Don Foreman wrote:

If that right was God-given and inalienable there would be no need for
the 2d amendment. It would be redundant and we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
A right is something you're born with. A privilege
is something given. A right cannot be taken away
(legally), but it can be waived.

Sorry, that's wrong. Some constitutional rights are denied to felons
but nevermind that since neither of us are felons yet. Well, I'm not
anyway. Citizens have constitutional rights and citizenship is
conferred by birth (or by naturalization). A right that is
conferred by the constitution or an amendment thereto, the 2d in this
case, can be modified or abolished by a subsequent amendment. For
example, the 21st amendment repealed and reversed the 18th. The people
voted and made it so.
Maybe the problem is too many people believe the
right to keep and bear arms is actually a privilege.

It is a right conferred by the 2d amendment to the constitution. That
amendment can be modifed, nullified or repealed by a subsequent
amendment.

I disagree. The stated purpose of the Bill of Rights was to set down a
list of rights that preexist the Constitution. The Constitution
recognizes that these rights therefore belong to all, not just US
citizens.


In this case, the guy broke no laws, breached no
etiquette, and only in separate statements, came across
as a bit less than "enlightened."

I agree that he broke no laws and I'll accept your assessment that he
breached no Arizona etiquette. But the media put it on a national
stage. As you have seen, the reaction is not the same everywhere as
your reaction in AZ.

You expect to someone to anticipate every screwball media reaction to
any action they report? What did you anticipate Perez Hilton's
reaction would be to this Arizona citizen?

I think the biggest difference between the way the
"message" played in AZ as opposed to elsewhere was the
emotional response.

Yes indeed. The event/act may well have been yawnably unremarkable in
Arizona to Arizonians.

Unfortunately, thanks to the media's 1st-amendment-protected
irresponsible appetite for sensationalism, his audience extended far
beyond AZ to some places where opinions were apparently quite
different.

So why should anybody in AZ cares what various dainty urbanites in NJ
or MN might think? Well, said DU's are also U.S. citizens who can
propose amendments and vote for them, and there are a whole lot of
urbanites in the US outside of AZ. The time and notion of people
minding their own damned business seems to be long gone in this
internet age.

I see that as a loss.

I also have a problem with the weakness from fear shown by your DUs,
as opposed to strength from knowledge of those who haven't learned
what they know about firearms and rights from Hollywood and the media.

David

On Sep 5, 10:33*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
Probably on his own property. What exactly is it you mean by "with what
milltia?" There's only one - every able-bodied adult citizen of the
country.

When is the last time he drilled with them?
This is a strawman, and irrelevant.

What is his rank?
The highest "rank" of all - civilian.

To whom does he report?
God? To whom would you have him "report"?

Thanks,
Rich

If that's the best you can come up with for an explanation of his
participation in a "well regulated militia," you're a bigger ass than
I gave you credit for.

Sheesh.

If you're not willing to do the most basic research into the Federal
meaning of words like militia, you probably shouldn't engage in
discussions where you display your intentional ignorance for all to see.

David

So Mr. "well regulated militia man" trained himself in his back yard
and reports to the god of his choosing, and by virtue of that alone,
he should be allowed to arm himself to the teeth?

Did you read my entire post? Do you understand the difference between
the federal and state governments? The intention of the second
amendment had nothing at all to do with a federal militia. It had to
do with individual state militias that may have had been needed by
*the states* to defend against an out of control federal government.

If you didn't take basic American history in high school, maybe you
should go to a community college and take a refresher course.

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Why does this sound so much like an interrogation? I've only heard
them on TV, but...

Sorry 'bout that, Larry. I was just trying to penetrate the veils,
hints, innuendo and artful dodging so I could understand what's
really being said here and what actual intent varous folks might have.
I see that Gunner is counting you among his armed friends to bag some
pols. Nothing ambiguous about his position!

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:45:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:52:25 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Let's not mince words or employ innuendo about shooting people, OK? It
isn't an imaginary or abstract concept when real guns are involved.

If there be armed revolution or revolt brewing, note that the rebels
would endeavor to overthrow a government that a majority of Americans
voted into office in a free election. Why would you assume that
leaders of such a coup, assuming it would succeed which I think is
extremely unlikely, would be benign or benevolent toward your
interests? Because it's change?

What about you, Larry, will you be a soldier for the revolution? Are
you up for armed combat and do you have the skills to have any hope of
surviving it or care if you survive it? When you shoot at people they
will shoot back, eventually with considerably more firepower than you
and friends have available to bring to the fracas.


Larry and I have 100,000,000 friends, who have 300,000,000 firearms.

Biggest army in the world.

That's enough to make one hell of a parade if you can get them all to
show up. Larry might join the parade but he seems to be ambivalent
about staying for the firefight.

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

That's probably only one of the reasons you can't find primers.
Another major drain is the war in the ME.

The war in the ME isn't a factor. There was no shortage before the
last election. Now people are hoarding and mfrs have cut back
production because they're worried about the current administration
imposing draconian restrictions on ammo and components. The shortage
is due to fear and uncertainty. The administration didn't have to do
anything at all to curtail availability of ammo and components.

rangerssuck wrote:

On Sep 1, 11:52 am, "SteveB" 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.

Steve - SOMETHING is called "brandishing," and I agree, that's not the
strict legal definition of what this guy did. Even though what he did
was legal (which I don't think it ought to be, but that's a discussion
for another day). it still doesn't make it OK. Legally, I can run a
jackhammer outside my house all day every day from 8AM to 8PM. I'm
just guessing, but I think my neighbors would get pretty ****ed off
after the first ten minutes or so of me exercising my "right to
jackhammer."


Do you have a demolition permit for that jackhammer?


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

"F. George McDuffee" wrote:

Running a government, including enacting legislation, based on
"what they say," and "everybody knows" does not appear to work
any better than attempting to run a car company or bank.

A key feature in most socio-political arguments/discussions from
health care to gun control is the total lack of reliable and
consistent objective and measurable data.

Several federal agencies attempt to track this data, but it is
another case of GIGO [garbage in, garbage out].

Outside of "we have never done it that way before" does anyone
see any reason that law enforcement agencies from the smallest
municipal police department and sheriff's office on up should not
be required to submit *STANDARDIZED* reports, using common
formats and coding, of all reported crimes and citizen
complaints, with a page accessible to the public to report any
department that refuses to accept a report. More than likely
this would need to be backed up by criminal penalties for any
department/individual that refused or failed to accept/input
complete/accurate complaint/arrest data, or at the very least the
loss/embargo of any Federal funds.

Given the wide availability of internet access, and ISPs offering
"secure" web site hosting, this would seem to be a no brainer,
and would allow easy tracking of low
arrest/prosicution/conviction rates indicating possible
corruption and or incompetency, in addition to providing an
"early warning system" for pattern crimes and trends. As
accurate data was accumulated, available "data mining" technology
could be used to discover underlying patterns.


There is a simple way to get voluntary compliance. No federal money
to any city, for any reason if they doesn't comply. Make it easy on
them. Create the data entry and database software & give it to the
cities for agreeing to use the standardized system.


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

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 00:45:27 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:

In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
23:19:51 -0500, Don Foreman, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:00:20 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:

In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman, wrote:

The actions and "statement" of the guy in AZ were noted in places far
removed from AZ, thanks to the media. I don't question, challenge or
deny that his act was within his rights, that is NOT MY POINT. I
maintain that his act was ill-considered and foolish as regards the
preservation of his rights and mine. That's the part that bothers
me.

It should maybe bother you more that his actions
should have any repercussions on your rights at all.

Is there perhaps a typo here? I'm not sure what you're saying.

I'm saying that rights based on such mushy ground
that they can be abolished because of the actions of
one man are pretty flimsy to begin with. If this were
actually the case, THAT should bother you more than some
non-act interpreted as a political message.

Oh. Yeah, that would bother me a lot. Passing an amendment requires
ratification by 3/4 of the States. I acknowledge that the act of one
damned fool will have almost insignificant lasting effect on public
opinion.



Sorry, that's wrong. Some constitutional rights are denied to felons

Yup. I spouted too fast on that one didn't I.
Now... where is it in the Constitution that says
felons can be denied their Constitutional rights?

Good question! I don't know.

Citizens have constitutional rights and citizenship is
conferred by birth (or by naturalization). A right that is
conferred by the constitution or an amendment thereto, the 2d in this
case, can be modified or abolished by a subsequent amendment.

So you don't agree with Thomas Jefferson, or with the
very premise of this nation?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness."

That would seem to completely contradict what you're
saying above; that rights are conferred by government
to its citizens by a piece of paper.

The unalienable rights asserted above are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. The first ten amendments are called the bill of
rights, assert additional rights for citizens of the United States.

For example, the 21st amendment repealed and reversed the 18th. The
people voted and made it so.

Not the people. If it were up to the people, I
doubt the 18th would have ever passed. A
Constitutional Amendment isn't a democratic process.
The 18th showed that even with the safeguards in place,
stupid amendments can get passed. The 21st proved that
even government can't stay stupid forever. I would hope
that would be a lesson not forgotten, but who knows
with this evolving Idiocracy.
Just as Washington now goes to war without ever
declaring war, so do they circumvent the Amendment
process to bypass the Constitution via "regulations."

Maybe the problem is too many people believe the
right to keep and bear arms is actually a privilege.

It is a right conferred by the 2d amendment to the constitution.

It is a pre-existing right *recognized* by the 2nd
Amendment. Anyway, according to Thomas Jefferson.
(Though Ben Franklin had quite a bit of input as well.)

That amendment can be modifed, nullified or repealed by a subsequent
amendment.

Theoretically... but if you really want to see an
uprising, that'd be a certain trigger.

Probably so.

No, the pols wil continue to try and chip away one
city, one state, one "reasonable" restriction at a time
or they'll create a situation so terrifying as to make
extreme controls "necessary to national security." By
the time the Idiocracy is here, nobody will care anyway.

If the people of our country were to become sufficiently offended by
damned fools offensively abusing their 2d amendment rights, those rights
could be curtailed or eliminated.

Not lawfully... though as Hitler amply demonstrated,
anything can be done legally. All it takes is to pass
a law to legalize it. (Does that invoke Godwin?)

It definitely invokes Godwin.

Uh oh. I think that means you're not allowed to
reply to this post then. ;-)

You may interpret his "statement" differently in Arizona.

I personally wouldn't interpret it as defiance
unless it was something approaching civil disobediance.

Just a manner of dress so to speak? Some guys have body piercings,
others tattoos, a few adorn themselves with AR-15's? "Oh, Guy, that
rifle is so YOU!" I think you're right, I gotta come visit Arizona.
I might like it.

Then again, you might not. Last we lived in AZ was
'05. Anyway, I never really had any burning desire
to move back. Every place has its advantages and
disadvantages. On balance, AZ isn't the best place
for us.

Yes indeed. The event/act may well have been yawnably unremarkable in
Arizona to Arizonians.

Actually I consider myself more Minnesotan than
Arizonian... My mother was born and raised in Ramsey,
back when it was still Anoka. My wife and I lived in
Cass Lake for a year... well, close enough that we
had PO Boxes in both Cass Lake and Bemidji.

Brrrr!

Does outstate actually qualify as Minnesotan? The Chrysler
Cold Test Facility was there when we were. No
telling if it's still there with all the upheaval.
I have an uncle in Bradford who I forwarded one of
your range stories to:
"Quality time with a son -- metal content"
Matter of fact, you may have seen him.

I just might have! I am a member of the Isanti County Sportsman's
Club just outside of Cambridge and no more than a couple of miles from
Bradford Twp. I go up there to shoot rifles and handguns during nice
weather.

He's that hard to miss. He drove an old... don't remember the
make and model, but it had a aircraft drop tank attached
made to look like a missile. Something about Saddam
Hussein or the Ayatolah on it. You might also have
seen him riding his bike with an almost man-size
stuffed monkey on his back.
He is not shy at all about his politics, and I bet
THAT Minnesotan would have no problem with an AR at
a political rally! ;-)

I think most rural Minnesotans understand the purposes and utility of
firearms. It's the second and third generation citydwellers that are
irrationally frightened by objects they've seen only on TV.


So why should anybody in AZ cares what various dainty urbanites in NJ
or MN might think? Well, said DU's are also U.S. citizens who can
propose amendments and vote for them,

Citizens don't propose amendments or vote for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution

I stand corrected. Politicians propose them and vote on them.
Shudder!

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 09:48:22 -0500, "David R.Birch"
wrote:


So why should anybody in AZ cares what various dainty urbanites in NJ
or MN might think? Well, said DU's are also U.S. citizens who can
propose amendments and vote for them, and there are a whole lot of
urbanites in the US outside of AZ. The time and notion of people
minding their own damned business seems to be long gone in this
internet age.

I see that as a loss.

I also have a problem with the weakness from fear shown by your DUs,
as opposed to strength from knowledge of those who haven't learned
what they know about firearms and rights from Hollywood and the media.

David

I agree. I try to convert at least one DU per year, or at least offer
them some new perspective. It's quite surprising how an enjoyable
trip to the range can change their perceptions. I supply a selection
of guns and ammo, all they need do is show up and have a go.

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:47:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


The actions and "statement" of the guy in AZ were noted in places far
removed from AZ, thanks to the media.


The same media that went to great lengths to like the fellow to white
sepretists, Klanners and racists?

That media?

Yes, those media. The same media that abuse the first amendment far
more grievously than Broughton abused the second. The media that
exaggerates, distorts, sensationalizes and inflames in greedy if
irresponsible pursuit of ratings and profits. Those media.

On Sep 5, 1:47*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:

On Sep 1, 11:52 am, "SteveB" 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.

Steve - SOMETHING is called "brandishing," and I agree, that's not the
strict legal definition of what this guy did. Even though what he did
was legal (which I don't think it ought to be, but that's a discussion
for another day). it still doesn't make it OK. Legally, I can run a
jackhammer outside my house all day every day from 8AM to 8PM. I'm
just guessing, but I think my neighbors would get pretty ****ed off
after the first ten minutes or so of me exercising my "right to
jackhammer."

* *Do you have a demolition permit for that jackhammer?

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

Don't need one if all I'm doing is running the jackhammer and not
demolishing anything. Just exercising my right to make noise with a
jackhammer. Just like the AR-15 guy exercising his right to bear arms.
Note that the constitution doesn't actually convey a right to actually
*shoot* anything.

Sorry, that's wrong. Some constitutional rights are denied to felons

Yup. I spouted too fast on that one didn't I.
Now... where is it in the Constitution that says
felons can be denied their Constitutional rights?

Good question! I don't know.

Fifth Amendment: (?) ....nor deprived of life liberty, or property
without due process of law;

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:54:57 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:45:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:52:25 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Let's not mince words or employ innuendo about shooting people, OK? It
isn't an imaginary or abstract concept when real guns are involved.

If there be armed revolution or revolt brewing, note that the rebels
would endeavor to overthrow a government that a majority of Americans
voted into office in a free election. Why would you assume that
leaders of such a coup, assuming it would succeed which I think is
extremely unlikely, would be benign or benevolent toward your
interests? Because it's change?

What about you, Larry, will you be a soldier for the revolution? Are
you up for armed combat and do you have the skills to have any hope of
surviving it or care if you survive it? When you shoot at people they
will shoot back, eventually with considerably more firepower than you
and friends have available to bring to the fracas.


Larry and I have 100,000,000 friends, who have 300,000,000 firearms.

Biggest army in the world.

That's enough to make one hell of a parade if you can get them all to
show up. Larry might join the parade but he seems to be ambivalent
about staying for the firefight.

One must..must keep in mind that the American Revolution was fought by
less than 10% of the population. Actual troops, supporters and so forth.

The other 90% simply didnt care, or stayed home.

Whats 10% of 100 million?

Still the largest army in the world.

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

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:36:54 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Why does this sound so much like an interrogation? I've only heard
them on TV, but...

Sorry 'bout that, Larry. I was just trying to penetrate the veils,
hints, innuendo and artful dodging so I could understand what's
really being said here and what actual intent varous folks might have.
I see that Gunner is counting you among his armed friends to bag some
pols. Nothing ambiguous about his position!


Don Don Don....Im simply too old to "bag some pols". Im going to be
sitting on my front porch, playing the banjo and listening to the news
as the death tolls come in. Everyone knows this.

Didnt you?

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

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:36:54 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Why does this sound so much like an interrogation? I've only heard
them on TV, but...

Sorry 'bout that, Larry. I was just trying to penetrate the veils,
hints, innuendo and artful dodging so I could understand what's
really being said here and what actual intent varous folks might have.
I see that Gunner is counting you among his armed friends to bag some
pols. Nothing ambiguous about his position!

Unfortunately, they're not in season.

I thought your reasoning might be from one of two angles:

1) Friendly heads-up to get me thinking about precisely what I was
saying and how it might read in a prosecutor's mind. (DA Ed already
has me doing fifteen to life)

2) A set-up, as Ed may have been trying to do, to get me to say
something illegal and stupid. It's a real shame.

I answered your post (damn, it's hard to type with a finger this size)
because I figured that it was the former case.

Now it's back to icing the right forefinger, which was mashed by a
piece of flagstone this morning during a brief drizzling rain which
wasn't due until 4-6pm this evening. A 30lb stone slipped from one
hand and fell like a lead leaf, hiting the other like a hammer on the
next stone. DAMN, that hurts!

Heck, that's my trigger finger, too! Oh, wait, I'm left handed. Never
mind.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:05:56 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

That's probably only one of the reasons you can't find primers.
Another major drain is the war in the ME.

The war in the ME isn't a factor. There was no shortage before the
last election. Now people are hoarding and mfrs have cut back
production because they're worried about the current administration
imposing draconian restrictions on ammo and components. The shortage
is due to fear and uncertainty. The administration didn't have to do
anything at all to curtail availability of ammo and components.


If by "mfgs have cut back on production" means adding second shifts and
installing more production machinery.....you would be correct. But
then.....care to rethink your statement?

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

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:05:56 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

That's probably only one of the reasons you can't find primers.
Another major drain is the war in the ME.

The war in the ME isn't a factor. There was no shortage before the
last election. Now people are hoarding and mfrs have cut back
production because they're worried about the current administration
imposing draconian restrictions on ammo and components. The shortage
is due to fear and uncertainty.

Well, that, too. I got the war shortage from a googled blog.


The administration didn't have to do
anything at all to curtail availability of ammo and components.

True. Obama's election was the exact cause of some billion dollars of
arms and ammo sales in the USA.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:48:38 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:

In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
20:38:34 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

Nah, he couldn't have thought that, as the pink one was an AK.

Sorry, my mistake. I guess if he were going to
a Rainbow Coalition gathering, a pink AK might have
been more appropriate.

Yeah, or a sleepover. Kalishnikitty Forever!

:-)



http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ashnikitty.jpg

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9852603-1.html

http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/20...-cute-and.aspx



"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

"Assault" rifle is just an emotional hot button
word. =

I own a Remington Speedmaster 552. What a sweet gun. But, in some states,
it would be considered an assault rifle.

Steve

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:43:14 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:

In , on Sat, 5 Sep 2009 03:10:39 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

drunken drivel deletia

I'm very glad we have those rights. But where in the Declaration of
Independence does it say we have a right to shoot our politicians? My copy
doesn't say anything like that. What my copy says, to boil it down, is that
the King has "waged war on the people of the American Colonies, and
therefore he and his government can go **** up a rope. Get lost."

Jefferson was far more eloquent but a bit wordy. d8-)

In the literal sense you're right. Jefferson never
says anything about "shooting politicians." He says,
"as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,"


Of course...yall need to read both the Federalist Papers..and the
Anti-federalist Papers, where those responsible for the Constitution had
the time and space to put down the reasons for why they wrote what they
wrote..and what the Constitution is intended to mean, protect and so
forth.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm


Yall can comment on them after you have read them.


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

rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:33 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
rangerssuck wrote:
Probably on his own property. What exactly is it you mean by "with what
milltia?" There's only one - every able-bodied adult citizen of the
country.
When is the last time he drilled with them?
This is a strawman, and irrelevant.
What is his rank?
The highest "rank" of all - civilian.
To whom does he report?
God? To whom would you have him "report"?
Thanks,
Rich
If that's the best you can come up with for an explanation of his
participation in a "well regulated militia," you're a bigger ass than
I gave you credit for.
Sheesh.
If you're not willing to do the most basic research into the Federal
meaning of words like militia, you probably shouldn't engage in
discussions where you display your intentional ignorance for all to see.

David

So Mr. "well regulated militia man" trained himself in his back yard
and reports to the god of his choosing, and by virtue of that alone,
he should be allowed to arm himself to the teeth?

Did you read my entire post?

Yup.

Do you understand the difference between
the federal and state governments? The intention of the second
amendment had nothing at all to do with a federal militia. It had to
do with individual state militias that may have had been needed by
*the states* to defend against an out of control federal government.

Nope, it's talking about the security of a free state, as in a
political unit, like a nation, colony, province or whatever. Not the
individual states of the United States, but any political unit.

If you didn't take basic American history in high school, maybe you
should go to a community college and take a refresher course.

I took those courses, unlike you, though, I listened and learned from
them. The Bill of Rights deals with the rights of citizens. States and
governments don't have rights, they have powers and authorities
granted them by the citizens. As in "the right of the people".

David

On Sep 5, 9:35*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:43:14 -0600, Steve Ackman



wrote:
In , on Sat, 5 Sep 2009 03:10:39 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

drunken drivel deletia

I'm very glad we have those rights. But where in the Declaration of
Independence does it say we have a right to shoot our politicians? My copy
doesn't say anything like that. What my copy says, to boil it down, is that
the King has "waged war on the people of the American Colonies, and
therefore he and his government can go **** up a rope. Get lost."

Jefferson was far more eloquent but a bit wordy. d8-)

*In the literal sense you're right. *Jefferson never
says anything about "shooting politicians." *He says,
"as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,"

Of course...yall need to read both the Federalist Papers..and the
Anti-federalist Papers, where those responsible for the Constitution had
the time and space to put down the reasons for why they wrote what they
wrote..and what the Constitution is intended to mean, protect and so
forth.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

Yall can comment on them after you have read them.

Gunner

Federalist paper #46 by James Madison includes the following, which
thoroughly supports my explanation to Richard the seemingly uneducated
Libertarian of the roots of the second amendment. The "well regulated
militia" spoken of in the amendment was never intended to be a federal
body. Rather, it was meant to be run by the individual states, to
protect them against a domineering federal government. This was
"thrown in" to the bill of rights to appease the states that were
afraid of falling in to an abusive situation, not dissimilar to the
one they were trying to get out of with England.

Again, I learned about this in eighth grade. It's not exactly breaking
news, but you guys act like it never existed.

-- begin quote--
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State
governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government
may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of
ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been
employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to
disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States
should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted
succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should,
throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed
plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the
governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently
behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials,
until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear
to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy,
or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the
sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the
supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully
equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be
entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not
be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people
on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number
to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be
carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the
whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to
bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an
army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would
be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with
arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves,
fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by
governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be
doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered
by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted
with the last successful resistance of this country against the
British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the
militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple
government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as
far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to
trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid
alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the
people to possess the additional advantages of local governments
chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct
the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by
these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it
may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every
tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions
which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of
America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the
rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased
subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands
of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the
supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of
making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long
train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
--end quote--

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:56:55 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:48:38 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:

In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
20:38:34 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

Nah, he couldn't have thought that, as the pink one was an AK.

Sorry, my mistake. I guess if he were going to
a Rainbow Coalition gathering, a pink AK might have
been more appropriate.

Yeah, or a sleepover. Kalishnikitty Forever!

:-)



http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...ashnikitty.jpg

g Did I send that sleepover pic to you? I can't find it on the web
but it was a hoot.

This is an interesting site.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/2007_08.html
Search for "rifle robots" and tell me if that's what you're driving
from your front porch in one possible future.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

snip


...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "
Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787

And the conclusion to that letter, which you snipped:

"The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a
little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot
inform."

yawn 'Guess Jefferson's little joke is on you, Gunner.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:18:37 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:36:54 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Why does this sound so much like an interrogation? I've only heard
them on TV, but...

Sorry 'bout that, Larry. I was just trying to penetrate the veils,
hints, innuendo and artful dodging so I could understand what's
really being said here and what actual intent varous folks might have.
I see that Gunner is counting you among his armed friends to bag some
pols. Nothing ambiguous about his position!

Unfortunately, they're not in season.

I thought your reasoning might be from one of two angles:

1) Friendly heads-up to get me thinking about precisely what I was
saying and how it might read in a prosecutor's mind. (DA Ed already
has me doing fifteen to life)

2) A set-up, as Ed may have been trying to do, to get me to say
something illegal and stupid. It's a real shame.

Reasoning? You would accuse me of reasoning?

I answered your post (damn, it's hard to type with a finger this size)
because I figured that it was the former case.

Now it's back to icing the right forefinger, which was mashed by a
piece of flagstone this morning during a brief drizzling rain which
wasn't due until 4-6pm this evening. A 30lb stone slipped from one
hand and fell like a lead leaf, hiting the other like a hammer on the
next stone. DAMN, that hurts!

OW!

Heck, that's my trigger finger, too! Oh, wait, I'm left handed. Never
mind.

Phew. At least you can still pick your nose. It's hard to find
someone that can do that for you and get it right. Hm, the fourth
finger and pinky do seem to work servicably well for that task.

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:19:50 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:05:56 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

That's probably only one of the reasons you can't find primers.
Another major drain is the war in the ME.

The war in the ME isn't a factor. There was no shortage before the
last election. Now people are hoarding and mfrs have cut back
production because they're worried about the current administration
imposing draconian restrictions on ammo and components. The shortage
is due to fear and uncertainty. The administration didn't have to do
anything at all to curtail availability of ammo and components.


If by "mfgs have cut back on production" means adding second shifts and
installing more production machinery.....you would be correct. But
then.....care to rethink your statement?

Gunner

What are you hinting at now, Gunner?

The story I heard, which could be incorrect, was that suppliers were
cutting back because they were concerned about having a backlog of
inventory they couldn't sell if some legislation was passed that
required serializing, an etched signature of the buyer on each primer
or some other such damn foolishness dreamed up by politicians.

But, rethinking my statement, it could well be that the primer mfrs
produce primers at whatever rate they do and demand has temporarily
outstripped capacity due to hoarding and fears about future
availability. I understand that a similar shortage happened during
the Clinton era and that it lasted about a year. I wasn't paying any
attention at the time so feel free to correct and elucidate.

Ditto ammo. Before the election my local Wal-Mart always had a good
supply of popular calibers like 9mmp, .40S&W, .45ACP, .38 spl, .357
Mag, and (hidden behind a doily) .380ACP. Now they have shotgun
shells, some .22 rimfire and a lot of empty shelf space.

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:34:25 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry
and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First
Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.

A rifle slung on your back, muzzle down, is not
threatening to shoot anybody... no matter how many
times you say it is. I might add, Period!

If it were, the guy would have been arrested.

I'm not talking about Broughton and his AR-15. I'm talking about Larry's
reference to the "cartridge box" and the "warning" to politicians to "heed
our wishes" -- and to your reference to how "most people" would interpret it
that way.

Are you one of "most people," or do you disagree with them?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:21:36 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:05:56 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

That's probably only one of the reasons you can't find primers.
Another major drain is the war in the ME.

The war in the ME isn't a factor. There was no shortage before the
last election. Now people are hoarding and mfrs have cut back
production because they're worried about the current administration
imposing draconian restrictions on ammo and components. The shortage
is due to fear and uncertainty.

Well, that, too. I got the war shortage from a googled blog.

I got the same excuse from the store where I used to buy them. That
might explain shortage of small pistol primers and small rifle
primers, but not large pistol or large rifle. It isn't that they
shift production from one size to another because even now there's no
shortage of shotgun primers.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:33:10 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



A well written and documented book with prose that will enlighten as we
see dismay, anguish and disgust work its way through the delegates. This
is an excellent read.

"Genius of the People" by Mee does sound like a good read. I'll look
for it when I next visit the used bookstore or the library.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:11:44 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:04:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...

snip

Isn't "intent" more like when he has it in his hands and the muzzle is
tracking targets? Slung on his back, muzzle at the ground, seems
mighty peaceable. I wonder how he feels about loaded backpacks and
their "intent". (What say, Ed?)

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand." What was Gunner's quote
regarding public outcry? "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the
cartridge box." This guy was a visual cue, a precursor, for that
statement's logical outcome...since they haven't taken the first two
cues to heed. shrug

"What say?" I'd say you just proved my point.

I'd say it was more of a caveat than a threat.

When you're trying to get a call that far off the plate, you know you're
wading in sophistic bull****, Larry. The next step for you is to drink the
Hoppe's. d8-)

Hey, between the two of us, _I'm_ not the paranoid one drinking Brady
koolaid.


Like the teacher
showing the students the paddle versus actually grabbing the errant
****ant, bending them over the knees, and paddling up some nice
blisters. If you and the pols didn't like this cue, what will you say
when the actual paddling starts?

The "actual paddling," which Steve and many others deny, is the
consequence
of that unambiguous cue. It's interesting that you, among all of the
sophists and gun-nut casuists, really get the point. It's even more
interesting that you think it makes perfect sense.

I didn't say I'd do it, and I didn't say I agreed with it entirely,
and I didn't say it didn't cause other problems, but I am glad it was
done.

You sound like those punks who stand behind the schoolyard bully while he
grabs some kid from the other side of the tracks and beats him up. You
wouldn't actually do it yourself, and it would cause you some problems if
you did, but you're glad that he's doing it, eh?

So, if you're glad, why don't you have the guts to do it yourself? Are you
glad because you think it's the right thing to do, or are you glad because
you want to see them threatened or killed, but you're afraid to get involved
and you're glad that you'll stay out of trouble?

Until the perps in D.C. get the idea that the people won't stand
for much more of this ****, that kind of thing will happen more
often...until something breaks.

Another Kent State-like incident will
kick off the impending revolution pretty easily, don't you think?

And are you looking forward to it? If not, why are you "glad"?


BTW, you, among all, have historically underestimated my intelligence,
while I have overestimated yours.

What I'm wondering about now is your character.

You picked up this "cartridge box" stuff from Gunner, I'll bet. Being "glad"
that people are threatening the President, but making sure you keep your own
hands clean, is a trailer-trash thing to do.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:33:11 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
.org...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009
16:34:25 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of
late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry
and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First
Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.

A rifle slung on your back, muzzle down, is not
threatening to shoot anybody... no matter how many
times you say it is. I might add, Period!

Of course not. We're talking about the discussion that you and Larry are
making here.

The threat you and Larry are making is to use the "cartridge box." Larry
wants to carry guns to remind politicians that he'll shoot and kill them
if
he doesn't like what they do, and you agree.

Correct?

You're so full of ****, Ed. Mrs. Brady deserves you.

The only question, based on your own words, was whether you're thinking
about threatening politicians yourself, or if you'd be "glad" if other
people did it.

Now you've answered the question. Are you going to pass out the cartridge
boxes or just watch?

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner Asch, RCM's own welfare queen," wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:52:25 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Let's not mince words or employ innuendo about shooting people, OK? It
isn't an imaginary or abstract concept when real guns are involved.

If there be armed revolution or revolt brewing, note that the rebels
would endeavor to overthrow a government that a majority of Americans
voted into office in a free election. Why would you assume that
leaders of such a coup, assuming it would succeed which I think is
extremely unlikely, would be benign or benevolent toward your
interests? Because it's change?

What about you, Larry, will you be a soldier for the revolution? Are
you up for armed combat and do you have the skills to have any hope of
surviving it or care if you survive it? When you shoot at people they
will shoot back, eventually with considerably more firepower than you
and friends have available to bring to the fracas.


Larry and I have 100,000,000 friends, who have 300,000,000 firearms.

Biggest army in the world.

I don't think that the 100 million are your friends. But if they were, would
you fire the first shot, or would you wait until a few million others are
involved before sticking your neck out?

In other words, are you saying this because you believe you should do it
yourself, or are you saying it because you're counting on a mob you can hide
behind?

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 05:47:28 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


The actions and "statement" of the guy in AZ were noted in places far
removed from AZ, thanks to the media.


The same media that went to great lengths to like the fellow to white
sepretists, Klanners and racists?

That media?

Yes, those media. The same media that abuse the first amendment far
more grievously than Broughton abused the second. The media that
exaggerates, distorts, sensationalizes and inflames in greedy if
irresponsible pursuit of ratings and profits. Those media.

Which media "went to great lengths" to liken Broughton to the Klan? I didn't
see it.

I do know which outlet implied he was a racist, and I know which parts of
the lefty media blasted them for it. But it was only one, out of the
thousands of media outlets in the US.

And I'm pretty sure Gunner doesn't even know who he's talking about.

--
Ed Huntress

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


I'm very glad we have those rights. But where in the Declaration of
Independence does it say we have a right to shoot our politicians?

That right was recognized later, in the Bill of Rights.

"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 whose security do you think they were supposed to defend?

In 1794, President Washington called up 16,500 of those militia from three
states and marched them from Harrisburg to the Monongahela Valley to put
down a tax rebellion, in which he jailed a score of them and fined another
score.

That's what the Founders meant by "security of a free state" and the role of
the militia. It wasn't to kill elected politicians. It was to kill the
people who would take up arms against them and threaten the elected
officials of the republic -- whether they were foreign or domestic.

--
Ed Huntress

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Sat, 5 Sep 2009 03:10:39 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

drunken drivel deletia

I'm very glad we have those rights. But where in the Declaration of
Independence does it say we have a right to shoot our politicians? My
copy
doesn't say anything like that. What my copy says, to boil it down, is
that
the King has "waged war on the people of the American Colonies, and
therefore he and his government can go **** up a rope. Get lost."

Jefferson was far more eloquent but a bit wordy. d8-)

In the literal sense you're right. Jefferson never
says anything about "shooting politicians." He says,
"as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War,"

Yup, he said that states have the power to levy war against other states.
Nowhere did he say we have the right for some gang of loony yahoos to
threaten or shoot the government officials that the rest of us elect.

See "Whiskey Rebellion" for a contemporaneous example.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:33:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch, RCM's own welfare queen," wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:52:25 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Let's not mince words or employ innuendo about shooting people, OK? It
isn't an imaginary or abstract concept when real guns are involved.

If there be armed revolution or revolt brewing, note that the rebels
would endeavor to overthrow a government that a majority of Americans
voted into office in a free election. Why would you assume that
leaders of such a coup, assuming it would succeed which I think is
extremely unlikely, would be benign or benevolent toward your
interests? Because it's change?

What about you, Larry, will you be a soldier for the revolution? Are
you up for armed combat and do you have the skills to have any hope of
surviving it or care if you survive it? When you shoot at people they
will shoot back, eventually with considerably more firepower than you
and friends have available to bring to the fracas.


Larry and I have 100,000,000 friends, who have 300,000,000 firearms.

Biggest army in the world.

I don't think that the 100 million are your friends. But if they were, would
you fire the first shot, or would you wait until a few million others are
involved before sticking your neck out?

In other words, are you saying this because you believe you should do it
yourself, or are you saying it because you're counting on a mob you can hide
behind?

Asked and answered, Ed. Gunner says he'll be sitting on the porch
playing his banjo.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:33:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch, RCM's own welfare queen," wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:52:25 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Let's not mince words or employ innuendo about shooting people, OK? It
isn't an imaginary or abstract concept when real guns are involved.

If there be armed revolution or revolt brewing, note that the rebels
would endeavor to overthrow a government that a majority of Americans
voted into office in a free election. Why would you assume that
leaders of such a coup, assuming it would succeed which I think is
extremely unlikely, would be benign or benevolent toward your
interests? Because it's change?

What about you, Larry, will you be a soldier for the revolution? Are
you up for armed combat and do you have the skills to have any hope of
surviving it or care if you survive it? When you shoot at people they
will shoot back, eventually with considerably more firepower than you
and friends have available to bring to the fracas.


Larry and I have 100,000,000 friends, who have 300,000,000 firearms.

Biggest army in the world.

I don't think that the 100 million are your friends. But if they were,
would
you fire the first shot, or would you wait until a few million others are
involved before sticking your neck out?

In other words, are you saying this because you believe you should do it
yourself, or are you saying it because you're counting on a mob you can
hide
behind?

Asked and answered, Ed. Gunner says he'll be sitting on the porch
playing his banjo.

Yeah, I saw that later. So, he'll keep his hands clean while playing a tune.
All talk, no action.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:55:18 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:19:50 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:05:56 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

That's probably only one of the reasons you can't find primers.
Another major drain is the war in the ME.

The war in the ME isn't a factor. There was no shortage before the
last election. Now people are hoarding and mfrs have cut back
production because they're worried about the current administration
imposing draconian restrictions on ammo and components. The shortage
is due to fear and uncertainty. The administration didn't have to do
anything at all to curtail availability of ammo and components.


If by "mfgs have cut back on production" means adding second shifts and
installing more production machinery.....you would be correct. But
then.....care to rethink your statement?

Gunner

What are you hinting at now, Gunner?

The story I heard, which could be incorrect,


It is incorrect.
was that suppliers were
cutting back because they were concerned about having a backlog of
inventory they couldn't sell if some legislation was passed that
required serializing, an etched signature of the buyer on each primer
or some other such damn foolishness dreamed up by politicians.

Chuckle..that law never even passed the House, let alone the Senate.

But, rethinking my statement, it could well be that the primer mfrs
produce primers at whatever rate they do and demand has temporarily
outstripped capacity due to hoarding and fears about future
availability. I understand that a similar shortage happened during
the Clinton era and that it lasted about a year. I wasn't paying any
attention at the time so feel free to correct and elucidate.

Now you have it Almost correct. As I stated.
Im rather in touch with the firearms community...shrug.
However...the primer and component manufactures are working double and
triple shifts..and they STILL cant keep up. Demand...is huge. G

Ditto ammo. Before the election my local Wal-Mart always had a good
supply of popular calibers like 9mmp, .40S&W, .45ACP, .38 spl, .357
Mag, and (hidden behind a doily) .380ACP. Now they have shotgun
shells, some .22 rimfire and a lot of empty shelf space.

Indeed. And if you want ammo..find out what days they deliver..and be
there and wait until they unload the truck. You are going to have to
stand in line however..cause everyone else is buying by the case...so
get there early.

Shrug.. Fortunately..I keep enough stuff on hand to last me a few
years or 4. Part of being one of those ugly survivalists I guess.

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

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:07:11 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:21:36 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:05:56 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 07:27:18 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

That's probably only one of the reasons you can't find primers.
Another major drain is the war in the ME.

The war in the ME isn't a factor. There was no shortage before the
last election. Now people are hoarding and mfrs have cut back
production because they're worried about the current administration
imposing draconian restrictions on ammo and components. The shortage
is due to fear and uncertainty.

Well, that, too. I got the war shortage from a googled blog.

I got the same excuse from the store where I used to buy them. That
might explain shortage of small pistol primers and small rifle
primers, but not large pistol or large rifle. It isn't that they
shift production from one size to another because even now there's no
shortage of shotgun primers.

Thats because folks are buying up war caliber components to go with that
15 million firearms they sold since November.

Shrug


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

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 02:06:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ting?mode =PF
LOS ANGELES - There's a bull market for bullets.

Stacks of ammo, once piled high at gun shops across America, have dwindled.
Prices paid by consumers for much sought-after Winchester .380-caliber
handgun bullets (a common name for cartridges) have doubled. At weekend gun
shows, trailers loaded with boxes of ammunition are drained within hours.

That's just silly. Gunner has educated us that the .380ACP, conceived
and designed by John Moses Browning, is to be disdained as
contemptably wimpy.

I can attest that .380ACP WWB (Winchester white box) ammo has
disappeared from store shelves. It's even difficult to score .380ACP
used brass. Gunner posted an offer but never delivered, which wasn't
a surprise given his expressed disdain for that caliber. If he
scorns the caliber why would he have any brass in that caliber?
Posting is one thing, doing is another. California promises are the
province of liberals.

I found brass elsewhere, I'm loading and shooting. I have three little
..380's, poodle poppers per Gunner, and I enjoy them all. One is a
Walther PPK. James Bond's PPK was probably a .32, rather less potent
then the .380ACP version. Author Ian Fleming was far from an
infant in the matter of tradecraft.