Ed Huntress wrote:
"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


BUT BUT your comments on the recent election and the candidates
dosen't seen to support that, in view of the record of the
contestants. ?????
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"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
BUT BUT your comments on the recent election and the candidates
dosen't seen to support that, in view of the record of the
contestants. ?????
...lew...

Do you mean to say that you would choose a president based on a couple of
statements or votes he made while a state legislator? Does that mean you're
in favor of McCain's amnesty plan for illegals?

Obama is unlikely to do much, if anything, about gun control. And when he
does, he'll be up against a Congress that will be very wary of doing so
itself. When you look at the problems facing this country and their relative
significance, in light of the S.C. ruling in the Heller case, this issue
fades into second-tier status.

There are bigger fish to fry, and I don't think that McCain, with his poor
knowledge of economics and his immersion in the Republican economic bushwah
that got us where we are now, is up to the job. Obama more likely is.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:48:46 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

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.

Oops, yes, transfer tax.

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

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 16:15:10 -0600, 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?


Its a one time tax, when you purchase the weapon.


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

Pete C. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:05:57 -0600, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:

You're all falling for the propaganda that is intended to calm the
ignorant masses.

All the sound bites in the media about "months of planning",
"specialized training", "sophisticated", "coordinated" are 100%
propaganda bull **** to try to make the ignorant masses believe it is
difficult and unlikely to happen here.

The simple fact is that a comparable attack of could be perpetrated by a
handful of people (5-10) of reasonable intelligence with less than one
month of planning.

As for the idea that a well armed public would only compound the
problem, this is still more BS propaganda, just from different sources.
The fact is that the armed public would not start shooting at anything
that moves, they would dive for cover and then look to identify the
attacker(s).

It is abundantly easy to differentiate between those taking cover and
those on the offensive. The armed public is not out to be heroes,
they're out to protect themselves (and their family members if
applicable), they aren't going to shoot unless they are confident of the
target and that the target is actively after them.

This has been well proven in actual incidents of various types in the US
where armed civilians were present and didn't take action when there was
only a threat like a robbery, or took action only after the perpetrator
shot someone.
I'm right there with you, Pete. I think Ed's just trying to stir the
chit here, the spoilsport.
Nonsense. Contrary to what Pete is saying, there is no example in the US of
anything like the Mumbai situation, in which the outcome was any different.
Most of our mass killings of civilians have been the work of a single
individual.

I never claimed that there was a comparable attack in the US, nor have I
ever claimed that the outcome would be substantially different.

I have indicated that various cases in the US have clearly shown that
you crazed idea that any armed citizen suddenly becomes Rambo and tries
to take out the bad guy is bunk. The armed citizen dives for cover like
everyone else in the initial attack. The difference is that the armed
citizen has a reasonable chance of defending themselves after that
initial attack if the attacker is hunting for more victims.

And the point that Iggy brought up, that he couldn't visualize a similar
outcome if it had been Oklahoma City (or wherever), just doesn't wash. There
aren't that many armed citizens walking the street anywhere in the country.
The states that have the most enthusiastic concealed-carry permit holders
have only a couple of percent of the adult population who even have permits.
And the number actually carrying is a fraction of that.

Oddly enough I couldn't locate the total CHL stats for the population in
TX.

Last I heard was just shy of 300,000. Might be over that by now.

Pete has it right. CHL holders are primarily interested in saving their
own skin and that of their loved ones. They will be crouched in the back
room along with the other sheep, but they will at least have a chance if
a shooter discovers them.

But if an easy shot comes up on a lone target, many would take it.
Especially if it might stop additional killings.

On Nov 30, 11:26*am, Ignoramus13690 ignoramus13...@NOSPAM.
13690.invalid wrote:
I have an AK-47...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.
I do not know about you, but I can.

Perhaps you weren't here or don't remember the debates around the 1994
Crime (of) Bill.

One of the renowned firearms experts in Congress declared that you
can't, so it must be true. Feinstein or H. R. Clinton?

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? I guarantee if someone was trying to break my front door down,
and a loaded AK47 was at hand, it would be put to good use.

Jeff Wisnia wrote:
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.


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?

Happens pretty often here.
I have the same problem with the African countries. Zimbabwe didn't
really register until someone mentioned offhand that it used to be
Rhodesia. Aha!
And I'm still trying to figure out where Mandalay now is

Terry Coombs wrote:
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 .

Those are readily availably, and their sale is unrestricted

"RB" wrote in message
...
Pete C. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:05:57 -0600, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:

You're all falling for the propaganda that is intended to calm the
ignorant masses.

All the sound bites in the media about "months of planning",
"specialized training", "sophisticated", "coordinated" are 100%
propaganda bull **** to try to make the ignorant masses believe it is
difficult and unlikely to happen here.

The simple fact is that a comparable attack of could be perpetrated by
a
handful of people (5-10) of reasonable intelligence with less than one
month of planning.

As for the idea that a well armed public would only compound the
problem, this is still more BS propaganda, just from different
sources.
The fact is that the armed public would not start shooting at anything
that moves, they would dive for cover and then look to identify the
attacker(s).

It is abundantly easy to differentiate between those taking cover and
those on the offensive. The armed public is not out to be heroes,
they're out to protect themselves (and their family members if
applicable), they aren't going to shoot unless they are confident of
the
target and that the target is actively after them.

This has been well proven in actual incidents of various types in the
US
where armed civilians were present and didn't take action when there
was
only a threat like a robbery, or took action only after the
perpetrator
shot someone.
I'm right there with you, Pete. I think Ed's just trying to stir the
chit here, the spoilsport.
Nonsense. Contrary to what Pete is saying, there is no example in the US
of
anything like the Mumbai situation, in which the outcome was any
different.
Most of our mass killings of civilians have been the work of a single
individual.

I never claimed that there was a comparable attack in the US, nor have I
ever claimed that the outcome would be substantially different. I have
indicated that various cases in the US have clearly shown that
you crazed idea that any armed citizen suddenly becomes Rambo and tries
to take out the bad guy is bunk. The armed citizen dives for cover like
everyone else in the initial attack. The difference is that the armed
citizen has a reasonable chance of defending themselves after that
initial attack if the attacker is hunting for more victims.

And the point that Iggy brought up, that he couldn't visualize a similar
outcome if it had been Oklahoma City (or wherever), just doesn't wash.
There
aren't that many armed citizens walking the street anywhere in the
country.
The states that have the most enthusiastic concealed-carry permit
holders
have only a couple of percent of the adult population who even have
permits.
And the number actually carrying is a fraction of that.

Oddly enough I couldn't locate the total CHL stats for the population in
TX.

Last I heard was just shy of 300,000. Might be over that by now.

(288,000)

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...mographics.htm

That's roughly 1.6% of the adult population, although it doesn't account for
those who have died or moved out of the state over the renewal period, which
is five years. So it's something under 1.5%.

--
Ed Huntress

RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
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 .

Those are readily availably, and their sale is unrestricted

Extended mags ? I almost bought a couple for one of my firearms , but
decided that control was more important . Too many people get into the
"spray and pray" mode when they have a bigger magazine .
--
Snag
sometimes ya gotta
shovel manure
to pay the bills

On 2008-12-01, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Nov 30, 11:26?am, Ignoramus13690 ignoramus13...@NOSPAM.
13690.invalid wrote:
I have an AK-47...
Why? You can't defend your house with it.
I do not know about you, but I can.

Perhaps you weren't here or don't remember the debates around the 1994
Crime (of) Bill.

One of the renowned firearms experts in Congress declared that you
can't, so it must be true. Feinstein or H. R. Clinton?

Sounds like Feinstein
--
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/

Terry Coombs wrote:
RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
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 .
Those are readily availably, and their sale is unrestricted

Extended mags ? I almost bought a couple for one of my firearms , but
decided that control was more important . Too many people get into the
"spray and pray" mode when they have a bigger magazine .

No, trigger crank: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/RGR600-1.html

On Dec 1, 10:35*am, RB wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:05:57 -0600, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:

You're all falling for the propaganda that is intended to calm the
ignorant masses.

All the sound bites in the media about "months of planning",
"specialized training", "sophisticated", "coordinated" are 100%
propaganda bull **** to try to make the ignorant masses believe it is
difficult and unlikely to happen here.

The simple fact is that a comparable attack of could be perpetrated by a
handful of people (5-10) of reasonable intelligence with less than one
month of planning.

As for the idea that a well armed public would only compound the
problem, this is still more BS propaganda, just from different sources.
The fact is that the armed public would not start shooting at anything
that moves, they would dive for cover and then look to identify the
attacker(s).

It is abundantly easy to differentiate between those taking cover and
those on the offensive. The armed public is not out to be heroes,
they're out to protect themselves (and their family members if
applicable), they aren't going to shoot unless they are confident of the
target and that the target is actively after them.

This has been well proven in actual incidents of various types in the US
where armed civilians were present and didn't take action when there was
only a threat like a robbery, or took action only after the perpetrator
shot someone.
I'm right there with you, Pete. I think Ed's just trying to stir the
chit here, the spoilsport.
Nonsense. Contrary to what Pete is saying, there is no example in the US of
anything like the Mumbai situation, in which the outcome was any different.
Most of our mass killings of civilians have been the work of a single
individual.

I never claimed that there was a comparable attack in the US, nor have I
ever claimed that the outcome would be substantially different.

I have indicated that various cases in the US have clearly shown that
you crazed idea that any armed citizen suddenly becomes Rambo and tries
to take out the bad guy is bunk. The armed citizen dives for cover like
everyone else in the initial attack. The difference is that the armed
citizen has a reasonable chance of defending themselves after that
initial attack if the attacker is hunting for more victims.

And the point that Iggy brought up, that he couldn't visualize a similar
outcome if it had been Oklahoma City (or wherever), just doesn't wash. There
aren't that many armed citizens walking the street anywhere in the country.
The states that have the most enthusiastic concealed-carry permit holders
have only a couple of percent of the adult population who even have permits.
And the number actually carrying is a fraction of that.

Oddly enough I couldn't locate the total CHL stats for the population in
TX.

Last I heard was just shy of 300,000. Might be over that by now.

Pete has it right. CHL holders are primarily interested in saving their
own skin and that of their loved ones. They will be crouched in the back
room along with the other sheep, but they will at least have a chance if
a shooter discovers them.

But if an easy shot comes up on a lone target, many would take it.
Especially if it might stop additional killings.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A small chance...a very small chance.

How does a handgun protect you from a gernade?

TMT

RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
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 .
Those are readily availably, and their sale is unrestricted

Extended mags ? I almost bought a couple for one of my firearms ,
but decided that control was more important . Too many people get
into the "spray and pray" mode when they have a bigger magazine .

No, trigger crank: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/RGR600-1.html

Which once again gets into the "spray and pray" mindset . Having a limited
supply of anmmo , I prefer to make each shot count . But that's just MY
opinion . Hopefully I'll never be in a situation that tests my opinion ...
--
Snag
sometimes ya gotta
shovel manure
to pay the bills

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 1, 10:35 am, RB wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:05:57 -0600, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:
You're all falling for the propaganda that is intended to calm the
ignorant masses.
All the sound bites in the media about "months of planning",
"specialized training", "sophisticated", "coordinated" are 100%
propaganda bull **** to try to make the ignorant masses believe it is
difficult and unlikely to happen here.
The simple fact is that a comparable attack of could be perpetrated by a
handful of people (5-10) of reasonable intelligence with less than one
month of planning.
As for the idea that a well armed public would only compound the
problem, this is still more BS propaganda, just from different sources.
The fact is that the armed public would not start shooting at anything
that moves, they would dive for cover and then look to identify the
attacker(s).
It is abundantly easy to differentiate between those taking cover and
those on the offensive. The armed public is not out to be heroes,
they're out to protect themselves (and their family members if
applicable), they aren't going to shoot unless they are confident of the
target and that the target is actively after them.
This has been well proven in actual incidents of various types in the US
where armed civilians were present and didn't take action when there was
only a threat like a robbery, or took action only after the perpetrator
shot someone.
I'm right there with you, Pete. I think Ed's just trying to stir the
chit here, the spoilsport.
Nonsense. Contrary to what Pete is saying, there is no example in the US of
anything like the Mumbai situation, in which the outcome was any different.
Most of our mass killings of civilians have been the work of a single
individual.
I never claimed that there was a comparable attack in the US, nor have I
ever claimed that the outcome would be substantially different.
I have indicated that various cases in the US have clearly shown that
you crazed idea that any armed citizen suddenly becomes Rambo and tries
to take out the bad guy is bunk. The armed citizen dives for cover like
everyone else in the initial attack. The difference is that the armed
citizen has a reasonable chance of defending themselves after that
initial attack if the attacker is hunting for more victims.
And the point that Iggy brought up, that he couldn't visualize a similar
outcome if it had been Oklahoma City (or wherever), just doesn't wash. There
aren't that many armed citizens walking the street anywhere in the country.
The states that have the most enthusiastic concealed-carry permit holders
have only a couple of percent of the adult population who even have permits.
And the number actually carrying is a fraction of that.
Oddly enough I couldn't locate the total CHL stats for the population in
TX.
Last I heard was just shy of 300,000. Might be over that by now.

Pete has it right. CHL holders are primarily interested in saving their
own skin and that of their loved ones. They will be crouched in the back
room along with the other sheep, but they will at least have a chance if
a shooter discovers them.

But if an easy shot comes up on a lone target, many would take it.
Especially if it might stop additional killings.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A small chance...a very small chance.

How does a handgun protect you from a gernade?

It doesn't. It doesn't protect you from anything, but it gives you a
tool to counter with. it's better than wishes. Evasion is even better.
Did you miss the "crouched in a back room" part?

Terry Coombs wrote:
RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
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 .
Those are readily availably, and their sale is unrestricted
Extended mags ? I almost bought a couple for one of my firearms ,
but decided that control was more important . Too many people get
into the "spray and pray" mode when they have a bigger magazine .
No, trigger crank: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/RGR600-1.html

Which once again gets into the "spray and pray" mindset . Having a limited
supply of anmmo , I prefer to make each shot count . But that's just MY
opinion . Hopefully I'll never be in a situation that tests my opinion ...

Sure. the point is you don't have to machine them from "billet", just
buy one already made if that's what you want. Cheap and legal.

BTW, most people use them on .22s

RB wrote:
And I'm still trying to figure out where Mandalay now is

As in " On the road to " ??? I never have heard of a location.
If you find out please let me know. :-)
...lew...

RB wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Dec 1, 10:35 am, RB wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:05:57 -0600, the infamous "Pete C."
scrawled the following:
You're all falling for the propaganda that is intended to calm the
ignorant masses.
All the sound bites in the media about "months of planning",
"specialized training", "sophisticated", "coordinated" are 100%
propaganda bull **** to try to make the ignorant masses believe it is
difficult and unlikely to happen here.
The simple fact is that a comparable attack of could be perpetrated by a
handful of people (5-10) of reasonable intelligence with less than one
month of planning.
As for the idea that a well armed public would only compound the
problem, this is still more BS propaganda, just from different sources.
The fact is that the armed public would not start shooting at anything
that moves, they would dive for cover and then look to identify the
attacker(s).
It is abundantly easy to differentiate between those taking cover and
those on the offensive. The armed public is not out to be heroes,
they're out to protect themselves (and their family members if
applicable), they aren't going to shoot unless they are confident of the
target and that the target is actively after them.
This has been well proven in actual incidents of various types in the US
where armed civilians were present and didn't take action when there was
only a threat like a robbery, or took action only after the perpetrator
shot someone.
I'm right there with you, Pete. I think Ed's just trying to stir the
chit here, the spoilsport.
Nonsense. Contrary to what Pete is saying, there is no example in the US of
anything like the Mumbai situation, in which the outcome was any different.
Most of our mass killings of civilians have been the work of a single
individual.
I never claimed that there was a comparable attack in the US, nor have I
ever claimed that the outcome would be substantially different.
I have indicated that various cases in the US have clearly shown that
you crazed idea that any armed citizen suddenly becomes Rambo and tries
to take out the bad guy is bunk. The armed citizen dives for cover like
everyone else in the initial attack. The difference is that the armed
citizen has a reasonable chance of defending themselves after that
initial attack if the attacker is hunting for more victims.
And the point that Iggy brought up, that he couldn't visualize a similar
outcome if it had been Oklahoma City (or wherever), just doesn't wash. There
aren't that many armed citizens walking the street anywhere in the country.
The states that have the most enthusiastic concealed-carry permit holders
have only a couple of percent of the adult population who even have permits.
And the number actually carrying is a fraction of that.
Oddly enough I couldn't locate the total CHL stats for the population in
TX.
Last I heard was just shy of 300,000. Might be over that by now.

Pete has it right. CHL holders are primarily interested in saving their
own skin and that of their loved ones. They will be crouched in the back
room along with the other sheep, but they will at least have a chance if
a shooter discovers them.

But if an easy shot comes up on a lone target, many would take it.
Especially if it might stop additional killings.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A small chance...a very small chance.

How does a handgun protect you from a gernade?

It doesn't. It doesn't protect you from anything

Not entirely true. Said handgun is normally (excluding toys like Glocks)
a thick hunk of metal so it can stop some fragments. I once heard of a
guy who had a motorcycle accident and did a 100yd type slide. Seems his
gun literally saved his butt and the butt of the gun had a nice chunk
ground off on the pavement.

RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
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 .
Those are readily availably, and their sale is unrestricted
Extended mags ? I almost bought a couple for one of my firearms ,
but decided that control was more important . Too many people get
into the "spray and pray" mode when they have a bigger magazine .
No, trigger crank: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/RGR600-1.html

Which once again gets into the "spray and pray" mindset . Having a
limited supply of anmmo , I prefer to make each shot count . But
that's just MY opinion . Hopefully I'll never be in a situation that
tests my opinion ...

Sure. the point is you don't have to machine them from "billet", just
buy one already made if that's what you want. Cheap and legal.

BTW, most people use them on .22s

I have a feeling it won't work too well with my single shot bolt .22 ... I
see your point , I just happen to have a different opinion . Ain't it great
that we can agree to disagree without repercussions ?
--
Snag
sometimes ya gotta
shovel manure
to pay the bills

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:37:30 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

RB wrote:
Terry Coombs wrote:
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 .

Those are readily availably, and their sale is unrestricted

Extended mags ? I almost bought a couple for one of my firearms , but
decided that control was more important . Too many people get into the
"spray and pray" mode when they have a bigger magazine .


Dont bother with most of the 30 rounders for the SKS. The vast
majority of them suck badly. Jam/misfeed city.

And some of the 20s arent all that good either but most are ok.

Save your stripper clips!!

Gunner

Gunner wrote:
Dont bother with most of the 30 rounders for the SKS. The vast
majority of them suck badly. Jam/misfeed city.

And some of the 20s arent all that good either but most are ok.

Save your stripper clips!!

Gunner

Not that I would ever admit to owning one , but if I did I'd have a
minimum of 100 rds close by already in strippers .
--
Snag
sometimes ya gotta
shovel manure
to pay the bills

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:13:12 -0600, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
Dont bother with most of the 30 rounders for the SKS. The vast
majority of them suck badly. Jam/misfeed city.

And some of the 20s arent all that good either but most are ok.

Save your stripper clips!!

Gunner

Not that I would ever admit to owning one , but if I did I'd have a
minimum of 100 rds close by already in strippers .


A hypothetical Good Man! to you.

The Chicom chest packs work very well for portable ammo storage, along
with a bottle of Tri-flow or Break Free which works very well for the
SKS.

In many many areas of the US, the SKS has replaced the 3030 as the
pickup truck rifle of choice.

My sources say at least 5,000,000 were imported into the US (estimated
to be over 10 million), and its been said that they will fit nicely
into a piece of 10" PVC pipe and can be installed with a post hole
digger next to a steel fence post or pipe for a low profile,
environmentally low impact storage solution G

Back in the early 90s, they often sold for $75 with a 440 rd spam can
of ammo, and many times you could get 5 sets, for $300 at gun shows.

LOTS of 5 packs were sold. Then the Clintons realized the import of
having armed citizens..and put a halt to many of the imports..and the
prices when up. They are going for about $225 now...shrug for a
single, ammo extra.

Gunner

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that "Terry Coombs"
wrote on Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:13:12 -0600 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
Gunner wrote:
Dont bother with most of the 30 rounders for the SKS. The vast
majority of them suck badly. Jam/misfeed city.

And some of the 20s arent all that good either but most are ok.

Save your stripper clips!!

Gunner

Not that I would ever admit to owning one , but if I did I'd have a
minimum of 100 rds close by already in strippers .

I'm sorry, I caught the term "strippers" and was trying to make
sense of "owning one ... close by ... in strippers..." before I read
The Whole Thing, and the penny dropped. Dang, I have a warped mind.
It's going to take a lot of work to unwarp it.

pyotr

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

pyotr filipivich wrote:

I'm sorry, I caught the term "strippers" and was trying to make
sense of "owning one ... close by ... in strippers..." before I read
The Whole Thing, and the penny dropped. Dang, I have a warped mind.
It's going to take a lot of work to unwarp it.


Too late! You've already passed the point of no return. ;-)

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

pyotr filipivich wrote:
I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that "Terry Coombs"
wrote on Tue, 2 Dec 2008 06:13:12 -0600 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
Gunner wrote:
Dont bother with most of the 30 rounders for the SKS. The vast
majority of them suck badly. Jam/misfeed city.

And some of the 20s arent all that good either but most are ok.

Save your stripper clips!!

Gunner

Not that I would ever admit to owning one , but if I did I'd have a
minimum of 100 rds close by already in strippers .

I'm sorry, I caught the term "strippers" and was trying to make
sense of "owning one ... close by ... in strippers..." before I read
The Whole Thing, and the penny dropped. Dang, I have a warped mind.
It's going to take a lot of work to unwarp it.

pyotr

Don't even try , it's a lost cause bseg .
--
Snag
sometimes ya gotta
shovel manure
to pay the bills

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"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.


See what I mean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/wo...4india.html?hp

December 4, 2008
Ex-U.S. Official Cites Pakistani Training for India Attackers
By ERIC SCHMITT and SOMINI SENGUPTA
WASHINGTON - A former Defense Department official said Wednesday that
American intelligence agencies had determined that former officers from
Pakistan's Army and its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency helped
train the Mumbai attackers.

But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that no specific
links had been uncovered yet between the terrorists and the Pakistani
government.

His disclosure came as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held meetings
with Indian leaders in New Delhi and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with their Pakistani counterparts in Islamabad,
in a two-pronged effort to pressure Pakistan to cooperate fully in the
effort to track down those responsible for the bloody attacks in Mumbai last
week.

Also on Wednesday, a "fully functional" bomb was found and defused at a
major Mumbai train station that had reopened days earlier, the Mumbai
authorities announced. The discovery raised terrifying questions about why
the authorities had failed to find it all this time.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people marched through Mumbai, both mourning
the at least 173 dead and protesting the failures of Indian politicians and
security services to protect citizens.

Ms. Rice strove to balance demands on both countries. She said that Pakistan
had a "special responsibility" to cooperate with India and help prevent
attacks in the future, here and elsewhere. At the same time, she warned
India against hasty reaction that would yield what she called "unintended
consequences."

"The response of the Pakistani government should be one of cooperation and
of action," she said at an evening news conference in New Delhi with her
Indian counterpart, Pranab Mukherjee. "Any response needs to be judged by
its effectiveness in prevention and also by not creating other unintended
consequences or difficulties."

Mr. Mukherjee said his government was convinced that the attackers and their
"controllers" came from Pakistan. He said he had conveyed to Ms. Rice "the
feeling of anger and deep outrage in India" and said that his government was
prepared to act "with all the means at our disposal" to protect Indian
territory and citizens.

Both American and Indian authorities have concluded that there was little
doubt that the Mumbai attacks were directed by militants inside Pakistan,
and Indian officials have said they have identified three or four
masterminds of the attack, including a leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Yusuf
Muzzamil.

But Ms. Rice said it was premature to comment on whether any particular
organization was responsible for the attacks on India's financial and
entertainment capital. She described the assault last week as distinct from
others that had struck India since it targeted high-profile targets,
including those frequented by foreigners, and appeared to be designed to
"send a message."

Ms. Rice said Pakistan had assured her that it would cooperate with India in
its search for those responsible for the slaughter in Mumbai. She said
President Asif Ali Zardari "has told me he will follow leads wherever they
go" but she made clear that Washington expected him to do so wholeheartedly.

"This is a time for everybody to cooperate and to do so transparently, and
this is especially a time for Pakistan to do so," she said.

Lashkar-e-Taiba is officially banned in Pakistan, but it has been linked to
the country's powerful intelligence service and is believed to have moved
its militant networks to Pakistan's tribal areas.

For the moment, Mr. Zardari is playing down any links to Pakistan, including
the Indian identification of the surviving attacker as a Pakistani. "We have
not been given any tangible proof to say that he is definitely a Pakistani.
I very much doubt that he's a Pakistani," Mr. Zardari told CNN's "Larry King
Live," saying that his government would take action if India produced
evidence to support the claim.

He also indicated that he would turn down an Indian demand, made on Monday
night, to hand over about 20 fugitives, some of them linked to organized
crime, said by India to be living in Pakistan. Rather, Mr. Zardari said,
they would be tried in Pakistani courts if there were evidence to support a
trial.

In Islamabad, Admiral Mullen met with President Zardari; the Pakistani
national security adviser, Mahmud Ali Durrani; and several top military
officials, including the Army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani,
and the new intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

Admiral Mullen pressed the Pakistani leaders to crack down on
Lashkar-e-Taiba's network of training camps, including those in
Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, and the organization's guerrilla recruiting
efforts, an American military official said.

In New Delhi, response to a question, Ms. Rice said that the sophistication
and choice of targets in Mumbai distinguished it from previous attacks.
Earlier in the day, also in response to a question, Ms. Rice was asked about
any possible involvement by Al Qaeda. "Whether there is a direct Al Qaeda
hand or not, this is clearly the kind of terror in which Al Qaeda
participates," she said.

The bomb was found in a bag the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, the old
Victoria station, one of the sites singled out for attack last week. It held
about 20 pounds of explosives and was rigged with a timer, the Indian
authorities said, but it was not clear whether it had not been activated or
had malfunctioned.

The bag, apparently left behind by the attackers a week ago, had been
collected along with a large pile of luggage that passengers had abandoned
as they fled. That is where the police found it on Wednesday.

The station has been open for days, with thousands of passengers streaming
through, and the discovery raised new questions about the capability of
Indian security services.

There were conflicting accounts about how the bomb were found. Some reports
said that the police had been tipped off by the surviving attacker, but
others said a sniffer dog found it during a routine sweep of the abandoned
luggage ahead of an officials visit. It was rendered neutral on the spot,
the authorities said, and then subsequently removed for analysis. Train
service was not disrupted for the maneuvers.

Ms. Rice's diplomatic agenda takes place as Washington is seeking high-level
cooperation in different spheres with both India and Pakistan, nuclear-armed
neighbors. Washington wants Pakistan to help defeat Al Qaeda and Taliban
insurgents along the border with Afghanistan.

But Pakistani security officials have threatened to withdraw troops from the
lawless border region to redeploy them if India and Pakistan slide toward
their fourth war since independence from Britain in 1947, Reuters reported.

In October, Washington opened a new chapter of cooperation with India when
Congress gave final approval to a breakthrough agreement permitting civilian
nuclear trade between the two countries for the first time in three decades.

Under the terms of the deal, the United States will now be able to sell
nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to India for peaceful energy although
New Delhi tested bombs in 1974 and 1998 and never signed the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, India agreed to open up 14 civilian
nuclear facilities to international inspection, but would continue to shield
eight military reactors from outside scrutiny.

Eric Schmitt reported from Washington and Somini Sengupta from Mumbai,
India. Reporting was contributed by Alan Cowell from London, and Jeremy Kahn
and Robert F. Worth from Mumbai.



J

"F. George McDuffee" wrote:

Neighbor uses lawn decoration to subdue knife-wielding man

From Kim Minugh:

When a drunken neighbor came over and threatened his Thanksgiving
guests with a kitchen knife, one Del Paso Heights man allegedly
took matters - and a plastic candy cane - into his own hands.

In what police said was self-defense, the man used the two-foot
plastic lawn decoration to beat 49-year-old Donald Kercell until
police could take Kercell into custody, said Sacramento Police
spokesman Sgt. Norm Leong.

Kercell allegedly became intoxicated, went over to a neighbor's
home on the 3600 block of Dayton Street early Thursday evening
and began waving a kitchen knife at people gathered on the lawn,
Leong said.

When Kercell cut a few people's clothing, Leong said, a man at
the home decided to fight back. Other people at the home called
police.

Leong said the candy cane-wielding man does not face any charges.
The knife-wielding man, however, was arrested and booked into the
Sacramento County Main Jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly
weapon.


If he had used a fruit cake instead of the candy cane, he would have
killed him. ;-)


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.