Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.
And you're from Da Nang, right? G

I'm from Nairobi, Maam. Isn't everyone?

You don't want to count the elevator boy?

David

Ed Huntress wrote:

"What's your name, darlin'? Squeaky? That's a funny name. Who's that other
guy? John, you say? Hinckley? Well, John, let's see how well you two kids
can shoot..."

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"What's your name, darlin'? Squeaky? That's a funny name. Who's that
other guy? John, you say? Hinckley? Well, John, let's see how well you
two kids can shoot..."

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David

That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the chamber
for her. Otherwise...

So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before the SS
takes them out?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:06:52 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


Thats exactly what the Left TRIED to do.

You noticed! Very good, Gunner!

And you have noticed perhaps that its backfired badly..and while the MSM
has dropped it like a hot coal...the People have not forgotten what they
tried to do...and are fuming about it? G Thats a very good thing.
I take it you havent read much on guerilla warefare eh?

Not for about 45 years. I'm surprised that you didn't include Sun
Tzu's "Art of War", seminal for all forms of warfare including
guerilla. Also useful for corporate in-fighting and probably for
prevailing in piddle-contests within the Harper Valley PTA.

I did have some military education including school in guerilla
warfare once upon a time.

Guerilla warfare, almost by definition, cannot not be learned from a
book or a doctrine. There is no formula. It's more an attitude,
ability to improvise and be sneaky, devious, alert, cunning, sly,
utterly ruthless and usually invisible.

I'm retired.

I wonder if I could pass the California entrance exam.

No..you are not Leftwing enough. On the other hand..you can sneak into
the Red portion of California and feel largely at home. If you can deal
with the weather.

Yeah, the climate of the red parts would be a problem. I don't mind
heat, steamy or dry, but Minnesota Mary seems to be predominantly
exothermic. She regards 45 as wet teeshirt weather and doesn't do hot
weather well at all, not at all.

I think it's Lake Wobegone where all the children are above average.
That's in MN, by the way.

Thats where the ugly kids come from? We see a few of them now and then
in the malls here in California. Sad..very sad.

Those are FIB's from Iowa.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:43:31 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:37:19 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:22:41 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:17:32 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Ayup...you are indeed from Minnesota, sad to say.

And you're from Da Nang, right? G

I'm from Nairobi, Maam. Isn't everyone?


I'm actually from Michigan, but I've lived in MN for many years now.

There's a difference?


There are somewhat less rusting factories in MN...somewhat.

Gunner

Three of the leading three makers of medical electronic devices
(pacemakers, ICD's etc) are he Boston Sci, Medtronic and St. Jude.
Also Starkey, a leading maker of hearing aids. The HQ of Magnum
Research (Desert Eagle) is right here in Fridley, an easy walk from my
house.
http://www.magnumresearch.com/

Unmarked other than their street address but I drove right by their
front door today en route to the nearby post office to pick up our
accumulated mail.

Much of Michigan, at least the lower peninsula, is economically tied
to the auto industry in Detroit. 'Nuff said?

The yoopers (Upper Peninsula) are also feeling the pinch. There's
about no industry in the UP but there are three universities and a few
highways that depend upon flow of money north from Lansing.

I had a chat last week with some folks on staff at Michigan
Technological University in Houghton. One of them was neighbor-at-lake
Zip's daughter and a dept administrator, her hub is a prof. Research
grant money from Detroit has dried up noticably. Fancy that.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:19:20 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:06:52 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


Thats exactly what the Left TRIED to do.

You noticed! Very good, Gunner!

And you have noticed perhaps that its backfired badly..and while the MSM
has dropped it like a hot coal...the People have not forgotten what they
tried to do...and are fuming about it? G Thats a very good thing.
I take it you havent read much on guerilla warefare eh?

Not for about 45 years. I'm surprised that you didn't include Sun
Tzu's "Art of War", seminal for all forms of warfare including
guerilla. Also useful for corporate in-fighting and probably for
prevailing in piddle-contests within the Harper Valley PTA.

I did have some military education including school in guerilla
warfare once upon a time.

Guerilla warfare, almost by definition, cannot not be learned from a
book or a doctrine. There is no formula. It's more an attitude,
ability to improvise and be sneaky, devious, alert, cunning, sly,
utterly ruthless and usually invisible.

I'm retired.

Well..given the economy, the Obama cluster**** and whatnot..Id have to
say you are not retired,,,,but on inactive duty. Just a heads up for
the next 2-3 yrs.

I wonder if I could pass the California entrance exam.

No..you are not Leftwing enough. On the other hand..you can sneak into
the Red portion of California and feel largely at home. If you can deal
with the weather.

Yeah, the climate of the red parts would be a problem. I don't mind
heat, steamy or dry, but Minnesota Mary seems to be predominantly
exothermic. She regards 45 as wet teeshirt weather and doesn't do hot
weather well at all, not at all.

Its only been around 115f since Friday. Im working tonight, moving Stuff
around in the back 40, tossing a bunch of **** away, mostly old computer
equipment, boxing up a bunch to take to the Good Will, sorting out
electrical stuff etc. its only 12:30 am, Ill rack out in 5 or 6 hours,
sleep through the hot part of the day, and hit it again

.. So far..Ive got No work for this week. Damned little money so I need
to start trying to move some of this stuff that came out of the factory
I shut down. And it appears that my place in Fullerton..a bigish
factory..Is likely to get shut down any day. So Friday I spraypainted
(with a stencil) my company name on everything Ive got in the plant,
took some of my welding equipment and other Stuff home, leaving only the
plasma cutter, 31' sissor lift and Tig welder, so the guys could use it.

Ive got to figure out what to do with a Hardinge chucker, DV59, OmniTurn
retro on a Hardinge, surface grinder, 4 swiss screw machines, etc etc.
I figure if I load em on a flat bed its gonna cost me $500 to get the
load moved home..and then what do I do with em while trying to sell em?
Im 150 miles north of LA.

And Ive got a 20' conex loaded to the roof with Stuff that will need to
be moved someplace as well.

The economy in So. Cal...is really really bad. Really bad.


I think it's Lake Wobegone where all the children are above average.
That's in MN, by the way.

Thats where the ugly kids come from? We see a few of them now and then
in the malls here in California. Sad..very sad.

Those are FIB's from Iowa.

They grunted and said Minnneeeeesoootaaaa when I asked where they were
spawned. Maybe they confused all that flat land.


Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:51:34 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

As for the AR-15-toting jackass in Phoenix, I didn't hear anyone say
he was a "white racist." It was clear from the photos that he was
black. You must read too much Leftist literature for your own good.
g
Can you imagine the reception that guy would have gotten at one of Bush's
rally's?
LOL
I doubt it would have been any different, except Bush might have gone
outside to check it out and set up a shoot date.

"What's your name, darlin'? Squeaky? That's a funny name. Who's that other
guy? John, you say? Hinckley? Well, John, let's see how well you two kids
can shoot..."

"John, do you know this Obama person has been boinking Jody Foster?"

Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David

That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the chamber
for her. Otherwise...

Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.

So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before the SS
takes them out?

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens. The assassins always seem to do their deeds with really
crappy guns. Except for Arther Bremer.

And the people who shot JFK... :^)

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David

That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...

Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.

So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before the
SS takes them out?

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president is
a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One hundred responsible citizens who
like to show off their guns, and maybe one John Hinckley, all in the same
crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the guy
actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made the
wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him by SS
sharpshooters?

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in mind,"
but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to "say"
with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around? What was the
message? Can you give us some insight about that?

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David

That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...

Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.

So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before the
SS takes them out?

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president is
a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One hundred responsible citizens who
like to show off their guns, and maybe one John Hinckley, all in the same
crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the guy
actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made the
wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him by SS
sharpshooters?

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in mind,"
but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to "say"
with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around? What was the
message? Can you give us some insight about that?

It was a _Tea Party_, Ed. You can figure it out from there, right?

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Don Foreman wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:50:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

One thing about Belleview, though, based on the sex-offender data:
It's one
town in which you want to look over your shoulder before you bend over
to
pick up a bar of soap.


Bar of soap? I didn't realize NJ didn't have liquid soap. I buy
shampoo at the dollar store to wash my hands and shower with. You have
to be a fool to use bar soap in a shower when you're disabled.

Ed has led a rather sheltered life. Much of New Jersey is pleasant to
opulent, a Garden State to be sure. Lots of bluewater salt sea shore
beyond the refineries and garbage dumps, what's not to like?


I've never been there, so i wouldn't know. I tested out of a three
year engineering course at Ft. Monmoth while in Basic Training, and that
was the closest I ever got.

I just think its funny that so many people from New Jersey move to
Florida and constantly brag about where they came from. They get really
upset when you ask why they left 'paradise'

Hey, ask them why they left Florida after they move back up here. We left
(in 1963) because it's a swamp in the summer time, more than anything else.
My mother was afraid we'd all develop mildew. g


Swamp? What swamp? You must have been in the deep Southern end of
Florida that is reserved for morons. As far as mildew, you should have
left sooner. At least before the brain rot set in.

As far as them going back to Jersey, I wish the cheap *******s would.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the guy
actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made the
wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him by SS
sharpshooters?

Probably few to none. More likely .308 (7.62mm) for routine sniper
work, .338 Lapua for longer ranges.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:49:31 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the guy
actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made the
wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him by SS
sharpshooters?

Probably few to none. More likely .308 (7.62mm) for routine sniper
work, .338 Lapua for longer ranges.


Ayup

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Don Foreman wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:50:41 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

One thing about Belleview, though, based on the sex-offender data:
It's one
town in which you want to look over your shoulder before you bend
over
to
pick up a bar of soap.


Bar of soap? I didn't realize NJ didn't have liquid soap. I buy
shampoo at the dollar store to wash my hands and shower with. You
have
to be a fool to use bar soap in a shower when you're disabled.

Ed has led a rather sheltered life. Much of New Jersey is pleasant to
opulent, a Garden State to be sure. Lots of bluewater salt sea shore
beyond the refineries and garbage dumps, what's not to like?


I've never been there, so i wouldn't know. I tested out of a three
year engineering course at Ft. Monmoth while in Basic Training, and
that
was the closest I ever got.

I just think its funny that so many people from New Jersey move to
Florida and constantly brag about where they came from. They get
really
upset when you ask why they left 'paradise'

Hey, ask them why they left Florida after they move back up here. We left
(in 1963) because it's a swamp in the summer time, more than anything
else.
My mother was afraid we'd all develop mildew. g


Swamp? What swamp? You must have been in the deep Southern end of
Florida that is reserved for morons.

I see. And you're in the belly of Florida, a place that's a good
recommendation for carrying pesticides and disinfectant with you at all
times. g

We lived first in Key Colony Beach, in the Keys, and later in Ft.
Lauderdale, on SE 13th Street, which lies between two canals. In the summer,
it was difficult to tell where the canal ended and the atmosphere began.

As far as mildew, you should have
left sooner. At least before the brain rot set in.

Perhaps you've waited a bit too long, Michael.

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the
guy
actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made the
wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him by SS
sharpshooters?

Probably few to none. More likely .308 (7.62mm) for routine sniper
work, .338 Lapua for longer ranges.

Do you think they considered the guy routine? If he took the AR off his
shoulder, how long do you think it would have been before his heart stopped
beating?

Questions, questions...g

--
Ed Huntress

David R.Birch wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David

That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...

Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.

So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before
the SS takes them out?

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens. The assassins always seem to do their deeds with really crappy
guns. Except for Arther Bremer.

And the people who shot JFK... :^)

I think a Carcano is well down on the list, quality-wise

Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before the
SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president is
a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One hundred responsible citizens who
like to show off their guns, and maybe one John Hinckley, all in the same
crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the guy
actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made the
wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him by SS
sharpshooters?

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in mind,"
but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to "say"
with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around? What was the
message? Can you give us some insight about that?

The message was the same as the other messages - the signs, and the
chants, and the mass gathering:

Free exercise of basic rights to free speech, assembly, and bearing of
arms. Freedoms not exercised are eventually lost

I would say the individual who did this achieved his goal, by starting a
national discussion on the limits of this right.

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before
the SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One hundred responsible citizens
who like to show off their guns, and maybe one John Hinckley, all in the
same crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the
guy actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made
the wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him
by SS sharpshooters?

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in
mind," but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to
"say" with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around? What was
the message? Can you give us some insight about that?

The message was the same as the other messages - the signs, and the
chants, and the mass gathering:

Free exercise of basic rights to free speech, assembly, and bearing of
arms. Freedoms not exercised are eventually lost

I would say the individual who did this achieved his goal, by starting a
national discussion on the limits of this right.

Unless he just shifted the political center a notch or two towards the
gun-control side, which I strongly suspect is the case. I'm watching for
polls.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been
talking about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to
get, before the SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are
responsible citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents
carry guns where the presidents are. So having people carry guns
around a president is a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One
hundred responsible citizens who like to show off their guns, and
maybe one John Hinckley, all in the same crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around
the guy actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out
if he made the wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles
were trained on him by SS sharpshooters?

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in
mind," but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to
"say" with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around?
What was the message? Can you give us some insight about that?

The message was the same as the other messages - the signs, and the
chants, and the mass gathering:

Free exercise of basic rights to free speech, assembly, and bearing
of arms. Freedoms not exercised are eventually lost

I would say the individual who did this achieved his goal, by
starting a national discussion on the limits of this right.

Unless he just shifted the political center a notch or two towards the
gun-control side, which I strongly suspect is the case. I'm watching
for polls.

Were there ever to be effort to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban
this guys and his buddies will end up poster boys.


--
John R. Carroll

I suspect you're right.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been
talking about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to
get, before the SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are
responsible citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents
carry guns where the presidents are. So having people carry guns
around a president is a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One
hundred responsible citizens who like to show off their guns, and
maybe one John Hinckley, all in the same crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around
the guy actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out
if he made the wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles
were trained on him by SS sharpshooters?

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in
mind," but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to
"say" with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around?
What was the message? Can you give us some insight about that?

The message was the same as the other messages - the signs, and the
chants, and the mass gathering:

Free exercise of basic rights to free speech, assembly, and bearing
of arms. Freedoms not exercised are eventually lost

I would say the individual who did this achieved his goal, by
starting a national discussion on the limits of this right.

Unless he just shifted the political center a notch or two towards the
gun-control side, which I strongly suspect is the case. I'm watching
for polls.

Were there ever to be effort to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban
this guys and his buddies will end up poster boys.


--
John R. Carroll

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before
the SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.
It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One hundred responsible citizens
who like to show off their guns, and maybe one John Hinckley, all in the
same crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the
guy actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made
the wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him
by SS sharpshooters?

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in
mind," but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to
"say" with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around? What was
the message? Can you give us some insight about that?
The message was the same as the other messages - the signs, and the
chants, and the mass gathering:

Free exercise of basic rights to free speech, assembly, and bearing of
arms. Freedoms not exercised are eventually lost

I would say the individual who did this achieved his goal, by starting a
national discussion on the limits of this right.

Unless he just shifted the political center a notch or two towards the
gun-control side, which I strongly suspect is the case. I'm watching for
polls.

I think a lot of people learned to their surprise that his behavior was
perfectly legal, and the Secret Service wasn't concerned about him

"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been
talking about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to
get, before the SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.
It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry
guns where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a
president is a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One hundred
responsible citizens who like to show off their guns, and maybe one
John Hinckley, all in the same crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the
guy actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he
made the wrong move? How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained
on him by SS sharpshooters?

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in
mind," but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to
"say" with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around? What
was the message? Can you give us some insight about that?
The message was the same as the other messages - the signs, and the
chants, and the mass gathering:

Free exercise of basic rights to free speech, assembly, and bearing of
arms. Freedoms not exercised are eventually lost

I would say the individual who did this achieved his goal, by starting a
national discussion on the limits of this right.

Unless he just shifted the political center a notch or two towards the
gun-control side, which I strongly suspect is the case. I'm watching for
polls.

I think a lot of people learned to their surprise that his behavior was
perfectly legal, and the Secret Service wasn't concerned about him

I'm sure that a lot of people were surprised. But the SS was watching them
like hawks, from the subtle implications of the few quotations that are
available.

--
Ed Huntress

John R. Carroll wrote:

Hey, Hank Paulson says he wished Barney Franks had been a Republican when
Paulson was Secretary.
He feels that Franks is hands down one of this Congress's most reliable and
effective legislators and that he really understands the nature of what's
been going on with our economy, financial services, and banking sectors.
Paulson went on to say that NANCY PELOSI and Franks were two of the best he
worked with during his time in office as far as being straight shooters and
delivering on their promises when the hard votes came down. I immediately
thought of the initial TARP votes in the House and Senate.

His book will be out in November and I think I'll pre-order a copy.
LOL

If ever I had a positive opinion of Paulsen, it's gone now.
Unless he wants to share whatever he's smoking

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"RBnDFW" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

I would say the individual who did this achieved his goal, by
starting a national discussion on the limits of this right.

Unless he just shifted the political center a notch or two towards
the gun-control side, which I strongly suspect is the case. I'm
watching for polls.

Were there ever to be effort to reinstate the federal assault
weapons ban this guys and his buddies will end up poster boys.

I suspect you're right.

These guys are being allowed in attendance with their firearms against the
advice of and under protest by the President's security detail.
That only happens one way, and I see Dave Axelrod an Rahm Emanual's fine
political sensibilities at work here. That and Obama's faith in his security
detail. The "perimeter" thing is a real tell tale that there was a heated
argument over this right at the top.

You have to wonder who's using who, and at what eventual cost.

Hey, Hank Paulson says he wished Barney Franks had been a Republican when
Paulson was Secretary.
He feels that Franks is hands down one of this Congress's most reliable and
effective legislators and that he really understands the nature of what's
been going on with our economy, financial services, and banking sectors.
Paulson went on to say that NANCY PELOSI and Franks were two of the best he
worked with during his time in office as far as being straight shooters and
delivering on their promises when the hard votes came down. I immediately
thought of the initial TARP votes in the House and Senate.

His book will be out in November and I think I'll pre-order a copy.
LOL


--
John R. Carroll

RBnDFW wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:

Hey, Hank Paulson says he wished Barney Franks had been a Republican
when Paulson was Secretary.
He feels that Franks is hands down one of this Congress's most
reliable and effective legislators and that he really understands
the nature of what's been going on with our economy, financial
services, and banking sectors. Paulson went on to say that NANCY
PELOSI and Franks were two of the best he worked with during his
time in office as far as being straight shooters and delivering on
their promises when the hard votes came down. I immediately thought
of the initial TARP votes in the House and Senate.

His book will be out in November and I think I'll pre-order a copy.
LOL

If ever I had a positive opinion of Paulsen, it's gone now.
Unless he wants to share whatever he's smoking

OK but he doesn't either smoke or drink, and was an Eagle Scout.
He also lives pretty modestly for a man of his means and always has. He's
now living in the area where he grew up, still married to his High School
sweethart.


--
John R. Carroll

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:08:02 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before
the SS takes them out?

There's an SS in America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel

Shudder!
Rich

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:50:01 -0500, David R.Birch wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...

Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.

So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before
the SS takes them out?

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens. The assassins always seem to do their deeds with really crappy
guns. Except for Arther Bremer.

And the people who shot JFK... :^)

Fer Crissakes, don't anybody shoot Obama! The commies will make a martyr
out of him!

Then again, Biden does seem relatively harmless. ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree?

Not at all - it should be MANDATORY! :-

cheers!
Rich

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:04:21 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to
"say" with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around? What was
the message? Can you give us some insight about that?

"The Right to Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed?"

It was a _Tea Party_, Ed. You can figure it out from there, right?

He probably can't, being a socialist dupe and all.

Cheers!
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:08:02 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before
the SS takes them out?

There's an SS in America?

yup. secret service.

--
Ed Huntress


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel

Shudder!
Rich

Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before the
SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president is
a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One hundred responsible citizens who
like to show off their guns, and maybe one John Hinckley, all in the same
crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the guy
actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made the
wrong move?

3+ in the standard deployment.

How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him by SS
sharpshooters?

Probably none, low probability of women holding children behind closed
doors.

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in mind,"
but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to "say"
with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around?

I haven't seen any evidence that the guns were loaded.

What was the message? Can you give us some insight about that?

Nope, although the Wisdom of Howard Beale comes to mind.

David

RBnDFW wrote:
David R.Birch wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David

That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...

Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.

So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been
talking about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to
get, before the SS takes them out?

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens. The assassins always seem to do their deeds with really
crappy guns. Except for Arther Bremer.

And the people who shot JFK... :^)

I think a Carcano is well down on the list, quality-wise

What does the rifle found in the book depository have to do with the
equipment used by the people who shot JFK?

David

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:50:01 -0500, David R.Birch wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before
the SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens. The assassins always seem to do their deeds with really crappy
guns. Except for Arther Bremer.

And the people who shot JFK... :^)

Fer Crissakes, don't anybody shoot Obama! The commies will make a martyr
out of him!

Then again, Biden does seem relatively harmless. ;-)

Thanks,
Rich

OTOH, Biden was the main push behind the '94 Pro Crime bill.

Oops, I meant the Assault Weapons(sic) bill.

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David
That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...
Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.
So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been talking
about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to get, before
the SS takes them out?
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree? One hundred responsible citizens
who like to show off their guns, and maybe one John Hinckley, all in the
same crowd. Hmmm....

Here's what I wonder: How many of those "protesters" milling around the
guy actually were Secret Service agents ready to take him out if he made
the wrong move?

3+ in the standard deployment.

How many .300 Win. Mag sniper rifles were trained on him by SS
sharpshooters?

Probably none, low probability of women holding children behind closed
doors.

I'm really curious. There was one unattributed comment by some SS or
administration official to the effect that they "had a perimeter in
mind," but the gun-toters in all cases were nowhere near it.

Which still leaves the question, just what is it they were trying to
"say" with their loaded guns, in a crowd with police all around?

I haven't seen any evidence that the guns were loaded.

Both the gun-toter in AZ and the one in NH said their guns were loaded.


What was the message? Can you give us some insight about that?

Nope, although the Wisdom of Howard Beale comes to mind.

David

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:07:03 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree?

Not at all - it should be MANDATORY! :-

cheers!
Rich


Hell..cops and Secret Service carry guns around him all the time. Are
they more than law abiding citizens?


"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:43:00 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:07:03 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree?

Not at all - it should be MANDATORY! :-

Hell..cops and Secret Service carry guns around him all the time. Are
they more than law abiding citizens?

The only difference I can see between a Cop or a Secret Service
Agent and a regular citizen is a stringent background check to get the
job. They still put their pants on one leg at a time. And they are
just as falliable, if not moreso because they are now in a position of
authority - one that can be abused.

There should only be two questions: "Are you carrying legally?" As
in proper permits where required - properly following all carry laws
where they aren't. The SS doesn't necessarily have to physically
check the card, they are pretty darned good at reading body language -
if the guy is lying about it, there are ususlly very blatant "tells"
exhibited.)

And "You are going to keep a healthy distance from POTUS with that
firearm on your person, Keep your hands where we can see them, and
follow our instructions if he ends up getting close to you, right?"

If the carrier knows they're on the Secret Service radar, and both
sides are reasonble about it, no problem.

And if the citizen wants to go inside the hall (or otherwise get
inside the SS "Comfort Sphere") they check the weapon at the door. And
no static about giving it back when he leaves, either.

If the First Amendment ever fails us, the Second Amendment is our
fallback position. "Your choice - We can do this the nice way, or the
nasty way..." Let's hope that our government never forgets this.

-- Bruce --

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:42:00 -0700, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:43:00 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:07:03 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.

It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree?

Not at all - it should be MANDATORY! :-

Hell..cops and Secret Service carry guns around him all the time. Are
they more than law abiding citizens?

The only difference I can see between a Cop or a Secret Service
Agent and a regular citizen is a stringent background check to get the
job. They still put their pants on one leg at a time. And they are
just as falliable, if not moreso because they are now in a position of
authority - one that can be abused.

There should only be two questions: "Are you carrying legally?" As
in proper permits where required - properly following all carry laws
where they aren't. The SS doesn't necessarily have to physically
check the card, they are pretty darned good at reading body language -
if the guy is lying about it, there are ususlly very blatant "tells"
exhibited.)

And "You are going to keep a healthy distance from POTUS with that
firearm on your person, Keep your hands where we can see them, and
follow our instructions if he ends up getting close to you, right?"

If the carrier knows they're on the Secret Service radar, and both
sides are reasonble about it, no problem.

And if the citizen wants to go inside the hall (or otherwise get
inside the SS "Comfort Sphere") they check the weapon at the door. And
no static about giving it back when he leaves, either.

If the First Amendment ever fails us, the Second Amendment is our
fallback position. "Your choice - We can do this the nice way, or the
nasty way..." Let's hope that our government never forgets this.

-- Bruce --


vERY VERY WELL SAID!

Btw..did you ever get a decent handgun? I may..may have a S&W Mod 59
available.

Guy is selling and the price I suspect..will be right.


Gunner

"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

David R.Birch wrote:
RBnDFW wrote:
David R.Birch wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not well, Squeaky couldn't even chamber a round.

David

That was good luck, wasn't it? Somebody forgot to leave one in the
chamber for her. Otherwise...

Otherwise she would have shot herself in the foot.

So, who's the next Squeaky? One of those gun-toters we've been
talking about? How can you be sure? How close do you want them to
get, before the SS takes them out?

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens. The assassins always seem to do their deeds with really
crappy guns. Except for Arther Bremer.

And the people who shot JFK... :^)

I think a Carcano is well down on the list, quality-wise

What does the rifle found in the book depository have to do with the
equipment used by the people who shot JFK?

Good question.
Maybe someone will ask Fidel since we're becoming buds again.

Bruce L. Bergman wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:43:00 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:07:03 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message

Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.
It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree?
Not at all - it should be MANDATORY! :-
Hell..cops and Secret Service carry guns around him all the time. Are
they more than law abiding citizens?

The only difference I can see between a Cop or a Secret Service
Agent and a regular citizen is a stringent background check to get the
job. They still put their pants on one leg at a time. And they are
just as falliable, if not moreso because they are now in a position of
authority - one that can be abused.

There should only be two questions: "Are you carrying legally?" As
in proper permits where required - properly following all carry laws
where they aren't.

The proper reply: "Are those requirements imposed on me constitutional?"

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:07:03 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:03:34 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
Dunno, most of the gun owners I know, left and right, are responsible
citizens.
It only takes one. And those people who try to kill presidents carry guns
where the presidents are. So having people carry guns around a president
is a little loony, wouldn't you agree?
Not at all - it should be MANDATORY! :-

cheers!
Rich


Hell..cops and Secret Service carry guns around him all the time. Are
they more than law abiding citizens?

Indira Gandhi was shot by one of her own bodyguards.

David