all time high.

And surprisingly enough..in areas where its known women are
armed..rapes, robberies etc etc against women are all down below our
already low crime rate.

Shug..while you and I might be able to handle that young puke by hand,
why deny those that are the most defenseless, have no way to defend
themselves?

As to your claims that a firearm may be taken from a woman and used
against her..please give me two examples. If you are unable to do
so..then your claim is simply a meaningless "what if" .

Gunner


You don't think background checks would stop a naughty 19 y.o. do you?

=================

Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)

Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and "Shane"
and so on) than here and now?

Just wondering....

Jeff




"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

.. News reports often feature Granny chasing off, or
blowing the 19 yr old pukes **** away.

US news reports seem to feature lots of folk getting blown away - *some* of them
justifiably, it would seem.


As to your claims that a firearm may be taken from a woman and used
against her..please give me two examples. If you are unable to do
so..then your claim is simply a meaningless "what if" .

Sorry.
I'll have to shrug and whimper "what if". I don't collect broadcast anecdotes. I
leave that to others.

You have posted previously about the desirability of self-imposed morality, as
opposed to morality imposed by the barrel of a gun. (That was you, wasn't it?) Such
a society is certainly preferable. I just don't fancy the concept of everyone having
to go everywhere (including to bed) armed to the teeth.

Doesn't sound too peaceable to me, Pard.


Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)

Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and "Shane"
and so on) than here and now?

Just wondering....


Jeff

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:27:31 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

.. News reports often feature Granny chasing off, or
blowing the 19 yr old pukes **** away.

US news reports seem to feature lots of folk getting blown away - *some* of them
justifiably, it would seem.

Indeed. As for those unjustifiably..it tends to be minority males
between the ages of 13-24 doing most of the killing and dying, often
in acts of tribal warfare. As occurs in the UK and Oz, etc. Far more
people die by knife, blunt instrument etc etc. Factors that would
occur even in the absence of firearms..and the world stats are there
to prove it, given the murder rates in many countries where guns are
outlawed. In fact..its members of those countries that live in the US
that tend to bring their homicidal tendencies with them. Mexico is a
notable example.


As to your claims that a firearm may be taken from a woman and used
against her..please give me two examples. If you are unable to do
so..then your claim is simply a meaningless "what if" .

Sorry.
I'll have to shrug and whimper "what if". I don't collect broadcast anecdotes. I
leave that to others.

Excellent. Honesty is a good start.

You have posted previously about the desirability of self-imposed morality, as
opposed to morality imposed by the barrel of a gun. (That was you, wasn't it?) Such
a society is certainly preferable. I just don't fancy the concept of everyone having
to go everywhere (including to bed) armed to the teeth.

One never has to go anywhere armed to the teeth. Its a personal
decision. Im not a fan of putting on a seat belt when getting into a
motor vehicle either..and the chances of me being involved in an
accident are very small, but I do non the less.

I should mention that in the past 30 yrs, Ive had to draw my CCW 5
times. In only one of those cases was there another firearm involved.
But knifes, clubs, and large groups of individuals bent on harming
one, can kill you just as dead. No shots were fired in any of those
cases. And in each one of those cases, harm or death to myself, or
others WOULD have occurred if Id not been armed and willing to defend
myself with deadly force. Not maybe..but Would. And rape to my wife
and or others.

So am I being paranoid? Or simply, like wearing a seat belt, prudent?

Doesn't sound too peaceable to me, Pard.

Our crime rate is at an all time low, our homicide rates are down
below levels of 1964, and still declining. There are more privately
possessed firearms than ever before, 42 states now issue CCW permits
and things are getting nice and peaceable. Im afraid that the same
cannot be said for other countries that have banned the use of the gun
for self defense, or even its ownership. But then..Im damned glad to
live in a nation where each individual does have the right to properly
use deadly force in self defense. And has the right as a basic part
of its foundation documents.

Shrug..each to his own. Im quite happy to be a citizen, not a sheeple,
and have the option of picking which I prefer being, rather than
having the sheeple part forced on me by a government.

Gunner

Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)

Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and "Shane"
and so on) than here and now?

Just wondering....


Jeff




"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Tom Ivar Helbekkmo" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" writes:

Jeez, that's a lot of words. It's much simpler if you define it in
terms of behavior.

Gotta say, Ed, I liked Gunner's version much better. :-)

Yeah, his definition makes you want to hum patriotic songs through your
nose. d8-)

Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Im not a fan of putting on a seat belt when getting into a
motor vehicle either..and the chances of me being involved in an
accident are very small, but I do non the less.

Why?
Don't you drive very much?
(You do realise that *no-one* admits to being a dangerous driver... and accidents
are *always* caused by "the other guy".)



I should mention that in the past 30 yrs, Ive had to draw my CCW 5
times.

Deary me.
I should mention that in a longer time-frame than that, I've never felt the need to
produce or display a CCW. I've been a cab driver, a shop assistant, a truck driver,
a delivery person amongst other potentially "hazardous" occupations, and I haven't
ever hesitated to go anywhere at any time in this country for the sake of personal
safety.

You must live in a very dangerous country.


... In only one of those cases was there another firearm involved.
But knifes, clubs, and large groups of individuals bent on harming
one, can kill you just as dead. No shots were fired in any of those
cases. And in each one of those cases, harm or death to myself, or
others WOULD have occurred if Id not been armed and willing to defend
myself with deadly force. Not maybe..but Would. And rape to my wife
and or others.

Land of the free, home of the brave.
Don't tell me stories like this, Gunner.
I like Americans. I'd love to visit your shores (the Smithsonian, the Cape for a
launch, Niagara, Yellowstone... sighhh) but you're doing a good job of frightening me
out of it. Give me crocodiles and funnelweb spiders any day.


So am I being paranoid? Or simply, like wearing a seat belt, prudent?

Another crook analogy. Seat belts are defensive. Can't be offensive (unless you
strangle someone with one.)



Doesn't sound too peaceable to me, Pard.

Our crime rate is at an all time low, our homicide rates are down
below levels of 1964, and still declining. There are more privately
possessed firearms than ever before, 42 states now issue CCW permits
and things are getting nice and peaceable. Im afraid that the same
cannot be said for other countries that have banned the use of the gun
for self defense, or even its ownership. But then..Im damned glad to
live in a nation where each individual does have the right to properly
use deadly force in self defense. And has the right as a basic part
of its foundation documents.

And yet you've been in real fear of your life five times (at least?).
Do you provoke trouble?

(I mean in real life, not on Usenet.)


Shrug..each to his own. Im quite happy to be a citizen, not a sheeple,
and have the option of picking which I prefer being, rather than
having the sheeple part forced on me by a government.


Bahhhhhhhhh
Humbug.

Anyways, keep shrugging. I can sense that tension diminishing already.


Gunner

Changing the subject a little, Gunner.... (if I may wander even more OT)

Would you rather be living in the the wild west (the land of "Bonanza" and
"Shane"
and so on) than here and now?

Just wondering....




Jeff
(still wondering)

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:05:05 +1100, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

Im not a fan of putting on a seat belt when getting into a
motor vehicle either..and the chances of me being involved in an
accident are very small, but I do non the less.

Why?
Don't you drive very much?
(You do realise that *no-one* admits to being a dangerous driver... and accidents
are *always* caused by "the other guy".)


I drive about 65,000 miles a year. Been doing so for many years. Im a
defensive driver, and have actually been to school for defensive
driving, albeit many years ago.



I should mention that in the past 30 yrs, Ive had to draw my CCW 5
times.

Deary me.
I should mention that in a longer time-frame than that, I've never felt the need to
produce or display a CCW. I've been a cab driver, a shop assistant, a truck driver,
a delivery person amongst other potentially "hazardous" occupations, and I haven't
ever hesitated to go anywhere at any time in this country for the sake of personal
safety.

I can think of a number of places in Sydney that Id not like to take
walkabout in, also Kimberly, Pilbara, Kalgoorlie. In fact..the first
place Id ever been attacked by a group, was in 1971 in Sydney.
Fortunatly my mates came to my rescue. Your lads made a rather poor
choice of victims when they ignored that Ranger scroll on the shoulder
patchs. Shrug. I suspect they all lived, though it was great fun.

You must live in a very dangerous country.

Indeed parts of it can be. Just like Oz.


... In only one of those cases was there another firearm involved.
But knifes, clubs, and large groups of individuals bent on harming
one, can kill you just as dead. No shots were fired in any of those
cases. And in each one of those cases, harm or death to myself, or
others WOULD have occurred if Id not been armed and willing to defend
myself with deadly force. Not maybe..but Would. And rape to my wife
and or others.

Land of the free, home of the brave.
Indeed.

Don't tell me stories like this, Gunner.

Why?
I like Americans. I'd love to visit your shores (the Smithsonian, the Cape for a
launch, Niagara, Yellowstone... sighhh) but you're doing a good job of frightening me
out of it. Give me crocodiles and funnelweb spiders any day.

Good for you. Id like to see Ayers Rock again, and of course sample
more of your sheilas hospitality. Both singly and in group. My
memories are fond ones. Dont worry too much about crime, as our crime
rate is falling rapidly, while yours is rising, so you may be safer
here in the US than at home. I know a goodly number of Aussie Ex-pats
living here quite happily. Though..I do know more British Ex-pats, and
you know what THEIR home country crime rates are..sigh..poor *******s.


So am I being paranoid? Or simply, like wearing a seat belt, prudent?

Another crook analogy. Seat belts are defensive. Can't be offensive (unless you
strangle someone with one.)

Hand guns are defensive also. A very poor choice for offense.
Generally a handgun is the means by which you use to get to a rifle.
Any tool can be used offensively. One should note that people have
been dying from kitchen knives, blunt objects, sashweights, tire
irons, etc etc for a very long time, so by your standards, a hammer is
an offensive weapon?



Doesn't sound too peaceable to me, Pard.

Our crime rate is at an all time low, our homicide rates are down
below levels of 1964, and still declining. There are more privately
possessed firearms than ever before, 42 states now issue CCW permits
and things are getting nice and peaceable. Im afraid that the same
cannot be said for other countries that have banned the use of the gun
for self defense, or even its ownership. But then..Im damned glad to
live in a nation where each individual does have the right to properly
use deadly force in self defense. And has the right as a basic part
of its foundation documents.

And yet you've been in real fear of your life five times (at least?).
Having been a police officer, and in RVN (none of which were counted
in the 5 times stats, Ive been in fear for my life many times. There
are risks in life, for which I take precautions. Fire extinguishers
(btw..I know at least one murder by fire extinguisher), smoke
detectors, safety glasses, seat belts, motorcycle helmets and
leathers... the usual. Shrug. Having a firearm at hand when servicing
machine tools at 1am in East Los Angeles is simply another protective
measure.
Do you provoke trouble?
Hardly. A number of folks here on this newsgroup know me well enough,
and Id imagine that most would tell you that Im just a big old
harmless fuzzball. And when bad situations happen, I generally tend to
back away. However..unless you live in a cave somewhere, Im sure you
have encountered those that wished to press the issue. I seldom worry
about a criminal act directed at me specificly, but those "to whom it
may concern" crimes are the bothersome ones.

I do tend to go where I wish, when I wish, rather than huddling in
fear though, and some of those places may not be for the more gentile.
However.. none of those 5 circumstances were in "bad places", as those
in bad places are street wise enough to understand that some people
are not to be attacked. At least if they are not drunk or strung out
on drugs...they can recognize this. shrug. Im told that I have a
certain "street presense" that can be a warning sign for the more
street wise. Unfortunatly..those are not the types that I worry about.

I should also mention that I indicated that no shots were fired, no
one was harmed overly much given the situations. If I were the type to
provoke trouble..such would not have been the case. In fact, I was
soundly chastized by the police in two of those occasions for NOT
shooting the bad guys, as it would have ended some long term criminal
careers and removed some very bad people from both the street and the
gene pool. But then I do value human life, and having taken far more
than my share of them in RVN and as a police officer, tend to not
take a life without extreme provication. The "3 AM parade" is not one
I care to add to.


(I mean in real life, not on Usenet.)

See above.


Shrug..each to his own. Im quite happy to be a citizen, not a sheeple,
and have the option of picking which I prefer being, rather than
having the sheeple part forced on me by a government.


Bahhhhhhhhh
Humbug.

So your government allows you to keep a handgun close by for self
defense? How about a decent self loading rifle?

Anyways, keep shrugging. I can sense that tension diminishing already.

Tension? You have a tension problem? Take care of that..it can have
long term health problems.

Btw..if you ever decide to visit the States, Id be happy to buy you a
cup of coffee, and show you my shop, as well as give you some insiders
places to visit. Im rather widely traveled, and as I indicated..tend
to go off the beaten path.

Gunner



"Gun Control, the theory that a 110lb grandmother should
fist fight a 250lb 19yr old criminal"

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:28:47 -0600, "Ivan"
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

I hate to start a bottomposttoppost argument. But if you are going to
bottom post, could do a _bit_ of snipping before your one-liner?
Yup, can do!

How often are you going to use it?
Approximately 60 hogs, and 10 beef a year....butchered, cut and wrapped. Or
were you implying that I should ask myself that question. I wasn't sure if
you wanted a direct answer to that.
Most of them are diamonds embeddded
in Nickel or other metal AFAIK. They last a long time.
Good. That's good to know.
They make the
job so easy they are worth it. You can _feel_ them biting.
Yes you sure can feel them biting
BTW. You don't need to get a greta long one. I use a little
rectangular thing about 3cm wide and 8 cm long. I bought 3 grades for
about $15.
Okay, thanks.
Ivan

How much life can we expect from a diamond steel?


************************************************** ** sorry

.........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Spike....Spike? Hello?

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

Btw..if you ever decide to visit the States, Id be happy to buy you a
cup of coffee, and show you my shop, as well as give you some insiders
places to visit. Im rather widely traveled, and as I indicated..tend
to go off the beaten path.

Gunner

Thanks Gunner.
...and reciprocated, here in Sydney. (dinkum)

Jeff

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
Pep674 wrote:
.....
AAguy at a county faair was selling a knife sharpener. Did damazing things
with a mortar hoe, rusty knives, etc. Suddenly a light flashed... Now at
garage sales if I find a rusty butcher knife, it'll soon be mine. That sort of
iron seems to take a good (not long lasting) edge (slices paper-a test). It
will also raise heck with a tomato.
Paul in AJ AZ
From my experience, - my father-in-law's dad was a butcher - the steel is
1. long for a long slicing blade
2. isn't stainless steel.
3. is cut not stamped or rolled.

If you ever had a wood scraper - and know how to square the end and then burnish
it these thin slicing edges cut the wood nicely.

On a steel, the pattern is long sharp but hard and firm - not cutting sharp.

It shears metal off the knife blade with long arcing strokes.

My late father-in-law sharpened in two ways - blade away from him and slicing
away - Typically when he had to really take some metal off - due to a nick.
But the way he did most sharpening was sharp blade coming down on either sides
toward the hand that holds the handle. Nice to have a hand guard just in case
the metal breaks or jumps off the steel.

with no guard, i have settled on edge-away, stroke-away. my steel is too
short for me to stroke toward the handle with the edge away which would be
fairly safe, otherwise. i was doing edge and stroke to handle until my
brother said either direction works fine. guess what? he's right. i still
occaisionally reverse, just to prove it to myself, again.

it is counter intuitive, tho, to this amateur since you are supposedly
only "straightening the bead" with a steel. seems like heel-away, stroke-
away would be ideal for that. --Loren

I think Steels were shaper cut - a machine like that - pulling the full length
cutting the slot. Likely a die pull. A movable gripping type to contour to the tip.

Martin

A city wide blackout at Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:00:04 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

And surprisingly enough..in areas where its known women are
armed..rapes, robberies etc etc against women are all down below our
already low crime rate.

Shug..while you and I might be able to handle that young puke by hand,
why deny those that are the most defenseless, have no way to defend
themselves?

And why demand that those who have other priorities must spend much time at
the gym working out, in order to engage and prevail at hand to hand combat?

I've a friend I'll call Dwight, who is 6 foot something of bad attitude, a
rugby player, an hard style martial art fighter, a practitioner of the
Philippine stick fighting school and a generally bad ass kind of guy. I once
asked him about all this hand to hand prowess, when he regularly carries at
least one gun. His answer was on the lines of "That for when IO can't get to a
gun quick enough. Besides, I might hurt myself that way." Not to mention
messing up his garments.

Firearms, modern labor saving devices which enables those not into physical
violence to prevail against those so inclined, with a minimum of fuss and
bother.


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 02:18:18 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

A city wide blackout at Fri, 05 Mar 2004 10:00:04 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

And surprisingly enough..in areas where its known women are
armed..rapes, robberies etc etc against women are all down below our
already low crime rate.

Shug..while you and I might be able to handle that young puke by hand,
why deny those that are the most defenseless, have no way to defend
themselves?

And why demand that those who have other priorities must spend much time at
the gym working out, in order to engage and prevail at hand to hand combat?

I've a friend I'll call Dwight, who is 6 foot something of bad attitude, a
rugby player, an hard style martial art fighter, a practitioner of the
Philippine stick fighting school and a generally bad ass kind of guy. I once
asked him about all this hand to hand prowess, when he regularly carries at
least one gun. His answer was on the lines of "That for when IO can't get to a
gun quick enough. Besides, I might hurt myself that way." Not to mention
messing up his garments.

Firearms, modern labor saving devices which enables those not into physical
violence to prevail against those so inclined, with a minimum of fuss and
bother.


tschus
pyotr

I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.

His theory is that as big and built as he is, if someone attacks him,
they are deadly serious and maybe nuts. He -needs- the most powerful
gun he can conceal.


Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:12:45 -0500, Mike Patterson
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.

and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
compltely.

Quoting some beatup-freak as a reason to carry guns sounds like ****
to me....unless it's to protect myself against
beatup-freaks........and hey! the *******s carry guns anyway,
according to you!

I have had two occasions in my life where I though a gun would have
made things quieter. In both cases I simply talked my way out of it.
In neither case did I think afterward of any outcojme from using a gun
that would not have been a messy business in many ways.

I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.

I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
from getting guns. Many people who have survived physical attacks of
some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.

If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
and be shot with it.
************************************************** ** sorry

..........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Spike....Spike? Hello?

Old Nick wrote:

Many people who have survived physical attacks of
some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.

Many vicious punks would be dead now if their victims had been armed.

In fact I would probably point the gun, get it taken off me by
the bad-ass martial arts freak, and be shot with it.

Then most assuredly, you have no business carrying one for self defense.
At least you are smart enough to recognize this. Indecisive citizens
getting shot with their own guns make bad press for the rest of us.


Jon

I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.

and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
compltely.

What is it about the friend's description that warrants "agro arsehole"?
Carrying a gun? That doesn't necessarily make one agressive. Being a
bodybuilder/martial artist? I've known many of those, and literally none of the
truly proficient ones were more inclined than others to resort to violence.
Probably less. Carrying guns, learning martial arts, bodybuilding, these are
all practiced by some pretty decent people, as well as a few who aren't. For
the decent people, all three of these practices require a pretty high level of
discipline. Just my two dollars worth. (Can't find symbol for "cents" on my
keyboard).
Gary Hastings

Pistols are what you carry when you don't expect to need a gun. You
can carry a pistol all day in a holster and it will not be in your
way. It is not because it can be concealed. Policemen carry pistol
which are not concealed. And one does not necessarily carry a pistol
to shoot people. Pistols were carried by cowboys when there was some
chance of wolves, etc.

But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
protection.

Dan



Old Nick wrote in message

I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:06:47 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:


If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
and be shot with it.

Then you should not have a firearm.

A firearm is never presented without the clear idea that it may be used
in the next few seconds. Its not to be used as a threat, or as a tool of
argument.

If the situation is not important enough that the death or life long
maiming of someone is absolutely positively required..it should never
be presented.

Deadly force, be it a gun, a blade, an Escrima stick, accordian or
boomarang is only employed if one has reasonable cause to believe that
your life or the life of another is in immediate danger.

If you live in a world filled exclusivly with martial arts bad guys,
then simply learn how to retain that weapon. If faced with a martial
arts bad guy, you simply shoot him. No questions, no waffling, no
farting around, no second guessing.

If you are not willing to protect yourself, your family or your
community from evil, then simply pray they kill you in as humane a
fashion as possible. And pray they kill the women before raping them.
Watching them rape them before killing them is a bit tough to watch.

When carrying a deadly weapon, there is no maybes. No "maybe he wont
hurt me/us", no "Maybe he will settle for just hurting me/us just a
little bit".

You have to make the Reasonable Man determination whether or not your
assailent is a clear and immediate threat to your life or the life of
another. If so. Shoot/stab/cut/bash him. NOW!!.
If no such threat existst..retreat..

Do not attempt to plead, argue, or engage your assailent in
conversation. If an immediate threat exists, end it NOW!.

If you present your weapon, and the assailent stops his attack, he is no
longer an immediate threat. Dont shoot him.

Its all quite simple.

Retreat if given the opportunity. If not. Shoot to stop the attack as
fast as possible. You are not shooting to kill, but only to stop. If he
dies as a result, that was the result of his attack, not as a result of
your act of self defense. If he didnt attack, he wouldnt have been
hurt.

If one engages in an activity that may result in the death or injury of
another by the act itself, then the consequences are all on the head of
the actor..

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

On 9 Mar 2004 22:54:49 -0800, (Dan Caster) wrote:

Pistols are what you carry when you don't expect to need a gun. You
can carry a pistol all day in a holster and it will not be in your
way. It is not because it can be concealed. Policemen carry pistol
which are not concealed. And one does not necessarily carry a pistol
to shoot people. Pistols were carried by cowboys when there was some
chance of wolves, etc.

But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
protection.

Dan

Depends on where you live or work. shrug

Gunner




Old Nick wrote in message

I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.


The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.

I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
from getting guns.

I can see you don't know much about guns or "bad people". A good example is
Jamaica. A very tough place to "get a gun". They have what they call "gun
court" where even possesion of a single bullet results in indefinite detention
with no trial. (assume this is still the case) Virtually everyone there in the
countryside has guns. Shootouts are quite common. BTW, there are a lot of
good, legitimate sporting uses for sidearms besides "shooting people at close
range".
Greg Sefton

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:07:53 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 9 Mar 2004 22:54:49 -0800, (Dan Caster) wrote:


But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
protection.

Dan

Depends on where you live or work. shrug

Gunner

You might try moving. Just don't leave the boogeyman your forwarding
address.

Wayne

Shoot to stop the attack as
fast as possible. You are not shooting to kill, but only to stop.

Dead thugs make poor witnesses ). Only shoot to stop the attack, but be sure
to expend all remaining rounds in the effort.
Greg Sefton

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:06:47 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:12:45 -0500, Mike Patterson
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.

and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
compltely.


Since you appear to enjoy calling names, I'll reply in kind, dip****.

The friend I descibed is one of the nicest, most reasonable people
you'd ever meet, with the possible exception of your white-coated
attendents who apparenty failed to bring your medication today.


Quoting some beatup-freak as a reason to carry guns sounds like ****
to me....unless it's to protect myself against
beatup-freaks........and hey! the *******s carry guns anyway,
according to you!

I have the feeling that the grooves in your brain are so treadworn
that anything and everything "sounds like ****" to you. What makes you
think my friend is a "beatup-freak"? He's been in martial arts since
he was a small child, he's a volunteer fireman, he coaches a soccer
team for 12 year olds.


I have had two occasions in my life where I though a gun would have
made things quieter. In both cases I simply talked my way out of it.
In neither case did I think afterward of any outcojme from using a gun
that would not have been a messy business in many ways.

So everyone in the universe should be forced to live their lives based
on two of your anecdotal experiences?

I got one for you. One night in downtown Atlanta I was stopped at a
traffic light after work when 2 urban outdoorsmen decided to rob me.
One went down the passenger side of my van trying door handles while
the other came up to my window and reared back with a brick to throw
through the window into my face. I had a .38 revolver with me (I
worked on ATM machines back then) and all I had to do was lift the gun
into view. The one with the brick dropped it and yelled "he gots a
gun!" then ran away. His buddy beat him to the alley.

Note that I never even had to put my finger on the trigger. No dead,
no wounded. A bad case of the shakes afterward, but no blood.

In this case if I had -not- had a gun the outcome would "have been a
messy business in many ways".

My wife & children might disagree that Daddy should be dead or hurt
because it terrifies you that he had the means to defend himself from
predators.

I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.

I am convinced that you are both ignorant and offensive.
A sidearm is manufactured for only one purpose, to allow a person to
defend themselves from violent criminals. (Excepting the military of
course.)

Yes it has the potential for misuse, but so does virtually anything
and everything made by the human race. I came close to being seriously
hurt or killed with a brick.

.
I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
from getting guns. Many people who have survived physical attacks of
some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.

And many more people have survived attacks because -they- had a gun.
The statistics are out there on the web if you look for them. I used
to cite them in such discussions as this, but I finally learned that
most people who take your position aren't interested in the facts on
this subject, only their fears.


If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
and be shot with it.

Quite possibly you are correct, and your recognition of your own
values/qualities is commendable. The question remains, why should -I-
(or my wife, son, or daughter) have to be hurt or killed because -you-
feel that -you- are not able to use a weapon in defense wisely?



************************************************* *** sorry

.........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Spike....Spike? Hello?

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

"Mike Patterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:06:47 +0800, Old Nick
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:12:45 -0500, Mike Patterson
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.

and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
compltely.


Since you appear to enjoy calling names, I'll reply in kind, dip****.

The friend I descibed is one of the nicest, most reasonable people
you'd ever meet, with the possible exception of your white-coated
attendents who apparenty failed to bring your medication today.


Quoting some beatup-freak as a reason to carry guns sounds like ****
to me....unless it's to protect myself against
beatup-freaks........and hey! the *******s carry guns anyway,
according to you!

I have the feeling that the grooves in your brain are so treadworn
that anything and everything "sounds like ****" to you. What makes you
think my friend is a "beatup-freak"? He's been in martial arts since
he was a small child, he's a volunteer fireman, he coaches a soccer
team for 12 year olds.


I have had two occasions in my life where I though a gun would have
made things quieter. In both cases I simply talked my way out of it.
In neither case did I think afterward of any outcojme from using a gun
that would not have been a messy business in many ways.

So everyone in the universe should be forced to live their lives based
on two of your anecdotal experiences?

I got one for you. One night in downtown Atlanta I was stopped at a
traffic light after work when 2 urban outdoorsmen decided to rob me.
One went down the passenger side of my van trying door handles while
the other came up to my window and reared back with a brick to throw
through the window into my face. I had a .38 revolver with me (I
worked on ATM machines back then) and all I had to do was lift the gun
into view. The one with the brick dropped it and yelled "he gots a
gun!" then ran away. His buddy beat him to the alley.

Note that I never even had to put my finger on the trigger. No dead,
no wounded. A bad case of the shakes afterward, but no blood.

In this case if I had -not- had a gun the outcome would "have been a
messy business in many ways".

My wife & children might disagree that Daddy should be dead or hurt
because it terrifies you that he had the means to defend himself from
predators.

I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.

I am convinced that you are both ignorant and offensive.
A sidearm is manufactured for only one purpose, to allow a person to
defend themselves from violent criminals. (Excepting the military of
course.)

Yes it has the potential for misuse, but so does virtually anything
and everything made by the human race. I came close to being seriously
hurt or killed with a brick.

.
I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
from getting guns. Many people who have survived physical attacks of
some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.

And many more people have survived attacks because -they- had a gun.
The statistics are out there on the web if you look for them. I used
to cite them in such discussions as this, but I finally learned that
most people who take your position aren't interested in the facts on
this subject, only their fears.


If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),
because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
and be shot with it.

Quite possibly you are correct, and your recognition of your own
values/qualities is commendable. The question remains, why should -I-
(or my wife, son, or daughter) have to be hurt or killed because -you-
feel that -you- are not able to use a weapon in defense wisely?



************************************************* *** sorry

.........no I'm not!
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Spike....Spike? Hello?

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.

I'm going to offer a small theory here that I think is relevant to this
discussion. I note that one of the posters in this thread appears to
reside outside the US, as is frequently the case in firearm-related
discussions on Usenet.

Let me offer the theory that those living outside the States really
can't appreciate the utter mess our legal system has descended
into, wherein known violent criminals are routinely released early
to make way for those who have been incarcerated for long terms
without possibility of parole because of our out-of-control "War
on Drugs". It's truly a bizzare situation, when murderers, etc. are
released early from prison, while those who have been accused
of non-violent drug offenses are incarcerated for disproportionally
long terms. Couple this with a juvenile justice system which seems
to provide nothing more than a revolving door for kids who commit
ever-more serious crimes, and I think those of us living in this
morass have a very different world view than those outside.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Australia's penal system
operates this way, no?

I'm not really trying to prolong this discussion, nor steer it off in a
different direction, but I urge the participants to take a moment
and reflect on the differences in their several societies.

HB

Gunner wrote:

On 9 Mar 2004 22:54:49 -0800, (Dan Caster) wrote:

Pistols are what you carry when you don't expect to need a gun. You
can carry a pistol all day in a holster and it will not be in your
way. It is not because it can be concealed. Policemen carry pistol
which are not concealed. And one does not necessarily carry a pistol
to shoot people. Pistols were carried by cowboys when there was some
chance of wolves, etc.

But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
protection.

Dan

Depends on where you live or work. shrug

Gunner


He said "most of us".

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

A city wide blackout at Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:07:53 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
protection.

Dan

Depends on where you live or work. shrug

Operative word "most".

And like I said - a pistol is a modern labor saving device for
self-defense. After all, it is much less "work" to dissuade someone from
attacking you with a pistol or other firearm, than by having to use hand to
hand physical combat techniques.

But hey, if the ninnies want to cower in their inability to ignore the
psychic emanations from the inanimate objects - that's their problem.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:12:45 -0500, Mike Patterson
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I have a similar rather large friend, bodybuilder, martial arts
enthusiast, etc. Carries a .44, says a 9mm isn't big enough.

And boldly leaping to an unwarranted conclusion "Old Nick" [funny nom du
net that, one of the moniker for Satan, but we'll let that slide] Nick
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking leads with his
face and replies:

and he since he is going to be an agro arsehole, may as well do it
compltely.

Quiet some conclusion you leapt to there old sock. Your major form of
exercise? Or do you also run in circles? Do you understand that if you
advocate the abolition of firearms, you are calling for a return to the Glory
Days of Old, when Might Made Right and to the Victor went the Spoils?

Quoting some beatup-freak as a reason to carry guns sounds like ****
to me....unless it's to protect myself against
beatup-freaks........and hey! the *******s carry guns anyway,
according to you!

Why don't you have a nice lie down and call Nurse. I'm sure she can bring
you more of the pills which make the little voices go away.

I have had two occasions in my life where I though a gun would have
made things quieter. In both cases I simply talked my way out of it.
In neither case did I think afterward of any outcojme from using a gun
that would not have been a messy business in many ways.

I am convinced that guns cause more trouble than they solve on the
average. I sidearm has only one purpose. To shoot people at close
range, and be easily concealed.

And this is a problem why? I realize that saving your miserable life is a
waste of time or energy, but no everyone is so lacking in socially redeeming
qualities.

I realise that making guns harder to get _will_ still allow certain
bad people to get guns. But it will stop a lot of casual bad people
from getting guns. Many people who have survived physical attacks of
some viciousness would be dead now if the punk had had a gun.

Ah, here we have The Major Mistake in Logic. If there were no guns, then
there would be no crime. I suppose it never occurred to you that people
inclined towards physical violence do not necessarily _need_ a gun to commit
violence upon ones person? In simple English: thugs can beat you to death
without a gun. They don't need one, especially if you don't have one. But you
are going to be hard pressed to prevent that unless you too are inclined
towards physical violence, be that "martial arts" or ordinary brawling. Or you
could just stay in shape to be able to outrun them.

Do you grasp the concept? Guns are a modern labor saving technology -
crafted from machined metal [ob-metal-working-content] . They make it possible
for someone not "into" hand to hand combat to avoid such a situation. You,
apparently, would rather risk personal injury with the old fashioned labor
intensive means of self defense, other wise known as going in harms way and
within reach of someone intent on hurting you. AKA "leading with your face."

If I had a gun, and it was easy to get guns, I know that I would be
slower to use that gun than the other guy (and he _will_ have a gun),

Well, only you would know about your slowness. But you also make the
assumption that if you are unarmed, he is likewise going to be unarmed. But
what you fail to comprehend is that if you are unarmed, _he_ doesn't need a
gun. He can use old fashioned, labor intensive methods like stabbing or
clubbing you, or if that is too 'modern' can just punch and kick you into bad
health.
Of course, you are free to defend yourself with any antiquated method, like
running, or

because I do not inately want to hurt him. In fact I would probably
point the gun, get it taken off me by the bad-ass martial arts freak,
and be shot with it.

Good enough reason for you not to carry or even consider having a gun.
Also enough reason for you to not own a car, steak knives, sporks, fire
extinguisher, jump ropes, beer steins, precious metals, common metals, fire
wood, sticks, twigs or small stones as commonly found in a brook.
Definitely enough reason to keep you out of a machine shop (more obligatory
metal working content), you might hurt yourself on all the modern labor saving
devices like mills, lathes and various cutting implements.

************************************************* *** sorry

.........no I'm not!

Oh, you are a sorry lot, that is for certain. To bad for you the 12th
century passed you by and has left you wistful for the days when Norman Knights
would trample your Saxon peasant face into the muck, and you felt all was well
with the world.

Someday, you really must look into the good things the modern world has to
offer. Good food, clean clothes, dental hygiene, and labor saving devices
which allow you to spend your life in something other than drudgery.

tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

A city wide blackout at Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:44:43 GMT did not prevent Gunner
from posting to rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:20:11 +0100, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
wrote:

"A.Gent" writes:

"Liberal" to me means right-wing, conservative. (Aussies will
understand).

Europeans will, too. The Americans had to invent "libertarian" to
replace "liberal" after they changed the meaning of that word...

Language is fun! :-)

-tih

Ah..no. Libertarian is a completly different term
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwlib.html#Liberals

Why do libertarians sometimes call themselves classical liberals?
In the 19th century, the term "liberal" generally meant someone who
favored individual liberty and opposed the expansion of state power.
In Europe and in much of the rest of the world, it still means that.

But in America, the term "liberal" was adopted by people who favored
extensive government intervention in the economy -- people who
elsewhere in the world would have been called progressives, social
democrats, or socialists.

Meanwhile, "conservative" continued to refer to people who favored
the use of state power for the preservation of certain religious and
cultural practices. The original liberals were thus left without a
label. People who still cleave to the ideal of individual liberty in
all spheres of life, like the 19th century liberals, now usually call
themselves either libertarians or classical liberals.

In my humble observation on the political scene, the "conservatives" who
want to use Government Force to enforce their version of morality are merely
those realists who recognized back in the 60s and 70s that "moral" decisions
were going to be dictated from the Capital, and it behooved them to get Their
People elected in order to make sure the Correct Polices were implemented.
And the "liberals" have discovered that it sucks to be on the outside looking
in while Important Decisions are being made.

And having lost the legislature, they've run out of patience and are hoping
to get their utopian plans implemented by judicial fiat.

I guess they haven't figured out that if one judge can set a law aside, so
can another.

--
pyotr filipivich
Next Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them, Selecting a new Them

In article ,
pyotr filipivich wrote:

In my humble observation on the political scene, the "conservatives" who
want to use Government Force to enforce their version of morality are merely
those realists who recognized back in the 60s and 70s that "moral" decisions
were going to be dictated from the Capital, and it behooved them to get Their
People elected in order to make sure the Correct Polices were implemented.
And the "liberals" have discovered that it sucks to be on the outside looking
in while Important Decisions are being made.

This usurping of our freedoms will inevitably lead to civil war where
votes are counted in bullets. I have no idea when this will happen, but
history is pretty clear that ALL governments end in civil war or
invasion./

--
free men own guns - slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:47:05 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:07:53 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 9 Mar 2004 22:54:49 -0800, (Dan Caster) wrote:


But I agree that today most of us never need to carry a pistol for
protection.

Dan

Depends on where you live or work. shrug

Gunner

You might try moving. Just don't leave the boogeyman your forwarding
address.

Wayne

Its unfortunate that good paying jobs are not available in the safer
rural areas. So those of us who depend on large industrial areas for
our bread and butter have to work there. East LA. Compton, Watts,
Downey, etc etc. Industrial areas that look like the worst of the East
German border areas after 5pm

Gunner
The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:49:39 -0500, Mike Patterson
wrote:

So everyone in the universe should be forced to live their lives based
on two of your anecdotal experiences?

I got one for you. One night in downtown Atlanta I was stopped at a
traffic light after work when 2 urban outdoorsmen decided to rob me.
One went down the passenger side of my van trying door handles while
the other came up to my window and reared back with a brick to throw
through the window into my face. I had a .38 revolver with me (I
worked on ATM machines back then) and all I had to do was lift the gun
into view. The one with the brick dropped it and yelled "he gots a
gun!" then ran away. His buddy beat him to the alley.

Note that I never even had to put my finger on the trigger. No dead,
no wounded. A bad case of the shakes afterward, but no blood.

In this case if I had -not- had a gun the outcome would "have been a
messy business in many ways".

My wife & children might disagree that Daddy should be dead or hurt
because it terrifies you that he had the means to defend himself from
predators.

Another example:

Id had a back surgery, and still had the staples in my back. Using a
cane was a requirement and moving fast was out of the question. My wife
and I had traveled the 42 miles to the doctors office for a very late
afternoon checkup and were returning home along a very dark and desolate
rural road.

A car pulled up along side of my old long bed Chevy stepside pickup, and
tried forcing us off the road. My wife had very long and shiney blond
hair, and she was driving, while I was slumped exhausted in the
passenger seat. For the next 10 or more miles, the car did everything,
including slamming into our rear bumper to get us off the road. A
large number of such incidents had occured along this stretch of road
over the previous years, resulting a a number of rapes and robberies by
a gang of 4 hispanic males. One woman was beaten to death after being
raped.

At this point, I knew we were in trouble, so I drew my stainless steel
..45 and with them on our rear bumper, I held the weapon up in their
head lights and racked the slide. My full intention was to lean out the
passenger window and empty the magazine, 14" above the headlights. I
probalbly would have torn the staples out of my back..

Upon seeing me rack the slide, the headlights were instantly pointing
down at the pavement as they threw out the anchor and made a U turn in
the opposite direction. No shots were fired, no one was harmed, and my
wife and my self were safe.

About 6 weeks later, an aqqaintence and his wife was in the exact same
situation in the same stretch of road. The car did the same tactics,
bumper tag, trying to force him off the road. Knowing what had happened
to me, and not being a particularly forgiving type, he allowed them to
force him off the road. He turned slightly sideways and slipped out the
passengers door, 45 in hand while his wife ran out into a cotton field.
The car pulled up and as the occupants started exiting the vehicle, base
ball bats etc in hand, R shot them. All 4 of them. Repeatedly. When
those not hit in the first couple seconds drived into the car, he simply
reloaded and shot the car to doll rags. And then reloaded again. He then
advanced on the car, and shot each individual in the head, on the theory
that he was in the middle of no where, with 4 dangerous individuals who
had proven to be a deadly threat not only to him but to many other
people.

This was in the pre-cell phone days of the late 70s. He and his wife sat
in his pickup for about 30 minutes before a car came along and the
driver stopped and at R's request went to call the cops. It took a bit
more than 2 hours for the police to arrive.
To make a long story short..he was congratulated in surviving the
attack, for taking 4 violent career criminals out of the gene pool, and
the spate of rapes and robberies ended instantly. Investigation showed
at least 3 of the individuals were identified by previous victims.

Another instance...working at a shop in East LA, down on Union Pacific
Ave, I have a customer who only works at night, so I have to service
his machines very late. I had walked out to my truck to get something
and was accosted by several minority males with obvious ill intentions.
This is an area where most 2nd shift guys carry a gun, even while
working at their machines, or their shops are inside a compound of chain
link fence and concertina wire around the tops.

When working in this area, I carry a .45 on my hip in a high ride
holster, under an open machinists smock, just to keep my clothes clean
(filthy shop..bleeck!)...anyways..when the 3 underprivledged individuals
requested my wallet, swinging their bits of rebar rather emphaticly, I
assumed a fearful expression, and slowly reached for my wallet. I came
back with my .45. I presented my firearm, and aimed the sights on the
bridge of the leaders nose, and simply said "Go Away".

There was three sharp pops as the air rushed into the vacuum left by
their rather hurried departure. The shop owner evidently had witnessed
the whole thing through a window, and he came outside with a shotgun. He
was chuckling as he wrinkled his nose and said he smelled ****, and sure
enough..there was a trickle leading up the sidwalk in the same direction
the 3 miscreants had fled.

Final score, no shots, 3 runs and 1 foul.

Shrug..it could well have been far worse.

Gunner

The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty."
Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly
save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long

"Gunner" wrote in message
...


Final score, no shots, 3 runs and 1 foul.

Shrug..it could well have been far worse.

You've just got to move to a better neighborhood, Gunner. It will improve
your whole outlook on life.

Ed Huntress