On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:08:34 -0800 (PST), the infamous mike
scrawled the following:

On Nov 29, 11:47*am, pyotr filipivich wrote:

* * * * Secondly, the guys with the AKs and grenades are probably the bad
guys. *That probability approaches unity. *Remember that "finite ammo
supply"? *that also means you don't shoot unless you are sure of your
shot, or there is no alternative. *Going up against a guy with an AK
with only a 38 (not even if it is a 357) is not optimal, unless the
alternative is dieing.

* * * * But don't worry. *When seconds count, the SWAT team is only
minutes away.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...le14086308.ece

"Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved
towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What
is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use
them?
I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

The poor guy witnessed and wrote about a despicable act of cowardice
by the police in Mumbai. Some of the teachers at Columbine had
similar feelings of helplessness.

Or could it possibly have been conspiracy? I'd sure be thoroughly
checking out the backgrounds and bank accounts of all the cops on my
beat if I were the police chief in that area.

--
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
-- Bertrand Russell

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:39:25 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:


"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
m...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

The simplest way to prevent terror attacks is to have a world-wide agreement
NOT to report any terror attacks on any media.

That would sure limit the reach of the tango rantings, wouldn't it?

--
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
-- Bertrand Russell

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:00:18 -0600, Ignoramus11056
wrote:

On 2008-11-29, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:52:04 -0800, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared and
armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at eachother
because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce casualties.

Well...Im sure they would figure out pretty quickly that the guys with
the AK-47s and pitching grenades were the bad guys.

I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

You have a full auto AK?



i

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

Ed Huntress wrote:

Not being able to defend yourself is the most
dangerous position
one can be in.


It's not only dangerous, it
undermines some social relationships and attitudes that I consider to be
important.


Now there is the bigest danger of the currnt liberal political
policy in this country. Think about what you just wrote there
Ed. (please no "knee jerk" reactions)
...lw...

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Would you mind providing a REAL cite for that?

There is no proof that the hijackers were actually taken out.


I havent seen any reports of any walking away from that field. :-)
...lew...

On 2008-11-29, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00?am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

Why? You can't defend your house with it.

I do not know about you, but I can.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On 2008-11-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:00:18 -0600, Ignoramus11056
wrote:

On 2008-11-29, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:52:04 -0800, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared and
armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at eachother
because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce casualties.

Well...Im sure they would figure out pretty quickly that the guys with
the AK-47s and pitching grenades were the bad guys.

I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

You have a full auto AK?

Of course, not. I think that this much should be obvious.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On 2008-11-29, Jeff Wisnia wrote:
I'm red faced to have to admit that the first "lesson" I learned several
hours into the TV coverage of that horrible mess was that Mumbai is the
post-colonial name for the city I grew up knowing as Bombay.

I kept asking the thirteen or so folks we were over for a Thanksgiving
Day lunch feast, "How come I never heard of Mumbai, India?", and none of
the others were familiar that place name either.

I guess maybe because the two names are so close phonetically, We'd all
been hearing "Bombay" when someone said "Mumbai" and it was only when
text kept appearing on the Fox News TV coverage that we started wondering.

Anyone else care to fess up to the same chauvinistic failure in being up
to date?

I was similarly confused aboput Mumbai/Bombay a few years ago.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:26:12 -0600, Ignoramus13690
wrote:

On 2008-11-29, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00?am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

Why? You can't defend your house with it.

I do not know about you, but I can.
--
unless you're not home.....

wrote in message
...
On Nov 30, 7:26 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message


I readily concede that point Ed - if, after the attackers had used
Tactics 101 (ie, throw some grenades then spray the area with
automatic weapons fire, just in case anyone was armed) and hopefully
the armed civilian would be still able to hide with his pistol and
take out at least one of them if threatened, before the attackers
colleagues sprayed the area again to take care of the armed citizen
(and anyone else nearby) ....then I guess it would be good argument
for an armed civilian population.

Still, its all academic, it might have been you who said that no one
would know how they would react in such a situation, bull**** aside.
And we sit here in front of our PCs being sage and wise about
situations that I, at least, hope I never encounter. And we can vote
for whoever promises to take care of the "bad guys" so we can keep on
being armchair experts without having to expose ourselves to any real
danger.

Its 12.30 here in Melbourne, Sunday, all is peaceful, I will have
another coffee, then go and do some gardening while the weather is
nice, thinking of the poor *******s who got killed because they were
in the wrong place at the wrong time and Global Politics intercepted
with their daily lives....I am sure their families will take comfort
from these "how it should have been" discussions here and no doubt in
other forums.

Andrew VK3BFA.

I envy you your day, Andrew. It's cold and raining here, and I haven't even
ordered seeds for gardening yet. However, the Christmas season will brighten
things up.

Those families likely will never know about these nutty discussions, which
is a good thing. They have a dangerous time ahead of them as India is
tempted to strike back at Pakistan. Maybe the crisis will precipitate some
better cooperation among the two countries but I'm not counting on it.

--
Ed Huntress

Ignoramus13690 wrote:

On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

IMNSHO Full auto is not only of no value, it is detrimental in light
weapons, serving only to waste a limited supply of ammunition.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Nov 30, 7:26 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message


I readily concede that point Ed - if, after the attackers had used
Tactics 101 (ie, throw some grenades then spray the area with
automatic weapons fire, just in case anyone was armed) and hopefully
the armed civilian would be still able to hide with his pistol and
take out at least one of them if threatened, before the attackers
colleagues sprayed the area again to take care of the armed citizen
(and anyone else nearby) ....then I guess it would be good argument
for an armed civilian population.

Still, its all academic, it might have been you who said that no one
would know how they would react in such a situation, bull**** aside.
And we sit here in front of our PCs being sage and wise about
situations that I, at least, hope I never encounter. And we can vote
for whoever promises to take care of the "bad guys" so we can keep on
being armchair experts without having to expose ourselves to any real
danger.

Its 12.30 here in Melbourne, Sunday, all is peaceful, I will have
another coffee, then go and do some gardening while the weather is
nice, thinking of the poor *******s who got killed because they were
in the wrong place at the wrong time and Global Politics intercepted
with their daily lives....I am sure their families will take comfort
from these "how it should have been" discussions here and no doubt in
other forums.

Andrew VK3BFA.

I envy you your day, Andrew. It's cold and raining here, and I haven't
even ordered seeds for gardening yet. However, the Christmas season will
brighten things up.

Those families likely will never know about these nutty discussions, which
is a good thing. They have a dangerous time ahead of them as India is
tempted to strike back at Pakistan. Maybe the crisis will precipitate some
better cooperation among the two countries but I'm not counting on it.


Pakistan has, for about the last thirty years or so, put a lot of effort
into supporting the bad guys the PK military thought best.
These groups train outside of the law and in an area that hasn't been under
recognized lawful authority for the last two hundred years.
Their principal contact with the PK government is through the ISI and
selectively messing with India was the goal. With this latest incident. I
believe the Indian's have had about enough. Better cooperation is certainly
one possible outcome but the more likely scenario in my mind is a sudden and
surprise nuclear attack by one combatant - India - on another nuclear armed
power - Pakistan, and within the week.
Either that or PK will have to stand side by side with Indian armed forces
and together, clean out a rats nest.

In any event, there will not be a peaceful resolution to this matter short
of war between nations or two nations taking the fight to a mutual enemy.
One or the other.

JC

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not being able to defend yourself is the most dangerous position
one can be in.


It's not only dangerous, it undermines some social relationships and
attitudes that I consider to be important.


Now there is the bigest danger of the currnt liberal political
policy in this country. Think about what you just wrote there
Ed. (please no "knee jerk" reactions)
...lw...

Think about what, Lew? You may have read that backwards. I'm strongly in
favor of the right to defend oneself with a gun. And as for social
relationships (I've expressed this here before, so apologies for the
repetition), my feeling about the 2nd Amendment is that it's our unique, if
sometimes symbolic, expression that the ultimate power belongs in the hands
of our citizens.

As for self-defense, my attitudes are similar to those written by Jeffrey
Snyder in "A Nation of Cowards." I'm in favor of it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:27:17 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus13690
scrawled the following:

On 2008-11-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:00:18 -0600, Ignoramus11056
wrote:

On 2008-11-29, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:52:04 -0800, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared and
armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at eachother
because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce casualties.

Well...Im sure they would figure out pretty quickly that the guys with
the AK-47s and pitching grenades were the bad guys.

I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

You have a full auto AK?

Of course, not. I think that this much should be obvious.

Why? They're legal in this country, but you have to be registered, it
has to be a listed weapon, and you have to pay the $200 BATFE tax
annually. I shoot 'em every year at the machine gun shoot.

--
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
-- Bertrand Russell

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:26:42 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus13690
scrawled the following:

On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

But if you learn to bump-fire it, it's just as fast. Y'know, for those
"mow down the entire mob in front of you" moments that one rarely has.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GbAdOpUghw


Some bubba in the woods with a full-auto AK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
Whadda maroon!

--
In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
-- Bertrand Russell

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:27:17 -0600, Ignoramus13690
wrote:

On 2008-11-30, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:00:18 -0600, Ignoramus11056
wrote:

On 2008-11-29, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:52:04 -0800, "Bill Noble"
wrote:

in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared and
armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at eachother
because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce casualties.

Well...Im sure they would figure out pretty quickly that the guys with
the AK-47s and pitching grenades were the bad guys.

I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...

You have a full auto AK?

Of course, not. I think that this much should be obvious.


Then you dont have an AK 47.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:26:42 -0600, Ignoramus13690
wrote:

On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.


I see you have never been in combat, or done MOUT operations.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:30:22 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ignoramus13690 wrote:

On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

IMNSHO Full auto is not only of no value, it is detrimental in light
weapons, serving only to waste a limited supply of ammunition.


Not true in the slightest. Its very useful under certain situations.
Like when you dont have a grenade and need to kill every one in a room.

Gunner

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Maj. Gen. John Sedgewick, killed by a sniper in 1864 at the battle of Spotsylvania

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:30:22 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ignoramus13690 wrote:

On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

IMNSHO Full auto is not only of no value, it is detrimental in light
weapons, serving only to waste a limited supply of ammunition.

Not true in the slightest. Its very useful under certain situations.
Like when you dont have a grenade and need to kill every one in a room.

Well, it's still my opinion and I'll stick to semi or 3-rnd burst and
try to ensure that my limited supply of ammo finds as many targets as
possible, vs. walls, furniture, etc.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:30:25 -0600, the renowned Ignoramus11056
wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

Quaint customs these parliamentary democracies have..

----

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/26950&Itemid=1

Shivraj Patil, the Indian home minister, has resigned over the terror
attacks in Mumbai that left around 174 people dead.

Patil submitted his resignation to Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime
minister on Sunday. It is not known if Singh has accepted Patil's
offer to step down from office.

Shortly afterwards, India's national security adviser, M K Narayanan,
also submitted his resignation - which was accepted by the prime
minister.

Palaniappan Chidambaram, the Indian finance minister, has been
appointed home minister while the prime minister takes on the finance
portfolio for an interim period.

A prime ministerial aide told news agency AFP that "more senior
members of the government are likely to be shown the door" in the wake
of the attacks.

----

Almost as if they were taking responsibility or something silly like
that..


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Nov 30, 9:11*am, Lew Hartswick wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Would you mind providing a REAL cite for that?

There is no proof that the hijackers were actually taken out.

I havent seen any reports of any walking away from that field. :-)
* * ...lew...

True.

There are always a number of different approaches to meet the same
goal...some more efficient than others.

TMT

On Nov 30, 12:29*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Nov 30, 7:26 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

I readily concede that point Ed - if, after the attackers had used
Tactics 101 (ie, throw some grenades then spray the area with
automatic weapons fire, just in case anyone was armed) and hopefully
the armed civilian would be still able to hide with his pistol and
take out at least one of them if threatened, before the attackers
colleagues sprayed the area again to take care of the armed citizen
(and anyone else nearby) ....then I guess it would be good argument
for an armed civilian population.

Still, its all academic, it might have been you who said that no one
would know how they would react in such a situation, bull**** aside.
And we sit here in front of our PCs being sage and wise about
situations that I, at least, hope I never encounter. And we can vote
for whoever promises to take care of the "bad guys" so we can keep on
being armchair experts without having to expose ourselves to any real
danger.

Its 12.30 here in Melbourne, Sunday, all is peaceful, I will have
another coffee, then go and do some gardening while the weather is
nice, thinking of the poor *******s who got killed because *they were
in the wrong place at the wrong time and Global Politics intercepted
with their daily lives....I am sure their families will take comfort
from these "how it should have been" discussions here and no doubt in
other forums.

Andrew VK3BFA.

I envy you your day, Andrew. It's cold and raining here, and I haven't even
ordered seeds for gardening yet. However, the Christmas season will brighten
things up.

Those families likely will never know about these nutty discussions, which
is a good thing. They have a dangerous time ahead of them as India is
tempted to strike back at Pakistan. Maybe the crisis will precipitate some
better cooperation among the two countries but I'm not counting on it.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correct...and they both have nukes.

TMT

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
(...)
A prime ministerial aide told news agency AFP that "more senior
members of the government are likely to be shown the door" in the wake
of the attacks.

----

Almost as if they were taking responsibility or something silly like
that..

Yes, but consider the hundreds of congresspeople that voluntarily
stepped down as a result of the derivative financial crisis.

No, wait ....

--Winston

On 2008-11-30, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:27:17 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus13690
scrawled the following:
You have a full auto AK?

Of course, not. I think that this much should be obvious.

Why? They're legal in this country, but you have to be registered, it
has to be a listed weapon, and you have to pay the $200 BATFE tax
annually. I shoot 'em every year at the machine gun shoot.


Do I look like someone who would pay $200 to BATF annually?
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus13690 wrote:

Do I look like someone who would pay $200 to BATF annually?

One time fee but I doubt you can have a full auto in Illinois.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 13:54:41 -0800, the infamous Winston
scrawled the following:

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
(...)
A prime ministerial aide told news agency AFP that "more senior
members of the government are likely to be shown the door" in the wake
of the attacks.

----

Almost as if they were taking responsibility or something silly like
that..

Yes, but consider the hundreds of congresspeople that voluntarily
stepped down as a result of the derivative financial crisis.

No, wait ....

And the dozens more who have stepped down since handing $700B over to
the originators of the problem and watching the bonuses go out, the
parties happen, the purchase of unnecessaries...

No, wait...

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:15:10 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus13690
scrawled the following:

On 2008-11-30, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:27:17 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus13690
scrawled the following:
You have a full auto AK?

Of course, not. I think that this much should be obvious.

Why? They're legal in this country, but you have to be registered, it
has to be a listed weapon, and you have to pay the $200 BATFE tax
annually. I shoot 'em every year at the machine gun shoot.


Do I look like someone who would pay $200 to BATF annually?

I'm happy to reply in the negative, sir.

--
The only difference between a rut and a grave...is in their dimensions.
-- Ellen Glasglow

Pete C. wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:30:22 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ignoramus13690 wrote:

On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan
... along with a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons ,
right down to the kitchen knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire
weapon. Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have
an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

IMNSHO Full auto is not only of no value, it is detrimental in light
weapons, serving only to waste a limited supply of ammunition.

Not true in the slightest. Its very useful under certain situations.
Like when you dont have a grenade and need to kill every one in a
room.

Well, it's still my opinion and I'll stick to semi or 3-rnd burst and
try to ensure that my limited supply of ammo finds as many targets as
possible, vs. walls, furniture, etc.

Wasn't it called Mad Mel's SKS cookbook ? Had instructions for increasing
the rate of fire ... For myself , I'd probably buy a spare trigger group to
modify , if I had an SKS and felt the need ... OTOH , a fella with a machine
shop should be able to come up with some kind of cranked device that
attaches to the trigger guard ... and then ya gotta consider magazine
capacity .
--
Snag
sometimes ya gotta
shovel manure
to pay the bills

Ignoramus13690 wrote:
On 2008-11-30, Larry Jaques novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:27:17 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus13690
scrawled the following:
You have a full auto AK?
Of course, not. I think that this much should be obvious.
Why? They're legal in this country, but you have to be registered, it
has to be a listed weapon, and you have to pay the $200 BATFE tax
annually. I shoot 'em every year at the machine gun shoot.


Do I look like someone who would pay $200 to BATF annually?

No, you look like someone who can't tell the difference between a semi
auto and select fire weapon.

David

Ignoramus13690 wrote:
On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.
Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .
He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

No, not "of course", you said you had an AK-47, now you say you have
something else. Apparently you can't tell the difference.

I agree that full auto doesn't add much to the usefulness of a rifle
if you know how to shoot.

David

Larry Jaques wrote:

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.
Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

But if you learn to bump-fire it, it's just as fast. Y'know, for those
"mow down the entire mob in front of you" moments that one rarely has.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GbAdOpUghw


Some bubba in the woods with a full-auto AK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
Whadda maroon!

What is it about wearing your hat backwards that lowers your IQ?

David

David R.Birch wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire
weapon. Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have
an AK-47.
Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

But if you learn to bump-fire it, it's just as fast. Y'know, for
those "mow down the entire mob in front of you" moments that one
rarely has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GbAdOpUghw


Some bubba in the woods with a full-auto AK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
Whadda maroon!

What is it about wearing your hat backwards that lowers your IQ?

David

I think you might have cause and effect mixed up on this one ...
--
Snag
sometimes ya gotta
shovel manure
to pay the bills

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:09:24 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 10:26:42 -0600, Ignoramus13690
wrote:

On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.

Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.


I see you have never been in combat, or done MOUT operations.

There is a time and place for everything. In the ideal world, I
would be able to walk up and thump them on the head with my swagger
stick and they would cease and desist. But in the less than perfect
world, there's never a tank around when you want one.... So you have
to adapt, improvise, and over come. And full auto may be just the
ticket.



tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On 2008-12-01, David R.Birch wrote:
Ignoramus13690 wrote:
On 2008-11-30, David R.Birch wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Ignoramus11056 ignoramus11...@NOSPAM.
11056.invalid wrote:
...
I have an AK-47... But not grenades though...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.
Why not ? A semi-auto rifle is part of *my* home defense plan ... along with
a shotgun and a handgun . And other weapons , right down to the kitchen
knives , if necessary .
He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire weapon.
Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have an AK-47.

Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.

No, not "of course", you said you had an AK-47, now you say you have
something else. Apparently you can't tell the difference.

I stand corrected.

I agree that full auto doesn't add much to the usefulness of a rifle
if you know how to shoot.


--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Larry Jaques
wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 04:43:58
-0800 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:08:34 -0800 (PST), the infamous mike
scrawled the following:

On Nov 29, 11:47*am, pyotr filipivich wrote:

* * * * Secondly, the guys with the AKs and grenades are probably the bad
guys. *That probability approaches unity. *Remember that "finite ammo
supply"? *that also means you don't shoot unless you are sure of your
shot, or there is no alternative. *Going up against a guy with an AK
with only a 38 (not even if it is a 357) is not optimal, unless the
alternative is dieing.

* * * * But don't worry. *When seconds count, the SWAT team is only
minutes away.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...le14086308.ece

"Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved
towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What
is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use
them?
I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

The poor guy witnessed and wrote about a despicable act of cowardice
by the police in Mumbai. Some of the teachers at Columbine had
similar feelings of helplessness.

Or could it possibly have been conspiracy? I'd sure be thoroughly
checking out the backgrounds and bank accounts of all the cops on my
beat if I were the police chief in that area.

Then what?

The problem is that the Jihadist ideology doesn't require a direct
connection. People can decide they want to be part of it, and act
"independently."
The second part of it is that how are you going to prove that he
was in conspiracy, if there are no back ground or bank account
irregularities? Maybe he doesn't like the situation, and looks the
other way. Maybe he ran out of "hero" - he's a 'peace officer', a
constable, not a contender for fastest gun in the station?



Fnord, it is a combined ops goat rope and monkey rodeo.


pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that "Buerste"
wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:39:25 -0500 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
m...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

The simplest way to prevent terror attacks is to have a world-wide agreement
NOT to report any terror attacks on any media.

Rumor Control. It was a problem long before the Internet was
invented. And what are you going to do when it is learned that
They(tm) are censoring the News?

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that "Buerste"
wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:39:25 -0500 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
om...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

The simplest way to prevent terror attacks is to have a world-wide
agreement
NOT to report any terror attacks on any media.

Rumor Control. It was a problem long before the Internet was
invented. And what are you going to do when it is learned that
They(tm) are censoring the News?

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

If it's a known policy that terror will not get air time, it will stop.

Terry Coombs wrote:
David R.Birch wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

He didn't say "semi-auto rifle", he said AK-47, a select fire
weapon. Although most owners of semi-auto AKs may THINK they have
an AK-47.
Of course mine is semi auto. I do not believe that full auto adds a
very valuable capability.
But if you learn to bump-fire it, it's just as fast. Y'know, for
those "mow down the entire mob in front of you" moments that one
rarely has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GbAdOpUghw


Some bubba in the woods with a full-auto AK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
Whadda maroon!
What is it about wearing your hat backwards that lowers your IQ?

David

I think you might have cause and effect mixed up on this one ...

Done in by my use of irony once again, I gotta remember to tack the
smileys to the end of that kind of comment.

David

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:17:22 -0500, the renowned "Buerste"
wrote:


"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that "Buerste"
wrote on Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:39:25 -0500 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
news:27edndnEsL1s_63UnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews. com...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

The simplest way to prevent terror attacks is to have a world-wide
agreement
NOT to report any terror attacks on any media.

Rumor Control. It was a problem long before the Internet was
invented. And what are you going to do when it is learned that
They(tm) are censoring the News?

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

If it's a known policy that terror will not get air time, it will stop.


That's pretty much the Chinese approach. If there's an explosion it's
a crazy guy or something like that, not organized Muslim separatists
from Xinjiang. And plenty enough security (like putting bags through
X-ray machines before you can get into a crowded subway if there's a
credible threat).


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com