On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:12:10 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:32:29 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

One assumes that Don was claiming he was waving it about and trying to
look "bad assed"

Gunner

Close. My take was that his presence with slung assault rifle was
trying to look badass, waving or not. I still think that, but that
may be my midwestern mentality. That is definitely how it would look
in Minneapolis, and quite probably in Starbuck and McGregor as well.
I've about no experience in Arizona so I defer to others who live
there and know how things work there.

I find it odd that Minnesotans are so afraid of guns in an area where guns
and hunting is so common, yet have little reaction to the threat of Al
Franken. Why is that?

Steve

LOL! I wish the good folks over at Law EnforcementTargets would
print up some Al Franken targets for me to take to the range!

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:12:10 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:32:29 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

One assumes that Don was claiming he was waving it about and trying to
look "bad assed"

Gunner

Close. My take was that his presence with slung assault rifle was
trying to look badass, waving or not. I still think that, but that
may be my midwestern mentality. That is definitely how it would look
in Minneapolis, and quite probably in Starbuck and McGregor as well.
I've about no experience in Arizona so I defer to others who live
there and know how things work there.

I find it odd that Minnesotans are so afraid of guns in an area where guns
and hunting is so common, yet have little reaction to the threat of Al
Franken. Why is that?

Steve

LOL! I wish the good folks over at Law EnforcementTargets would
print up some Al Franken targets for me to take to the range!

You probably can get some made up for you by the NJ State Police. Around 20
years ago they were caught at a local range with "Running N**ger" targets,
and they have a pretty good cartoonist.

'Anyone else you'd like to kill in the virtual sense?

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:56:21 -0600, Steve Ackman


A couple of points, Steve. First, I *have* spent some time in Arizona,
and I
have hunted there, north of Ft. Apache,

I lived north of Ft. Apache for a short while. You
might recognize the name Whiteriver.

with a handgun on my hip in open carry, even when I wasn't hunting.

Who were you trying to intimidate?
Did you see anyone else carrying? If so, why did you
feel intimidated?

Second, I have to respect the man's
rights, but I don't have to respect the man's actions.

There's a distinction without a difference. If
we were talking free speech, sure, you can say, "I
respect the man's right to say whatever he wants
even if I disagree with him." Somehow, I can't see
that as analogous to the open carry situation.
Wouldn't it go something like, "I respect the man's
right to carry, but I don't think he should *actually*
carry." ??? How is that "respecting" his right?

It respects his (and my) rights by asking voluntary restraint from
irrational behavior that could jeopardize our 2d amendment rights.

The fact that he can does not mean he should in some circumstances.
His right to free speech would not make his shouting of epithets at a
church picnic less offensive.

(snip)

When people speak with loaded firearms in a
crowd,

So, you've somehow determined it was loaded. I didn't
see that in any of the reports I read or youtubed. What
did you see that I didn't?

If you ever assume that any firearm is *NOT* loaded you need some
remedial training ASAP.

People have actually been killed from gunshot wounds from "unloaded" guns.

Really.

Steve ;-)

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:13:22 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:47:55 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:


Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How
is
it possible to "push their buttons"?

Steve

The job of the press is to create revenue for the owners and
stockholders. Anything that might increase their circulation or
ratings will push their buttons.

Then, with the exception of some journalists, they are gutless cowards.

Steve

Perhaps merely craven opportunists. Do they go to work each day to
pursue truth and the American Way -- or mostly to make a buck? If the
latter, they're just giving us what we want -- as perhaps opposed to
what we need.

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:12:10 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


Close. My take was that his presence with slung assault rifle was
trying to look badass, waving or not. I still think that, but that
may be my midwestern mentality. That is definitely how it would look
in Minneapolis, and quite probably in Starbuck and McGregor as well.
I've about no experience in Arizona so I defer to others who live
there and know how things work there.

I find it odd that Minnesotans are so afraid of guns in an area where guns
and hunting is so common, yet have little reaction to the threat of Al
Franken. Why is that?

Matter of fact, MN is an open carry state except for the 7-county
metro area. No permit is required for open carry. However, I don't
think I've ever seen anyone in MN aside from LE, security and gun shop
staff actually wearing a gun in public.

I personally am not afraid of guns, but I'd be a bit apprehensive
about a person carrying an assault rifle in a crowd. Since he's not
hunting, target-shooting or defending himself, why is he carrying that
rifle and what might he do with it? I'm not afraid of the gun but I'm
a bit uneasy about the guy flaunting it.

If such behavior is routine in AZ then I suppose people are used to it
and find it unremarkable.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:35:45 -0500, technomaNge wrote:

Don Foreman wrote:


Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge


And what result did it produce?

Other than proving to one and all that the Media cannot be trusted and
that they lie constantly?

Please advise.


"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, 2 Sep 2009 09:13:22 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:47:55 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:


Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How
is
it possible to "push their buttons"?

Steve

The job of the press is to create revenue for the owners and
stockholders. Anything that might increase their circulation or
ratings will push their buttons.

Then, with the exception of some journalists, they are gutless cowards.

Steve


And proven liars.



"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 12:23:45 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:13:22 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:47:55 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:


Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How
is
it possible to "push their buttons"?

Steve

The job of the press is to create revenue for the owners and
stockholders. Anything that might increase their circulation or
ratings will push their buttons.

Then, with the exception of some journalists, they are gutless cowards.

Steve

Perhaps merely craven opportunists. Do they go to work each day to
pursue truth and the American Way -- or mostly to make a buck? If the
latter, they're just giving us what we want -- as perhaps opposed to
what we need.


Hear Hear! Well said!!


"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 Sep 2, 12:40*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:12:10 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:





"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:32:29 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

OK, Gunner. *Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. *I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

One assumes that Don was claiming he was waving it about and trying to
look "bad assed"

Gunner

Close. My take was that his presence with slung assault rifle was
trying to look badass, waving or not. *I still think that, but that
may be my midwestern mentality. That is definitely how it would look
in Minneapolis, and quite probably in Starbuck and McGregor as well.
I've about no experience in Arizona so I defer to others who live
there and know how things work there.

I find it odd that Minnesotans are so afraid of guns in an area where guns
and hunting is so common, yet have little reaction to the threat of Al
Franken. *Why is that?

Steve

LOL! * I wish the good folks over at Law EnforcementTargets would
print up some Al Franken targets for me to take to the range!

Yup, nice peacful attitude, Don.

On Sep 2, 11:10*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"technomaNge" wrote in message

...



SteveB wrote:

He was pushing the media's buttons. *That doesn't
always produce the expected result.

technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. *How
is it possible to "push their buttons"?

That is their job, alright. *I just wish they would do it instead of
claiming a white racist with a gun was at a political rally.

You didn't see the hysterical claims of "could have attacked someone" or
in this thread "intimidating people"?

technomaNge

No, I don't watch "the news" a lot. *Except Fox. *These press people are
becoming scary.

Steve

If you don't watch the news, which media is it that you were accusing
of not informing you of the AR15 guy's race (and I'm not sure why
that's relevant to anything)?

"That pesky press just leaves stuff out that they deem unimportant to
the
story line. Or what their bosses tell them to include in the news.
Until
this day, I did not know he was black."

SteveB wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


John, it's legally termed "brandishing", and yes, it is illegal.
This man did not brandish his weapon, or the PD would have arrested
him. I believe if someone would have done as you suggested and
attempted to take the weapon from him, there would have been a very
good donnybrook with people coming to his aid. At least the Obama
people had enough training and indoctrination to know to leave that
one alone, and believe me, if they were acting on emotion and not
training and indoctrination, it probably would have gone ugly. And I
mean REALLY ugly. But even the ACORNbots knew better.

If you don't think this is really ugly there is something loose in your
noggin.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bas...anderson_c.php

--
John R. Carroll

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:41:49 -0600, Steve Ackman wrote:

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans, et al., to respect
others' choice to voice their opinions, whether the voice is in a
newspaper editorial, a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or even an
open carry. Disagree with the message all you want, but don't disparage
the right to voice it.

My Dad [RIP] used to say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to remain uninformed."

Cheers!
Rich

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What do
you suppose he was trying to "say"? When people speak with loaded firearms
in a crowd, I'd like to know what their message is. The only ones I can
think of have to do with intimidation. Can you clear that up for us?

Maybe his message was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

Just for clarity:
"Militia: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for
military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall
have power to provide for calling forth the militia"
--United States Constitution.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:56:21 -0600, Steve Ackman wrote:

Or... it might have been whatever nefarious intent
you've ascribed... which is what exactly? You keep using the word
"intimidate" without saying how the mere presence of a tool is
intimidating.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia

Hope This Helps!
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:41:49 -0600, Steve Ackman wrote:

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans, et al., to respect
others' choice to voice their opinions, whether the voice is in a
newspaper editorial, a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or even an
open carry. Disagree with the message all you want, but don't disparage
the right to voice it.

My Dad [RIP] used to say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to remain uninformed."

Cheers!
Rich

I don't have the heart to ask him...maybe you'll do it...but what is the
opinion being voiced by someone who's wearing a suicide bomb vest and who is
holding the trigger switch in his hand? Is that speech protected if the bomb
doesn't go off?

--
Ed Huntress

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What do
you suppose he was trying to "say"? When people speak with loaded
firearms
in a crowd, I'd like to know what their message is. The only ones I can
think of have to do with intimidation. Can you clear that up for us?

Maybe his message was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

And is this a direct translation, or is carrying a gun an ambiguous
statement? For example, how about if he was saying "I'm going to kill the
first person who moves into my sights"?

A gun seems like a primitive form of speech, in which the same symbol can
stand for *you* are going to die, *I* am going to die, everyone in the room
is going to die, or "sorry I had to bring a gun, but I forgot my leather
punch." (courtesy of Gunner g) It's sort of pre-speech.

Christofer Broughton, the Phoenix gun-toter who appeared at the rally
related to Obama's appearance, said about the death of President Obama,
"However it happens, I'm going be happy that it happens. I'm gonna be a
happy man...I would rejoice."

Do you suppose that's what he was saying with his gun?

--
Ed Huntress

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:56:21 -0600, Steve Ackman wrote:

Or... it might have been whatever nefarious intent
you've ascribed... which is what exactly? You keep using the word
"intimidate" without saying how the mere presence of a tool is
intimidating.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Pfffht. You can't rely on the "Wiktionary." Hoplophobia is an irrational
fear of Hopalong Cassidy.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't have the heart to ask him...maybe you'll do it...but what is the
opinion being voiced by someone who's wearing a suicide bomb vest and who is
holding the trigger switch in his hand? Is that speech protected if the bomb
doesn't go off?

--
Ed Huntress




I believe, even in AZ, one is required to be licensed for high explosives.

But even if licensed, hauling dynamite into a public gathering could probably
be construed as public endangerment.

Now, simple fact that the rifle was legal in the context presented, I have to
agree with you, Ed, about the message it conveyed.


Richard

"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

I don't have the heart to ask him...maybe you'll do it...but what is the
opinion being voiced by someone who's wearing a suicide bomb vest and who
is holding the trigger switch in his hand? Is that speech protected if
the bomb doesn't go off?

--
Ed Huntress


I believe, even in AZ, one is required to be licensed for high explosives.

But even if licensed, hauling dynamite into a public gathering could
probably
be construed as public endangerment.

Yeah? How about a cannon? g


Now, simple fact that the rifle was legal in the context presented, I have
to
agree with you, Ed, about the message it conveyed.

That's a relief. I was beginning to wonder if the place should be checked
for cooties.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 2, 6:27*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What do
you suppose he was trying to "say"? When people speak with loaded firearms
in a crowd, I'd like to know what their message is. The only ones I can
think of have to do with intimidation. Can you clear that up for us?

Maybe his message was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
*State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
*infringed."

Just for clarity:
"Militia: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for
*military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall
*have power to provide for calling forth the militia"
* --United States Constitution.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Hey Richard - can you now please provide a definition of "well
regulated?" Also, the intent of the second amendment was to allow
states to form their own militia units, outside of federal
jurisdiction, So the US constitution's definition of "militia" does
not apply. What does Nevada's constitution have to say about it?

I would have thought that a "Libertarian" such as you claim to be
would have known this already, from high-school civics.

Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't have the heart to ask him...maybe you'll do it...but what is the
opinion being voiced by someone who's wearing a suicide bomb vest and who
is holding the trigger switch in his hand? Is that speech protected if
the bomb doesn't go off?

--
Ed Huntress

I believe, even in AZ, one is required to be licensed for high explosives.

But even if licensed, hauling dynamite into a public gathering could
probably
be construed as public endangerment.

Yeah? How about a cannon? g


Rifled? Or smooth bore?


Now, simple fact that the rifle was legal in the context presented, I have
to
agree with you, Ed, about the message it conveyed.

That's a relief. I was beginning to wonder if the place should be checked
for cooties.


THIS place? Absolutely!



--
Ed Huntress

Gunner Asch wrote:

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.

technomaNge


And what result did it produce?

Other than proving to one and all that the Media cannot be trusted and
that they lie constantly?

Please advise.



One thing it proved is as you said: The Media are liars.
But we knew that.


technomaNge
--
A lot of people think I need anger management...
I say "**** them." (Jesse James, Monster Garage)

On Sep 2, 3:01*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:35:45 -0500, technomaNge wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. *That doesn't
always produce the expected result.

technomaNge

And what result did it produce?

Other than proving to one and all that the Media cannot be trusted and
that they lie constantly?

Please advise.

What, exactly, were the lies that "the media" told about this event?

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on or
about Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:51:54 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

My experience has lead me to the conclusion that the Left is full
of racist bigots, who judge a man by the color of his skin, and not
the content of his character.
Now, I might not have brought a rifle near a political rally, but
that's just my own sensibilities. (As in, "I don't want to lug the
rifle around all day.")

Need some slings? I have lots of extras.

I got slings. Want to get a 'tactical' (shooting as opposed to
lugging around) set.
What I meant by "I don't want to lug the rifle around all day." is
that even with a sling, it can be a "burden". One more thing to keep
track of, like a camera and accessory kits.

Maybe a nice Cobra sheepskin lined sling to go on your AR?

Oooo. Yeah. That will give me a reason to get an AR. (I've an
FN Fal - "FrankenFall" as it was assembled from odd parts.)


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

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:55:19 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:


Need some slings? I have lots of extras.

I got slings. Want to get a 'tactical' (shooting as opposed to
lugging around) set.
What I meant by "I don't want to lug the rifle around all day." is
that even with a sling, it can be a "burden". One more thing to keep
track of, like a camera and accessory kits.

Maybe a nice Cobra sheepskin lined sling to go on your AR?

Oooo. Yeah. That will give me a reason to get an AR. (I've an
FN Fal - "FrankenFall" as it was assembled from odd parts.)

email me your shipping addy and Ill send one out to you.

I bought a couple dozen some years ago and have one or two unmounted.

I think....cringe..Ill check. You send the addy.

Oddly enough..FALs are on the California Assault Weapons Ban List.

So Obviously I cant have several STG58s and a butt load of mags and
ammo. Not even from when they were selling for $275 each with mags and
440 rounds of ammo.

Obviously.

Terrible thing that California Assault Weapons Ban List...


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

rangerssuck wrote:
The man took an "assault" weapon to a Presidential event that he damn
well knew would be well attended by the press, the police and by the
Secret Service. If that's not big time, "Hey Look at me!" posturing,
I don't know what is.

I wonder if he milks it for more than Joe da Plumber?

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:34:38 GMT, (jj)
wrote:

rangerssuck wrote:
The man took an "assault" weapon to a Presidential event that he damn
well knew would be well attended by the press, the police and by the
Secret Service. If that's not big time, "Hey Look at me!" posturing,
I don't know what is.

I wonder if he milks it for more than Joe da Plumber?

I wonder if he milks it more than the antigun Liberal dumbocrats?

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

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:45:20 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

And is this a direct translation, or is carrying a gun an ambiguous
statement? For example, how about if he was saying "I'm going to kill the
first person who moves into my sights"?

So, you're a mind-reader?

What am I thinking right now?

Thanks,
Rich

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:55:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Unfortunately, the cops don't have to follow the law - they can do
pretty much as they wish.

Case in point, which Ned may remember. Portland, Maine, ten plus
years ago. Guy from one of the surrounding towns goes to a nighttime
fair in Portland. Remembers he has a pistol with him in his truck, no
CCW permit. His options:

1. Hide pistol under seat, lock truck. Probably the sanest course of
action. Unfortunately, this would have been a violation of the
concealed weapons statutes.

2. Leave pistol on seat in plain view, lock truck. Legal.

3. Carry pistol on his person, concealed. Illegal. Again, he had no
CCW permit.

4. Carry holstered pistol openly on his person. Perfectly legal.

5. Go home.

Not wanting to go home, he had two legal options. Leaving his pistol
on the seat of his truck would have been just a little bit stupid, so
he chose to carry it. You can guess the rest. Fearful citizen
reports it to the cops, cops detain and question him, pistol is
confiscated. It is my recollection that he was arrested as well, but
I can't find anything in the local paper's online archives.

When he goes to the police station the next day to get his pistol
back, the police chief decides that he is a gun nut and refuses to
give it back. Guy hires a lawyer, chief refuses to return gun.
Lawyer gets a court order, chief refuses to return gun. It took him
six months to a year - and some serious legal expenses - to finally
get it back.


That sounds vaguely familiar, John. (ex) Chief Chitwood?

--
Ned Simmons

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:34:15 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:27*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What
do you suppose he was trying to "say"? When people speak with loaded
firearms in a crowd, I'd like to know what their message is. The only
ones I can think of have to do with intimidation. Can you clear that
up for us?

Maybe his message was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
*State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
*infringed."

Just for clarity:
"Militia: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law
for *military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress
shall *have power to provide for calling forth the militia" * --United
States Constitution.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hey Richard - can you now please provide a definition of "well regulated?"

Sure - well-trained. And, if the government storm troopers (which they
call the "militia" even though they're not) get out of line, then the
citizens will have the power to regulate their asses off.

Also, the intent of the second amendment was to allow states to form
their own militia units, outside of federal jurisdiction, So the US
constitution's definition of "militia" does not apply. What does
Nevada's constitution have to say about it?

I would have thought that a "Libertarian" such as you claim to be would
have known this already, from high-school civics.

Are you saying that "Militia: the entire body of physically fit civilians
eligible by law for military service" isn't true?

What's your definition of "militia?"

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:30:17 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:41:49 -0600, Steve Ackman wrote:

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans, et al., to
respect others' choice to voice their opinions, whether the voice is in
a newspaper editorial, a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or
even an open carry. Disagree with the message all you want, but don't
disparage the right to voice it.

My Dad [RIP] used to say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to remain uninformed."

I don't have the heart to ask him...maybe you'll do it...but what is the
opinion being voiced by someone who's wearing a suicide bomb vest and who
is holding the trigger switch in his hand?

When was that last time that that happened in the USA?

Thanks,
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:45:20 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

And is this a direct translation, or is carrying a gun an ambiguous
statement? For example, how about if he was saying "I'm going to kill the
first person who moves into my sights"?

So, you're a mind-reader?

I thought that's what you were doing. You suggested that you know the
gun-toters' intentions are benign. I'm saying there are many other
possibilities, none of which we know.


What am I thinking right now?

Thanks,
Rich

Nothing worth repeating. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:30:17 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:41:49 -0600, Steve Ackman wrote:

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans, et al., to
respect others' choice to voice their opinions, whether the voice is in
a newspaper editorial, a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or
even an open carry. Disagree with the message all you want, but don't
disparage the right to voice it.

My Dad [RIP] used to say, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to remain uninformed."

I don't have the heart to ask him...maybe you'll do it...but what is the
opinion being voiced by someone who's wearing a suicide bomb vest and who
is holding the trigger switch in his hand?

When was that last time that that happened in the USA?

We're talking about language here, not action. You were telling us that a
gun is a "voice" of opinion -- a First Amendment issue.

I'm just wondering what the voice is telling us -- especially from the
AR-15-toter who said he's going to be thrilled when Obama dies.

--
Ed Huntress

rangerssuck wrote:

Bringing a weapon like that into an event like that is irresponsible
on oh so many levels. Even if this guy was the most well trained gun
handler in the world, what was to stop a crazed person from grabbing
the gun away from him and doing some real damage? No, Gunner, the only
reason he brought that gun to that place was to be an ass. He
succeeded.


I was listening to Charles Heller today and he indicated Chris B, the guy with the rifle,
advised the Phoenix Police that he was going to bring the rifle. The police were there
protecting him.

Wes

On Sep 3, 3:59*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:55:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
Unfortunately, the cops don't have to follow the law - they can do
pretty much as they wish.

Case in point, which Ned may remember. *Portland, Maine, ten plus
years ago. *Guy from one of the surrounding towns goes to a nighttime
fair in Portland. *Remembers he has a pistol with him in his truck, no
CCW permit. *His options:

1. Hide pistol under seat, lock truck. *Probably the sanest course of
action. *Unfortunately, this would have been a violation of the
concealed weapons statutes.

2. Leave pistol on seat in plain view, lock truck. *Legal.

3. Carry pistol on his person, concealed. *Illegal. *Again, he had no
CCW permit.

4. Carry holstered pistol openly on his person. *Perfectly legal.

5. Go home.

Not wanting to go home, he had two legal options. *Leaving his pistol
on the seat of his truck would have been just a little bit stupid, so
he chose to carry it. *You can guess the rest. *Fearful citizen
reports it to the cops, cops detain and question him, pistol is
confiscated. *It is my recollection that he was arrested as well, but
I can't find anything in the local paper's online archives.

When he goes to the police station the next day to get his pistol
back, the police chief decides that he is a gun nut and refuses to
give it back. *Guy hires a lawyer, chief refuses to return gun.
Lawyer gets a court order, chief refuses to return gun. *It took him
six months to a year - and some serious legal expenses - to finally
get it back.

That sounds vaguely familiar, John. (ex) Chief Chitwood?

--
Ned Simmons- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, Media Mike himself. As I recall, he said he didn't give a damn
about the guy's Constitutional rights - he wasn't going to give the
gun bac.

John

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

Bringing a weapon like that into an event like that is irresponsible
on oh so many levels. Even if this guy was the most well trained gun
handler in the world, what was to stop a crazed person from grabbing
the gun away from him and doing some real damage? No, Gunner, the
only reason he brought that gun to that place was to be an ass. He
succeeded.


I was listening to Charles Heller today and he indicated Chris B, the
guy with the rifle, advised the Phoenix Police that he was going to
bring the rifle. The police were there protecting him.

Ok Wes.
From who?

http://www.libertywatchradio.com/listen

I believe it was this episode

http://i.b5z.net/i/u/1219065/m/8_30_...8 .47_FTP.mp3

Gentleman lives in Arizona btw. Nice guy, I've conversed with him at times via email.

Wes

Wes wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

Bringing a weapon like that into an event like that is irresponsible
on oh so many levels. Even if this guy was the most well trained gun
handler in the world, what was to stop a crazed person from grabbing
the gun away from him and doing some real damage? No, Gunner, the
only reason he brought that gun to that place was to be an ass. He
succeeded.


I was listening to Charles Heller today and he indicated Chris B, the
guy with the rifle, advised the Phoenix Police that he was going to
bring the rifle. The police were there protecting him.

Ok Wes.
From who?



--
John R. Carroll

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

Bringing a weapon like that into an event like that is
irresponsible on oh so many levels. Even if this guy was the most
well trained gun handler in the world, what was to stop a crazed
person from grabbing the gun away from him and doing some real
damage? No, Gunner, the only reason he brought that gun to that
place was to be an ass. He succeeded.


I was listening to Charles Heller today and he indicated Chris B,
the guy with the rifle, advised the Phoenix Police that he was
going to bring the rifle. The police were there protecting him.

Ok Wes.
From who?

I thought you might just tell me in your own words.
Oh well.

--
John R. Carroll

On Sep 3, 4:03*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:34:15 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:27*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What
do you suppose he was trying to "say"? When people speak with loaded
firearms in a crowd, I'd like to know what their message is. The only
ones I can think of have to do with intimidation. Can you clear that
up for us?

Maybe his message was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
*State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
*infringed."

Just for clarity:
"Militia: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law
for *military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress
shall *have power to provide for calling forth the militia" * --United
States Constitution.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hey Richard - can you now please provide a definition of "well regulated?"

Sure - well-trained. And, if the government storm troopers (which they
call the "militia" even though they're not) get out of line, then the
citizens will have the power to regulate their asses off.

Can you try that again, in English? With what militia did the AR-15
guy train? When is the last time he drilled with them? What is his
rank? To whom does he report? There is, of course, a lot more to "well
regulated" than just training, otherwise, they would have written
"well trained."


Also, the intent of the second amendment was to allow states to form
their own militia units, outside of federal jurisdiction, So the US
constitution's definition of "militia" does not apply. What does
Nevada's constitution have to say about it?

I would have thought that a "Libertarian" such as you claim to be would
have known this already, from high-school civics.

Are you saying that "Militia: the entire body of physically fit civilians
eligible by law for military service" isn't true?

What's your definition of "militia?"

That is not at all what I said, and I don't think that you're so
stupid that you have thought I meant that. So stop yanking my chain,
OK?

What I meant was that the "Bill of Rights", including the second
amendment was part of the constitution pretty much from day one (it
was proposed at the Philadelphia constitutional convention). At that
time, there was a question as to whether all the states would ratify
the constitution without some reassurance that there would be some
guarantee of "human rights" and "states rights." The second amendment,
which includes the words "being necessary to the security of a free
State" was intended to appease the fears of those statesmen who were
afraid that the federal government could become a new "kingdom" and
that they would have no means of defense against a federal government
run amok.

So no, I'm not saying that there isn't some fantasyland militia that
includes "the entire body..." (have you drilled with them lately?)
What I'm saying is that the militia referred to in the second
amendment specifically has nothing at all to do with a federal
militia. It is actually about individual states' militias which would,
presumably be fighting *against* said federal militia.

Again, I find it hard to believe that a Libertarian such as yourself
wouldn't know this already. I think I first studied it in eighth
grade.


Thanks,
Rich

You're welcome,
RS

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:47:28 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



The fact that he can does not mean he should in some circumstances.
His right to free speech would not make his shouting of epithets at a
church picnic less offensive.

I think I already asked this, but what better venue
to make a political statement than a political rally?

Good point. My point is simply that this form of political statement
may have effect opposite from that intended. The incident certainly
has been noticed in places far removed from Arizona where such
behavior may indeed be unremarkable. But then, it's only a statement
if it's remarkable, right?

(snip)

When people speak with loaded firearms in a
crowd,

So, you've somehow determined it was loaded. I didn't
see that in any of the reports I read or youtubed. What
did you see that I didn't?

If you ever assume that any firearm is *NOT* loaded you need some
remedial training ASAP.

"Loaded gun" isn't used except as an emotional hot
button, like "assault rifle." Of course you treat every
gun as if loaded. It is therefore a redundancy intended
only to elicit an emotional response.

Or possibly just naive, but more likely as you say.

"Assault rifle" otoh, is just plain incorrect 99% of
the time.

Agreed, though a technical detail lost on people unfamiliar with
weapons.

A true assault rifle has a selector switch for full auto. That said, a
whole bunch of guys at Anzio, Guadalcanal, Normandy, the Chosin
Reservoir, Pork Chop Hill and a lot of other places regarded the M-1
Garand as an assault rifle because that's what they had when they
conducted their assaults.