"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
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.

IIRC, Gunner uses a .380 to pick his teeth. Or maybe that was to make bigger
holes in his belts.


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.

The PPK used by by Bond was a 7.65 mm -- a .32 -- in Dr. No and later Bond
stories. In earlier ones, he'd used a Beretta .25 ACP. But I also remember a
..45 Colt Army Special he had in his car. Those things really stuck with me.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 01:14:45 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

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.


Indeed I will. Butchering the Leftwing trash that has nearly destroyed
the country is work for young people. Im old, tired and a lover not a
fighter.

I love the smell of rotting Leftwingers in the morning. It smells....it
smells like freedom.

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 02:14:44 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

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.

Indeed. Its the cartridge of last resort. Hell...look it up on the
internet. And Ive provided a number of power comparisons. Dont like
them? Ignore them! By all means. This is America. Carry what you want.
I certainly didnt call you names or imply that you were crazy or a flake
for wanting to carry one to defend yourself with. I may have implied
that because you had more appropriate arms..you may be foolish..but
thats my opinion on that particular subject. I certainly made my
respect for you on all else quite clear. You missed that post?

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.


Blink blink...I told you I had to work and would take some time finding
you the brass. Less than a week later, I contacted you and you stated
you had already go some.. Shrug..you either want some or not. Ive got
several Thousands of pounds of brass cartridge cases. Some are mixed,
some are boxed, some are sized, some are simply filling 5 gallon
buckets. My shop is a mess as is my cartridge storage areas. Ive been
working, medically infirm etc etc since I spent much time doing
reloading, casting etc. Several years in fact.

Now I ask you again...do you want some brass in .380, or not? Ive got a
number of .380s that I can use some of the brass for. Because I prefer
to not use it for self defense, doesnt mean that I dont shoot it on
occasion.

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.

What..you are suggesting that the .32 is rather more impotent than the
..380? And yet Ian had James potting people right and left with it in a
number of the first novels!!!

Blasphemy!!!


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

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.

There is also no shortage of shotgun shells, the local Walmart has
lots of them, as do other retail sources.

The shortage is in anything you can put in a self defense rifle or
pistol. Most of the ammo that's exclusively for hunting is available.

The ammo makers aren't buying more hardware to catch up because they
see it as only a temporary shortage.

David

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:26:36 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"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
om...

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.

Go ahead and worry, but I'm one of the Good guys.


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.

Don't be an idiot. That was a posture, not a threat. Threateners are
arrested.

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

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:16:03 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

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.

Grab one for a penny off Amazon. Plus $3.99 s/h. Sucha deal, and a
hardcover, too!

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

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:26:36 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"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
m...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:04:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:b832a51cki3aqs4q56gjlrm62uhqd9b47m@4ax. com...

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.

Go ahead and worry, but I'm one of the Good guys.


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.

Don't be an idiot. That was a posture, not a threat. Threateners are
arrested.

Rarely. Usually they're just watched, because, like you and Gunner, they
hide behind weasel words and make it difficult or impossible to prosecute.

Virtually all of these gun-toters are nothing more than the punks who stand
behind the real bullies, cheering and egging them on. As that former SS
agent said a couple of days ago, the big problem you present to the rest of
us is that your irresponsible, trashy "posturing" is going to encourage one
of them to pull a trigger.

Or to set off a bomb. Notice the similarity between what Gunner has been
saying about his "100 million friends" who are going to kill everyone they
don't like, and the words of Timothy McVeigh, who said he was starting a
revolution and that "blood would flow in the streets."

Gunner isn't a McVeigh. A pugnacious blowhard, he doesn't have the guts for
it. He's just providing the verbal ammunition and moral support for the
McVeighs. And there you are, a few steps back with his other little friends,
giving him encouragement and repeating his slogans.

Carry on. You've covered your ass but you aren't fooling anyone. "Good guys"
don't incite others to violence.

plonk

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



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.

Indeed. Its the cartridge of last resort. Hell...look it up on the
internet. And Ive provided a number of power comparisons. Dont like
them? Ignore them! By all means. This is America. Carry what you want.
I certainly didnt call you names or imply that you were crazy or a flake
for wanting to carry one to defend yourself with. I may have implied
that because you had more appropriate arms..you may be foolish..but
thats my opinion on that particular subject. I certainly made my
respect for you on all else quite clear. You missed that post?

I'm not feeling dissed, Gunner. I understand that your contempt is
for the round as compared to more potent calibers. I don't even
disgree: a .45 is undeniably more gun than a .380. For me it's a
matter of reality vs theory. I realized a little while ago that my
reality was that I just never seemed to carry a .45, .40 or 9mmp, even
on the infrequent occasions when I possibly should have been carrying
something. I have them, but I don't carry them. So I carried nothing.
Most of the time I feel no need to carry but there have been times on
my walks where I've been a bit uneasy. The little .380 is very easy
to drop into a pocket (Fist holster) so I sometimes grab it on the way
out the door. A .45 it certainly isn't, but it's considerably more
than nothing. Sometimes I feel a bit silly carrying even a .380 among
nice friendly young folks that say "Hi" along the trails, but I
don't tell anyone I have a gun in my pocket.

You may recall that PPK stands for Polizeipistole Kriminalmodell
(Police Pistol Detective Model). It was carried for decades by
plainclothes policemen in Europe who seldom actually shot anyone.

Another opinion from a plausible source:

The PP & PPK Walthers, along with their numerous 'copy-cat' clones
from BOTH sides of the 'Iron Curtain', have been cosidered as
'adequate' by so many European military and police authorities that
they have been issued by these units for decades, both before and
after World War l l, not only in .380ACP (9mm Kurz (short) or Corto,
metric desig.), but in .32ACP(7,62 Kurz), 9mm Makarov, and 9x17Ultra,
as well, just to name a few.
The veteran 9mmK has killed & wounded thousands in military &
peacetime situations, a very effective service record.
If you feel confidant and comfortable with your personal marksmanship
with a Walther PPK to depend on it as your personal defense weapon, GO
for it! ! !
I have carried my PPK/S as a back-up, and in more 'formal' social
situations where my H-K USP would have been somewhat 'out-of-place',
and I have no better recommendation than for the all-time BEST of the
'pocket' automatics.
Source(s):
Legal Arizona CWP armed citizen,
w/ H-K USP .45ACP
Life Member: N.R.A. & G.O.A.
Former U.S. Marine
4x Rifle & 2x Pistol Expert:U.S.M.C.
Firearms owner,including Luger P-08, H-K, Glock, S&W, Colt, & Walther
pistols
35+ years reloading metallic pistol and rifle ammo




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.


Blink blink...I told you I had to work and would take some time finding
you the brass. Less than a week later, I contacted you and you stated
you had already go some.. Shrug..you either want some or not. Ive got
several Thousands of pounds of brass cartridge cases. Some are mixed,
some are boxed, some are sized, some are simply filling 5 gallon
buckets. My shop is a mess as is my cartridge storage areas. Ive been
working, medically infirm etc etc since I spent much time doing
reloading, casting etc. Several years in fact.

Now I ask you again...do you want some brass in .380, or not? Ive got a
number of .380s that I can use some of the brass for. Because I prefer
to not use it for self defense, doesnt mean that I dont shoot it on
occasion.

I'm good for a while. I may be back to you later, though. The
attrition rate is kinda high when shooting outdoors because those
little cases tend to disappear in the grass.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Stuff snipped. I like my Keltec 3AT because it is very pocketable. Yes, it
does not have the knockdown power of a larger bullet, but IIRC, lots of
people have been killed by .380 slugs. A guy locally who teaches carry
permit classes carries a Ruger GP 100 with a 4" barrel in a shoulder
harness. Dissed my Keltec big time. Half the people out there can't hit
**** anyway no matter what the caliber, shotguns excluded. I shot 288/300
on qualifying, so I think I could poke a hole in someone if I needed to.
Hell, old mobsters liked the .22's.

Steve

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



What..you are suggesting that the .32 is rather more impotent than the
.380? And yet Ian had James potting people right and left with it in a
number of the first novels!!!

Blasphemy!!!


Gunner

..32 Auto (7.65mm Browning) actually has less pop than .22LR rimfire.
Federal Hydrashok 65 grain bullet leaves the muzzle at 925 fps with
energy of 124 ft-lb. (.22LR rimfire with 38 gn HP bullet leaves at
1260 fps with 134 ft-lb of energy)

..380ACP 90 gn Hydrashok 1000 fps, 200 ft-lb.
..38 Spl 129 gn Hydrashok 950 fps 259 ft-lb
..41 AE 210 gn XTP 797 fps 296 ft-lb *
9mmp 105 gn EFMJ, 1230 fps, 353 ft-lb
..40S&W 135 gn Hydrashok, 1200 fps 432 ft-lb
..45ACP 165 gn EFMJ, 1140 fps, 476 ft-lb


Source: Federal 2007 Ammunition & Ballistics Catalog except * is from
Hodgdon loading data.

These are representative "personal defense" rounds. Hotter +P
ammunition is available.

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 13:17:50 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Stuff snipped. I like my Keltec 3AT because it is very pocketable. Yes, it
does not have the knockdown power of a larger bullet, but IIRC, lots of
people have been killed by .380 slugs. A guy locally who teaches carry
permit classes carries a Ruger GP 100 with a 4" barrel in a shoulder
harness. Dissed my Keltec big time. Half the people out there can't hit
**** anyway no matter what the caliber, shotguns excluded. I shot 288/300
on qualifying, so I think I could poke a hole in someone if I needed to.
Hell, old mobsters liked the .22's.

Steve

Ayup...mobsters like the 22, particularly when held at the proper point
at the back of the skull and the round fired. A decent knitting needle
does an equivelant job when employed the same way.

If you sneak up on an individual, and shoot him square in the side of
the head with a .380 you will likely kill him. Same if you shoot him
smack dab into the heart, when he is not expecting it. Shooting him
while he is asleep is also good with a .380, as long as you hit a
terminally conclusive zone and you have him pinned down.

On the other hand....most of the individuals you will encounter on the
street are already phyched up, and are in Attack mode. They may have a
nervous system boosted/twisted by illegal chemical agents such as
methamphetamine, PCP, heroin and so forth.

In such cases..,you are not shooting Granny in her rocking chair half
asleep. You are shooting a generally young, vicious animal who intends
to do you harm and with no finess or class or grace, who is likely to be
hyped up on drugs or adrenaline.

Shrug...yes..someone made the case that many thousands of people in
europe died from being shot by the .380. This of course runs along with
the fact that many Hundreds of thousands were shot with the 380, and
damned few of them died in any reasonable period of time..and
frankly...a large number of them were shot in the back of the neck while
handcuffed. Shrug..facts o life.

But go ahead, carry what you are comfortable with. Such is your Right.
And lets hope that you never ever need to use it and if Crom forbid..the
badguy runs away after being shot repeatedly. Rather than runs at you.

Shrug....me..Im a realist and Im going to continue carrying a proper
tool for the job. While driving 16 penny nails..Ill not be using a
jewelers hammer, but a nice corregated face framing hammer. Designed to
do the job without any muss nor fuss. Shrug

One can pull a 20' travel trailer with a Yugo as well. But...it really
doesnt do the job as well as a 3/4 ton pickup truck, does it?


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 Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:26:17 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:26:36 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
What I'm wondering about now is your character.

Go ahead and worry, but I'm one of the Good guys.

--snip--

Carry on. You've covered your ass but you aren't fooling anyone. "Good guys"
don't incite others to violence.

plonk

If you haven't plonked me yet, what violence have I provoked or
incited? Ditto Gunner? Cites, please.

Would someone please quote this so Ed sees it? Thanks.

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

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:34:40 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



What..you are suggesting that the .32 is rather more impotent than the
.380? And yet Ian had James potting people right and left with it in a
number of the first novels!!!

Blasphemy!!!


Gunner

.32 Auto (7.65mm Browning) actually has less pop than .22LR rimfire.
Federal Hydrashok 65 grain bullet leaves the muzzle at 925 fps with
energy of 124 ft-lb. (.22LR rimfire with 38 gn HP bullet leaves at
1260 fps with 134 ft-lb of energy)

.380ACP 90 gn Hydrashok 1000 fps, 200 ft-lb.
.38 Spl 129 gn Hydrashok 950 fps 259 ft-lb
.41 AE 210 gn XTP 797 fps 296 ft-lb *
9mmp 105 gn EFMJ, 1230 fps, 353 ft-lb
.40S&W 135 gn Hydrashok, 1200 fps 432 ft-lb
.45ACP 165 gn EFMJ, 1140 fps, 476 ft-lb


Source: Federal 2007 Ammunition & Ballistics Catalog except * is from
Hodgdon loading data.

These are representative "personal defense" rounds. Hotter +P
ammunition is available.


Indeed. Yet James Bond Carried it! So it Had to be Good Stuff!

Right?

G
Notice the difference between .380...and even the .40? Less than half
the Ommph. And the .45? G

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 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:19:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:26:17 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:26:36 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
What I'm wondering about now is your character.

Go ahead and worry, but I'm one of the Good guys.

--snip--

Carry on. You've covered your ass but you aren't fooling anyone. "Good guys"
don't incite others to violence.

plonk

If you haven't plonked me yet, what violence have I provoked or
incited? Ditto Gunner? Cites, please.

Would someone please quote this so Ed sees it? Thanks.


This of course is one of Eds worst tricks when he is cornered and there
is no where for him to go. He gets alll ****y and then starts plonking
people right and left.
Sad that a once respectible Republican has gone made and taken to the
Dark Side and become an ardent Democrat Useless eater.

Im thinking he is becoming senile, unfortunately.

Shrug

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

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 13:17:50 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Stuff snipped. I like my Keltec 3AT because it is very pocketable. Yes,
it
does not have the knockdown power of a larger bullet, but IIRC, lots of
people have been killed by .380 slugs. A guy locally who teaches carry
permit classes carries a Ruger GP 100 with a 4" barrel in a shoulder
harness. Dissed my Keltec big time. Half the people out there can't hit
**** anyway no matter what the caliber, shotguns excluded. I shot 288/300
on qualifying, so I think I could poke a hole in someone if I needed to.
Hell, old mobsters liked the .22's.

Steve

Ayup...mobsters like the 22, particularly when held at the proper point
at the back of the skull and the round fired. A decent knitting needle
does an equivelant job when employed the same way.

If you sneak up on an individual, and shoot him square in the side of
the head with a .380 you will likely kill him. Same if you shoot him
smack dab into the heart, when he is not expecting it. Shooting him
while he is asleep is also good with a .380, as long as you hit a
terminally conclusive zone and you have him pinned down.

On the other hand....most of the individuals you will encounter on the
street are already phyched up, and are in Attack mode. They may have a
nervous system boosted/twisted by illegal chemical agents such as
methamphetamine, PCP, heroin and so forth.

In such cases..,you are not shooting Granny in her rocking chair half
asleep. You are shooting a generally young, vicious animal who intends
to do you harm and with no finess or class or grace, who is likely to be
hyped up on drugs or adrenaline.

Shrug...yes..someone made the case that many thousands of people in
europe died from being shot by the .380. This of course runs along with
the fact that many Hundreds of thousands were shot with the 380, and
damned few of them died in any reasonable period of time..and
frankly...a large number of them were shot in the back of the neck while
handcuffed. Shrug..facts o life.

But go ahead, carry what you are comfortable with. Such is your Right.
And lets hope that you never ever need to use it and if Crom forbid..the
badguy runs away after being shot repeatedly. Rather than runs at you.

Shrug....me..Im a realist and Im going to continue carrying a proper
tool for the job. While driving 16 penny nails..Ill not be using a
jewelers hammer, but a nice corregated face framing hammer. Designed to
do the job without any muss nor fuss. Shrug

One can pull a 20' travel trailer with a Yugo as well. But...it really
doesnt do the job as well as a 3/4 ton pickup truck, does it?


Gunner

What is your gun of choice for carry? Mine is a Mod 60 S&W .357 stainless
w/2" barrel on a Safari paddle holster..

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:19:09 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:26:17 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:26:36 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
What I'm wondering about now is your character.

Go ahead and worry, but I'm one of the Good guys.

--snip--

Carry on. You've covered your ass but you aren't fooling anyone. "Good
guys"
don't incite others to violence.

plonk

If you haven't plonked me yet, what violence have I provoked or
incited? Ditto Gunner? Cites, please.

Would someone please quote this so Ed sees it? Thanks.


This of course is one of Eds worst tricks when he is cornered and there
is no where for him to go. He gets alll ****y and then starts plonking
people right and left.


...Im thinking he is becoming senile, unfortunately.

Shrug

Gunner

Uh, Gunner, is was YOU who plonked ME, remember? You're describing yourself,
dimwit.

Maybe that stroke did more damage than you realize. Getting things backwards
like that is not a good sign.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 11:26:17 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 01:26:36 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
What I'm wondering about now is your character.

Go ahead and worry, but I'm one of the Good guys.

--snip--

Carry on. You've covered your ass but you aren't fooling anyone. "Good
guys"
don't incite others to violence.

plonk

If you haven't plonked me yet, what violence have I provoked or
incited? Ditto Gunner? Cites, please.

You're part of the background noise, like a fan in a crowd at a sports event
who gives encouragement to your favorite team. You give encouragement by
saying things that support the threat -- you say "Please stay in line and
heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll have to steer you with a
firmer hand," (as an explanation for carrying guns at a political rally)
and, avoiding attributing it to yourself, you say you're "glad" they're
saying it. That's part of what breaks down civil discourse and that
threatens "the security of a free state." The punks standing behind the
bully is a more appropriate metaphor, but the effect is like the cheers from
the fans.

Whether anyone is listening to you and will act directly upon your support
is not the question, nor the circumstance. You're adding one more voice to
Gunner's "100 million friends" who he believes are going to support a
revolution. It's incitement with deniability. Good move. Like Steve, you're
keeping yourself out of the line of fire while making clear you support
those who voice their threats.


Would someone please quote this so Ed sees it? Thanks.

I unplonked and went back to see what you were asking because I wouldn't
rely on a quote in a message from Gunner. Now I re-plonk. Just don't bother,
Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 19:24:32 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 13:17:50 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Stuff snipped. I like my Keltec 3AT because it is very pocketable. Yes,
it
does not have the knockdown power of a larger bullet, but IIRC, lots of
people have been killed by .380 slugs. A guy locally who teaches carry
permit classes carries a Ruger GP 100 with a 4" barrel in a shoulder
harness. Dissed my Keltec big time. Half the people out there can't hit
**** anyway no matter what the caliber, shotguns excluded. I shot 288/300
on qualifying, so I think I could poke a hole in someone if I needed to.
Hell, old mobsters liked the .22's.

Steve

Ayup...mobsters like the 22, particularly when held at the proper point
at the back of the skull and the round fired. A decent knitting needle
does an equivelant job when employed the same way.

If you sneak up on an individual, and shoot him square in the side of
the head with a .380 you will likely kill him. Same if you shoot him
smack dab into the heart, when he is not expecting it. Shooting him
while he is asleep is also good with a .380, as long as you hit a
terminally conclusive zone and you have him pinned down.

On the other hand....most of the individuals you will encounter on the
street are already phyched up, and are in Attack mode. They may have a
nervous system boosted/twisted by illegal chemical agents such as
methamphetamine, PCP, heroin and so forth.

In such cases..,you are not shooting Granny in her rocking chair half
asleep. You are shooting a generally young, vicious animal who intends
to do you harm and with no finess or class or grace, who is likely to be
hyped up on drugs or adrenaline.

Shrug...yes..someone made the case that many thousands of people in
europe died from being shot by the .380. This of course runs along with
the fact that many Hundreds of thousands were shot with the 380, and
damned few of them died in any reasonable period of time..and
frankly...a large number of them were shot in the back of the neck while
handcuffed. Shrug..facts o life.

But go ahead, carry what you are comfortable with. Such is your Right.
And lets hope that you never ever need to use it and if Crom forbid..the
badguy runs away after being shot repeatedly. Rather than runs at you.

Shrug....me..Im a realist and Im going to continue carrying a proper
tool for the job. While driving 16 penny nails..Ill not be using a
jewelers hammer, but a nice corregated face framing hammer. Designed to
do the job without any muss nor fuss. Shrug

One can pull a 20' travel trailer with a Yugo as well. But...it really
doesnt do the job as well as a 3/4 ton pickup truck, does it?


Gunner

What is your gun of choice for carry? Mine is a Mod 60 S&W .357 stainless
w/2" barrel on a Safari paddle holster..


Modified and cleaned AMT DAO .45 tucked away, and a Series 70, Armaloyed
years ago, and riding in a custom paddle.

The 1911 contains Golden Sabres (8...Wilson mags+1 ) and the AMT
contains 6 Speer Flying Ashtrays at +P loadings. There are generally 1
mag (5) of reloads for the AMT and one 8rd Wilson on me as well. If Im
in a bad area, a second mag for the Series 70 gets tucked away.

Right and left front pockets hold a (2) S&W tactical folder
(Autozone..$9.95..a very nice surprise) One for work..one for fun.

Back right pocket contains a Benchmade serrated edge folder. My eating
knife.

Depending on time of year, neighborhood etc..there is often a neck
knife hanging inside my shirt as well. Something I built some years ago
out of D2, tucked into a Kflex custom sheath.

If Im in a very bad neighborhood..Cold Steel Tanto rides behind the
Series 70.

And there is a cleaned up and custom #4 SMLE tucked away in the truck
with 100 rds on strippers.

Shrug. Thats my normal wear. Sometimes the Series 70 goes away if Im on
the job and scrambling around machinery.

Of course I do work in Los Angeles area down to San Diego, with a number
of clients in the Union Pacific area..so Im sure you understand why I
carry 3 knives.

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 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:38:53 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 13:17:50 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Stuff snipped. I like my Keltec 3AT because it is very pocketable. Yes, it
does not have the knockdown power of a larger bullet, but IIRC, lots of
people have been killed by .380 slugs. A guy locally who teaches carry
permit classes carries a Ruger GP 100 with a 4" barrel in a shoulder
harness. Dissed my Keltec big time. Half the people out there can't hit
**** anyway no matter what the caliber, shotguns excluded. I shot 288/300
on qualifying, so I think I could poke a hole in someone if I needed to.
Hell, old mobsters liked the .22's.

Steve

Ayup...mobsters like the 22, particularly when held at the proper point
at the back of the skull and the round fired. A decent knitting needle
does an equivelant job when employed the same way.

Not even close. A .22 hollowpoint ricochets around inside the skull
making brain pudding (stirred, not shaken) in milliseconds, and two of
them can be quietly administered in well under a second phut phut.

I'm not making this up. It's how my Dad was killed. I won't say more.

If you sneak up on an individual, and shoot him square in the side of
the head with a .380 you will likely kill him. Same if you shoot him
smack dab into the heart, when he is not expecting it. Shooting him
while he is asleep is also good with a .380, as long as you hit a
terminally conclusive zone and you have him pinned down.

On the other hand....most of the individuals you will encounter on the
street are already phyched up, and are in Attack mode. They may have a
nervous system boosted/twisted by illegal chemical agents such as
methamphetamine, PCP, heroin and so forth.

I can see why you want a .45 or three. I definitely defer to you to
decide what's best for you in your situation, lifestyle and
environment.

In these parts, the vast majority of violent attacks by people like
you describe are done against other people like you describe, in
neighborhoods and locations that I have no reason to visit and don't.
Further, most such encounters are not in "attack mode" but in driveby
mode as in gang turf conflicts except for disputes over women or
drugs. Those don't affect me.

As far as I know, I have encountered *no* people like you describe in
the past 40 years. The most likely (and still highly unlikely)
threat for me is a young punk or punks looking for a lone person that
looks like easy prey to mug for a few bux. Seniors are initially
assessed as easy prey but display of any gun can instantly correct
such initial "easy prey" assessment error. 90% of legal civilian
self-defense armed encounters, excluding home invasion and business
robbery, result in no shots fired, and in those cases where shots were
fired the result was nearly always that the shot attacker retreated if
able to do so.

Reading Massad Ayoob and applying his guidance to my situation has
helped shape my thinking here. I didn't just make it up out of whole
cloth. By the way, Ayoob notes that most experts agree that .380 is
included in the list of viable self-defense calibers. It's about
minimum but it does make the list. My threat level is also minimal or
less.

So I conclude that the little gun I will sometimes carry will be of
far more potential value to me than the larger, heavier guns I leave
at home. I don't even carry the little one very often.

In such cases..,you are not shooting Granny in her rocking chair half
asleep. You are shooting a generally young, vicious animal who intends
to do you harm and with no finess or class or grace, who is likely to be
hyped up on drugs or adrenaline.

The greatest likelihood by a vast margin, as things stand today, is
that I'm shooting no one at all. Life's a risk until we die so we may
as well enjoy the trip. I don't drive a tank for fear of collisions
and I don't live in a stone house with no combustibles for fear of
fire. I would love to be able to play the banjo but I'm too lazy to
learn. I hack on my piano now and then, an Everett.

Re Granny in her rocker: she's probably at home so she just might
have a little sump'n sump'n under her lap cover, might have maxed her
CCW range qual test last fall, might be quite able to punch an eye,
ear or nostril with her little ****ant .380 Sig at any range possible
in the same room with her rocker and she may have maternal instinct
for sensing danger, disruption, misconduct or bad manners even if
seemingly snoozing. Might you grok the concept of "it's a really bad
idea to **** Ma off"?

Oh, and Gramps might be in the next room at home with an XD40 loaded
with Hydrashok, 12 in the mag and another in the spout, that he can
empty in 4 seconds with all shots shredding COM on an advancing target
starting at 21 feet.

Might a different easy prey metaphor be more appropos? G

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:21:56 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:38:53 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 13:17:50 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:44:05 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Stuff snipped. I like my Keltec 3AT because it is very pocketable. Yes, it
does not have the knockdown power of a larger bullet, but IIRC, lots of
people have been killed by .380 slugs. A guy locally who teaches carry
permit classes carries a Ruger GP 100 with a 4" barrel in a shoulder
harness. Dissed my Keltec big time. Half the people out there can't hit
**** anyway no matter what the caliber, shotguns excluded. I shot 288/300
on qualifying, so I think I could poke a hole in someone if I needed to.
Hell, old mobsters liked the .22's.

Steve

Ayup...mobsters like the 22, particularly when held at the proper point
at the back of the skull and the round fired. A decent knitting needle
does an equivelant job when employed the same way.

Not even close. A .22 hollowpoint ricochets around inside the skull
making brain pudding (stirred, not shaken) in milliseconds, and two of
them can be quietly administered in well under a second phut phut.

Of course. And if you stick in the knitting needle, clipping the cortex
and simply wiggle it around a bit....the puppet goes down like his
strings were cut instantly.

I'm not making this up. It's how my Dad was killed. I won't say more.

Interesting. Perhaps sometime....?

If you sneak up on an individual, and shoot him square in the side of
the head with a .380 you will likely kill him. Same if you shoot him
smack dab into the heart, when he is not expecting it. Shooting him
while he is asleep is also good with a .380, as long as you hit a
terminally conclusive zone and you have him pinned down.

On the other hand....most of the individuals you will encounter on the
street are already phyched up, and are in Attack mode. They may have a
nervous system boosted/twisted by illegal chemical agents such as
methamphetamine, PCP, heroin and so forth.

I can see why you want a .45 or three. I definitely defer to you to
decide what's best for you in your situation, lifestyle and
environment.

Keep in mind..that the criminals I may encounter..that may need to be
shot...are very similar to those criminals that you encounter that may
need to be shot. Its the sign of the times that they are all very
similar..addicts, violent, no sense of propriety..the usual.

If such is the case....is my need to stop that bad guy quickly...greater
or lesser than your need to stop the bad guy quickly?

Just wondering

In these parts, the vast majority of violent attacks by people like
you describe are done against other people like you describe, in
neighborhoods and locations that I have no reason to visit and don't.
Further, most such encounters are not in "attack mode" but in driveby
mode as in gang turf conflicts except for disputes over women or
drugs. Those don't affect me.

Then you obviously have no need for a weapon. Or a CCW.

As far as I know, I have encountered *no* people like you describe in
the past 40 years. The most likely (and still highly unlikely)
threat for me is a young punk or punks looking for a lone person that
looks like easy prey to mug for a few bux. Seniors are initially
assessed as easy prey but display of any gun can instantly correct
such initial "easy prey" assessment error. 90% of legal civilian
self-defense armed encounters, excluding home invasion and business
robbery, result in no shots fired, and in those cases where shots were
fired the result was nearly always that the shot attacker retreated if
able to do so.

Ill remember that when I visit several graves in the coming Christmas
season.

Reading Massad Ayoob and applying his guidance to my situation has
helped shape my thinking here. I didn't just make it up out of whole
cloth. By the way, Ayoob notes that most experts agree that .380 is
included in the list of viable self-defense calibers. It's about
minimum but it does make the list. My threat level is also minimal or
less.

No..your threat level is minimal. But when it happens..your need for a
real cartridge is 100%. So either you carry a gun for self defense if an
when, or you are simply carrying a small pretty object.

Do your fire extingishers at home exceed a few onces? If so..why?

So I conclude that the little gun I will sometimes carry will be of
far more potential value to me than the larger, heavier guns I leave
at home. I don't even carry the little one very often.

Why would you leave a decent gun at home? I and most of my friends
carry suitable weapons..and have daily..for and I include myself ....for
over 30 yrs. I personally, as a civilian, have been forced to draw my
weapon 6 times in those 30 yrs. Ive never needed to fire a shot.
However..can I say the same..the next time it happens? And it should be
noted..that a big hole in the end of that thing sticking out of my
hand.."looked like a ****ing cave" to one of the defendants who is still
sitting in jail..and will likely continue to do so for another 5-10 yrs.

Shrug...your choice. Ive stated that repeatedly.

In such cases..,you are not shooting Granny in her rocking chair half
asleep. You are shooting a generally young, vicious animal who intends
to do you harm and with no finess or class or grace, who is likely to be
hyped up on drugs or adrenaline.

The greatest likelihood by a vast margin, as things stand today, is
that I'm shooting no one at all. Life's a risk until we die so we may
as well enjoy the trip. I don't drive a tank for fear of collisions
and I don't live in a stone house with no combustibles for fear of
fire. I would love to be able to play the banjo but I'm too lazy to
learn. I hack on my piano now and then, an Everett.

So you dont have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers or insurance.
Right?


Re Granny in her rocker: she's probably at home so she just might
have a little sump'n sump'n under her lap cover, might have maxed her
CCW range qual test last fall, might be quite able to punch an eye,
ear or nostril with her little ****ant .380 Sig at any range possible
in the same room with her rocker and she may have maternal instinct
for sensing danger, disruption, misconduct or bad manners even if
seemingly snoozing. Might you grok the concept of "it's a really bad
idea to **** Ma off"?

So you will be going out armed with a .380..and Mary will be toting an
XD40? I hope its not in her purse. When they snag it..they get the gun
too.

Oh, and Gramps might be in the next room at home with an XD40 loaded
with Hydrashok, 12 in the mag and another in the spout, that he can
empty in 4 seconds with all shots shredding COM on an advancing target
starting at 21 feet.

Oh..so you do you carry a weapon about the house all the time? Its not a
big deal if you do of course. I do quite often. I generally simply
forget I have one on. Shrug. Not forget..shrug..its simply Part of me.

Might a different easy prey metaphor be more appropos? G

Only if it had any basis on reality.

Shrug

Do as you wish Don. I just hope you continue to have a life of peace
and no strife.

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

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.

I'm not so sure on the worry about restrictions, I think the worry is all the people
hoarding won't be buying ammo and components for years as they use up their hoard.

Perhaps the hoarders won't be a big issue, they, like I, will just consider their current
inventory as the floor for inventory going forwards.

I haven't bought large numbers of primers in years, the Clinton years. I just replace my
stock as I use it.

As far as the revolution, the politicians should keep their eye on the Military, every
member has given his or her's oath to defend this Country from all enemies, foreign or
domestic.

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

There seems to be a history of military deposing corrupt goverments. Don't think it can't
happen here.

I'd like to think we won't roll over like Canada, the UK, and the Aussies. At least
during my lifetime.

Try to keep this thread civil.

Wes


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

Don Foreman wrote:

I'm not feeling dissed, Gunner. I understand that your contempt is
for the round as compared to more potent calibers. I don't even
disgree: a .45 is undeniably more gun than a .380. For me it's a
matter of reality vs theory. I realized a little while ago that my
reality was that I just never seemed to carry a .45, .40 or 9mmp, even
on the infrequent occasions when I possibly should have been carrying
something. I have them, but I don't carry them. So I carried nothing.
Most of the time I feel no need to carry but there have been times on
my walks where I've been a bit uneasy. The little .380 is very easy
to drop into a pocket (Fist holster) so I sometimes grab it on the way
out the door. A .45 it certainly isn't, but it's considerably more
than nothing. Sometimes I feel a bit silly carrying even a .380 among
nice friendly young folks that say "Hi" along the trails, but I
don't tell anyone I have a gun in my pocket.

I tend to be found with a .380 more often than any other caliber. Not a stellar round but
normally if things to get the point of firearms, your aggressor has picked you for easy
pickings, aka known as 'food'. The firearm changes the equation if it comes to that. Any
gun pointed at you looks pretty big. If only we could know how often a gun aimed causes
the bad guy to break off and run there wouldn't be any argument on the RKBA.

When things cool off, starline brass is a good place to go for bulk brass. I tend to be
brass happy. Buy a new gun, get 500+ cases. My M1, well maybe 3000 or so.

I have carried a spare tire for 181,000 miles in my current car, 235,500 in my previous
truck, never needed it and I paid the price to own the tire and the cost in gas mileage. I
don't feel silly. I always felt good that a flat would not be a major event in my life.
Much like some wackjob deciding I'm his prey. Peace of mind has a value.


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

Wes wrote:
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.

I'm not so sure on the worry about restrictions, I think the worry is
all the people hoarding won't be buying ammo and components for years
as they use up their hoard.

Perhaps the hoarders won't be a big issue, they, like I, will just
consider their current inventory as the floor for inventory going
forwards.

I haven't bought large numbers of primers in years, the Clinton
years. I just replace my stock as I use it.

As far as the revolution, the politicians should keep their eye on
the Military, every member has given his or her's oath to defend this
Country from all enemies, foreign or domestic.

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

There seems to be a history of military deposing corrupt goverments.
Don't think it can't happen here.

I'd like to think we won't roll over like Canada, the UK, and the
Aussies. At least during my lifetime.

Try to keep this thread civil.

One of the biggest reasons for these shortages is foriegn sales Wes.
Arms sales are down overall in the international markets, but in spite of
that, the US has taken both market share and increased sales volume in both
the systems and small arms categories.

The k00ks that are building stocks in anticipation of some major upheaval
caused by the election of Obama are enough to tip a tight supply into a
bunch of spot shortages. I have not, for instance, seen a single caliber
listed in this group that I can't just go out and buy in quantities that my
local range would normally stock. They probably wouldn't let me buy them out
of anything but I was there two weeks ago and picked up everything I needed
off the shelf except for the rounds for my DE .50. I had to call ahead for
those and won't be shooting that one again until prices come down.

Manufacturer's have to make a considerable investment in equipment to add
capacity and the payback takes some time.
They well understand the nature of bubble and bust in their market having
been through one not that long ago, so they are content to raise prices in
order to throttle demand.

That's all there is to it and anyone with the least bit of common sense
knows it.
It's just a business decision.

--
John R. Carroll

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:07:15 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


Do as you wish Don. I just hope you continue to have a life of peace
and no strife.

Gunner

Thanks, roger that and back atcha.

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:25:58 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

You're part of the background noise, like a fan in a crowd at a sports
event
who gives encouragement to your favorite team. You give encouragement by
saying things that support the threat -- you say "Please stay in line and
heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll have to steer you with a
firmer hand," (as an explanation for carrying guns at a political rally)
and, avoiding attributing it to yourself, you say you're "glad" they're
saying it. That's part of what breaks down civil discourse and that
threatens "the security of a free state." The punks standing behind the
bully is a more appropriate metaphor, but the effect is like the cheers
from
the fans.

Whether anyone is listening to you and will act directly upon your
support
is not the question, nor the circumstance. You're adding one more voice
to
Gunner's "100 million friends" who he believes are going to support a
revolution. It's incitement with deniability. Good move. Like Steve,
you're
keeping yourself out of the line of fire while making clear you support
those who voice their threats.

I support the right of free speech, even when/if I
don't agree with it.

You've set up a strawman here, Steve. No one here has suggested that
anyone's free speech should be infringed. And you have said yourself that
you recognize that free speech -- from your mouth or from your gun -- ends
where one threatens another person. You've said that would be "crossing the
line," to use your words.

Despite that, with all of the bobbing and weaving going on here you may not
even remember that you have acknowledged that Christopher Broughton, the
Arizona gun-toter, was making a veiled threat that most people recognize,
but that you believe the threat is protected by the First Amendment. You've
contradicted yourself: you've said that he made no threat, but then said
that he did make a recognized threat, which you consider to be protected
speech.

Maybe we should give you a reminder, so you can see the pieces all in one
place:

About Broughton's "demonstration," Larry says:

"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."

To which Steve responds:

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

You're right about that latter point. And that's the way it is throughout
the US, not just in my world. A veiled threat to "steer" an individual with
a gun is a violation of the law everywhere in this country. A veiled threat
is a real threat in disguise. And "steering" with a gun is a thinly veiled
threat to someone that you'll shoot, in this case, if your "wishes" aren't
heeded. Otherwise, there is no point to the gun; as a form of "speech," it
would have no meaning. How else do you "steer" someone to adhere to your
wishes with a gun, except by threatening to use it against them?

Flag burning, open carry, whatever
form that speech/message takes, as long as it doesn't
cross the line. Neither flag burning, nor carrying at
a political rally cross the line out of the realm of
political speech. Period.

Right. But as I noted above, you acknowledge that the interpretation most
people would make of Broughton's actions is that it is a veiled threat. If
most people think it's a threat, that's a definition of the "reasonable
person" criterion for acting on possibly ambiguous, but dangerous, actions
by unknown persons. It's the defense you would use yourself if you had shot
and killed someone who was waving a gun at you while demanding your money.
Physical threats are over the line.

I wouldn't attribute this contradiction to the fact that you don't
understand it, but rather to the fact that you've taken an untenable
position and that those often lead to inescapable contradictions. That's
where your argument is at this moment.

For the record, and to exercise my own First Amendment rights g, I don't
believe you think this is a First Amendment issue at all. You see it as a
Second Amendment issue, and the First is just a red herring. But that's just
an opinion on my part. You recognize that expressing what you really think
about the use of the Second -- that it gives individuals license to threaten
political leaders if they upset you enough -- violates the very thing our
forefathers fought and died for, which is the right to elect our
representatives in a constitutional republic and to define our government
through popular votes, with a further right to protect ourselves and our
system of government against enemies, foreign or domestic, who would try to
overthrow our elected authorities. That's what Washington and over 16,000
militiamen did in the Whiskey Rebellion.

As Tim McVeigh found out to his dismay, "the people" are not in favor of
violent rebellion to overthrow our government. In fact, we executed him for
acting upon his belief, which apparently was sincere, that millions of
people were of the same state of mind as he was, and would rebel if he only
led the way. Within that mindset one can believe that he has a right to
threaten others -- or that his surrogates do, the "we people" Larry talks
about, who want to "steer" politicians with the barrel of a gun. Which makes
Larry "glad."

I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, but exercising my First Amendment
right again g, I'll tell you how this all looks to me. You, Larry, and
Gunner are the Twisted Sisters. Gunner is indulging one of his many
fantasies, one of his Timothy McVeigh moments, promoting the idea that 100
million of his "friends" are going to rise up and start killing elected
government officials (and all liberals, while they're at it) in three years'
time, while he sits on his porch laughing and playing his banjo. Larry, who
wouldn't threaten anyone himself, is glad that there are people out there
who *are* carrying guns and making veiled threats to steer the government
his way -- which he thinks is the way "the people" think, ignoring the
lessons of the Oklahoma bombing and other cause celebs of the "militias"
himself. You're the Constitutional Casuist, applying your extensive reading
of history to produce a sophistic defense for people who make veiled
threats, the Consigliere of the fantasy mob.

And I think you're all perpetual adolescents with a sick view of history and
our Constitution.


I'm sorry that's so difficult for you to understand,
but if you don't get it by now, I'm suspect you never
will.

So with that, I guess it's about time for me to also
say...

plonk

That's probably a good idea, because I don't think even your casuistic
skills can reconcile your convoluted position.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 8, 11:08*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Steve Ackman" wrote in message

rg...



In , on Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:25:58 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

You're part of the background noise, like a fan in a crowd at a sports
event
who gives encouragement to your favorite team. You give encouragement by
saying things that support the threat -- you say "Please stay in line and
heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll have to steer you with a
firmer hand," (as an explanation for carrying guns at a political rally)
and, avoiding attributing it to yourself, you say you're "glad" they're
saying it. That's part of what breaks down civil discourse and that
threatens "the security of a free state." The punks standing behind the
bully is a more appropriate metaphor, but the effect is like the cheers
from
the fans.

Whether anyone is listening to you and will act directly upon your
support
is not the question, nor the circumstance. You're adding one more voice
to
Gunner's "100 million friends" who he believes are going to support a
revolution. It's incitement with deniability. Good move. Like Steve,
you're
keeping yourself out of the line of fire while making clear you support
those who voice their threats.

*I support the right of free speech, even when/if I
don't agree with it.

You've set up a strawman here, Steve. No one here has suggested that
anyone's free speech should be infringed. And you have said yourself that
you recognize that free speech -- from your mouth or from your gun -- ends
where one threatens another person. You've said that would be "crossing the
line," to use your words.

Despite that, with all of the bobbing and weaving going on here you may not
even remember that you have acknowledged that Christopher Broughton, the
Arizona gun-toter, was making a veiled threat that most people recognize,
but that you believe the threat is protected by the First Amendment. You've
contradicted yourself: you've said that he made no threat, but then said
that he did make a recognized threat, which you consider to be protected
speech.

Maybe we should give you a reminder, so you can see the pieces all in one
place:

About Broughton's "demonstration," Larry says:

"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."

To which Steve responds:

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

You're right about that latter point. And that's the way it is throughout
the US, not just in my world. A veiled threat to "steer" an individual with
a gun is a violation of the law everywhere in this country. A veiled threat
is a real threat in disguise. And "steering" with a gun is a thinly veiled
threat to someone that you'll shoot, in this case, if your "wishes" aren't
heeded. Otherwise, there is no point to the gun; as a form of "speech," it
would have no meaning. How else do you "steer" someone to adhere to your
wishes with a gun, except by threatening to use it against them?

Flag burning, open carry, whatever
form that speech/message takes, as long as it doesn't
cross the line. *Neither flag burning, nor carrying at
a political rally cross the line out of the realm of
political speech. *Period.

Right. But as I noted above, you acknowledge that the interpretation most
people would make of Broughton's actions is that it is a veiled threat. If
most people think it's a threat, that's a definition of the "reasonable
person" criterion for acting on possibly ambiguous, but dangerous, actions
by unknown persons. It's the defense you would use yourself if you had shot
and killed someone who was waving a gun at you while demanding your money..
Physical threats are over the line.

I wouldn't attribute this contradiction to the fact that you don't
understand it, but rather to the fact that you've taken an untenable
position and that those often lead to inescapable contradictions. That's
where your argument is at this moment.

For the record, and to exercise my own First Amendment rights g, I don't
believe you think this is a First Amendment issue at all. You see it as a
Second Amendment issue, and the First is just a red herring. But that's just
an opinion on my part. You recognize that expressing what you really think
about the use of the Second -- that it gives individuals license to threaten
political leaders if they upset you enough -- violates the very thing our
forefathers fought and died for, which is the right to elect our
representatives in a constitutional republic and to define our government
through popular votes, with a further right to protect ourselves and our
system of government against enemies, foreign or domestic, who would try to
overthrow our elected authorities. That's what Washington and over 16,000
militiamen did in the Whiskey Rebellion.

As Tim McVeigh found out to his dismay, "the people" are not in favor of
violent rebellion to overthrow our government. In fact, we executed him for
acting upon his belief, which apparently was sincere, that millions of
people were of the same state of mind as he was, and would rebel if he only
led the way. Within that mindset one can believe that he has a right to
threaten others -- or that his surrogates do, the "we people" Larry talks
about, who want to "steer" politicians with the barrel of a gun. Which makes
Larry "glad."

I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, but exercising my First Amendment
right again g, I'll tell you how this all looks to me. You, Larry, and
Gunner are the Twisted Sisters. Gunner is indulging one of his many
fantasies, one of his Timothy McVeigh moments, promoting the idea that 100
million of his "friends" are going to rise up and start killing elected
government officials (and all liberals, while they're at it) in three years'
time, while he sits on his porch laughing and playing his banjo. Larry, who
wouldn't threaten anyone himself, is glad that there are people out there
who *are* carrying guns and making veiled threats to steer the government
his way -- which he thinks is the way "the people" think, ignoring the
lessons of the Oklahoma bombing and other cause celebs of the "militias"
himself. You're the Constitutional Casuist, applying your extensive reading
of history to produce a sophistic defense for people who make veiled
threats, the Consigliere of the fantasy mob.

And I think you're all perpetual adolescents with a sick view of history and
our Constitution.



*I'm sorry that's so difficult for you to understand,
but if you don't get it by now, I'm suspect you never
will.

*So with that, I guess it's about time for me to also
say...

plonk

That's probably a good idea, because I don't think even your casuistic
skills can reconcile your convoluted position.

--
Ed Huntress

Further, while waving the flag and praising the constitution, these
people seem to conveniently forget that the politicians they are so
ready to kill were elected by the people, according to the rules. They
don't like the outcome of the 2008 election, so rather than looking
forward to "better" candidates in 2012,,they fantasize and endorse
armed revolution.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 11:08 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


That's probably a good idea, because I don't think even your casuistic
skills can reconcile your convoluted position.

--
Ed Huntress

Further, while waving the flag and praising the constitution, these
people seem to conveniently forget that the politicians they are so
ready to kill were elected by the people, according to the rules. They
don't like the outcome of the 2008 election, so rather than looking
forward to "better" candidates in 2012,,they fantasize and endorse
armed revolution.

Elections? They don' want no steenkeeng elections, man. They want an
aristocracy of crackers, rednecks, and trailer trash. Those are the "people"
they're talking about. They'll rule by the gun and kill anyone who presumes
to vote in opposition. Gunner says the Cracker Republic is coming in three
years.

That's their dream. That's their fantasy.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:08:44 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
. org...
In , on Mon, 7 Sep 2009 00:25:58 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

You're part of the background noise, like a fan in a crowd at a sports
event
who gives encouragement to your favorite team. You give encouragement by
saying things that support the threat -- you say "Please stay in line and
heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll have to steer you with a
firmer hand," (as an explanation for carrying guns at a political rally)
and, avoiding attributing it to yourself, you say you're "glad" they're
saying it. That's part of what breaks down civil discourse and that
threatens "the security of a free state." The punks standing behind the
bully is a more appropriate metaphor, but the effect is like the cheers
from
the fans.

Whether anyone is listening to you and will act directly upon your
support
is not the question, nor the circumstance. You're adding one more voice
to
Gunner's "100 million friends" who he believes are going to support a
revolution. It's incitement with deniability. Good move. Like Steve,
you're
keeping yourself out of the line of fire while making clear you support
those who voice their threats.

I support the right of free speech, even when/if I
don't agree with it.

You've set up a strawman here, Steve. No one here has suggested that
anyone's free speech should be infringed. And you have said yourself that
you recognize that free speech -- from your mouth or from your gun -- ends
where one threatens another person. You've said that would be "crossing the
line," to use your words.

Despite that, with all of the bobbing and weaving going on here you may not
even remember that you have acknowledged that Christopher Broughton, the
Arizona gun-toter, was making a veiled threat that most people recognize,
but that you believe the threat is protected by the First Amendment. You've
contradicted yourself: you've said that he made no threat, but then said
that he did make a recognized threat, which you consider to be protected
speech.

Maybe we should give you a reminder, so you can see the pieces all in one
place:

About Broughton's "demonstration," Larry says:

"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."

To which Steve responds:

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

You're right about that latter point. And that's the way it is throughout
the US, not just in my world. A veiled threat to "steer" an individual with
a gun is a violation of the law everywhere in this country. A veiled threat
is a real threat in disguise. And "steering" with a gun is a thinly veiled
threat to someone that you'll shoot, in this case, if your "wishes" aren't
heeded. Otherwise, there is no point to the gun; as a form of "speech," it
would have no meaning. How else do you "steer" someone to adhere to your
wishes with a gun, except by threatening to use it against them?

What Ed continues to fail to see is that any escalation is not
instant, just as a cop doesn't shoot a traffic offender during a
routine stop. If they resist, he speaks more loudly in command voice.
If they resist further, he gets out his baton or mace. If they still
continue he gets out hie pistol, all the while calling in backup.

The gun was a caveat not to push the American people that far, one
possible (worst case) scenario.


Flag burning, open carry, whatever
form that speech/message takes, as long as it doesn't
cross the line. Neither flag burning, nor carrying at
a political rally cross the line out of the realm of
political speech. Period.

Right. But as I noted above, you acknowledge that the interpretation most
people would make of Broughton's actions is that it is a veiled threat. If
most people think it's a threat, that's a definition of the "reasonable
person" criterion for acting on possibly ambiguous, but dangerous, actions
by unknown persons. It's the defense you would use yourself if you had shot
and killed someone who was waving a gun at you while demanding your money.
Physical threats are over the line.

I wouldn't attribute this contradiction to the fact that you don't
understand it, but rather to the fact that you've taken an untenable
position and that those often lead to inescapable contradictions. That's
where your argument is at this moment.

For the record, and to exercise my own First Amendment rights g, I don't
believe you think this is a First Amendment issue at all. You see it as a
Second Amendment issue, and the First is just a red herring. But that's just
an opinion on my part. You recognize that expressing what you really think
about the use of the Second -- that it gives individuals license to threaten
political leaders if they upset you enough -- violates the very thing our
forefathers fought and died for, which is the right to elect our
representatives in a constitutional republic and to define our government
through popular votes, with a further right to protect ourselves and our
system of government against enemies, foreign or domestic, who would try to
overthrow our elected authorities. That's what Washington and over 16,000
militiamen did in the Whiskey Rebellion.

As Tim McVeigh found out to his dismay, "the people" are not in favor of
violent rebellion to overthrow our government. In fact, we executed him for
acting upon his belief, which apparently was sincere, that millions of
people were of the same state of mind as he was, and would rebel if he only
led the way. Within that mindset one can believe that he has a right to
threaten others -- or that his surrogates do, the "we people" Larry talks
about, who want to "steer" politicians with the barrel of a gun. Which makes
Larry "glad."

(You're still full of ****, Ed. Read what my words _said_, not what
you imagine them to be in you darkest goddamned nightmare.)


I'm sure you don't care about my opinion, but exercising my First Amendment
right again g, I'll tell you how this all looks to me. You, Larry, and
Gunner are the Twisted Sisters. Gunner is indulging one of his many
fantasies, one of his Timothy McVeigh moments, promoting the idea that 100
million of his "friends" are going to rise up and start killing elected
government officials (and all liberals, while they're at it) in three years'
time, while he sits on his porch laughing and playing his banjo. Larry, who
wouldn't threaten anyone himself, is glad that there are people out there
who *are* carrying guns and making veiled threats to steer the government
his way -- which he thinks is the way "the people" think, ignoring the
lessons of the Oklahoma bombing and other cause celebs of the "militias"
himself. You're the Constitutional Casuist, applying your extensive reading
of history to produce a sophistic defense for people who make veiled
threats, the Consigliere of the fantasy mob.

And I think you're all perpetual adolescents with a sick view of history and
our Constitution.

(Get over it.)


I'm sorry that's so difficult for you to understand,
but if you don't get it by now, I'm suspect you never
will.

So with that, I guess it's about time for me to also
say...

plonk

That's probably a good idea, because I don't think even your casuistic
skills can reconcile your convoluted position.

Quote this for Ed since he continues to post negative things about me
after plonking me. That isn't the moral high ground, is it?

--
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite
at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
--Ronald Reagan

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:07:15 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



Then you obviously have no need for a weapon. Or a CCW.

I thought at some length (about half a mile) about your comment today
while out hiking my daily three on a lovely September day in MN. The
hills seemed a bit less arduous today with the nice breeze. I
sometimes temper my pace a bit up the steep hills but I didn't today.
Quicktime march all the way hooaahhh.

I concluded that you're probably right: I probably don't need a CCW
or to carry a weapon. I always carry a blade but that hardly counts
at my age. Your note logically follows from what I've written in
previous posts, and I think it's so. Gunner Asch, voice of moderate
reason? Holy moley, Ole!

This being so, carrying a pocket .380 now and then is obviously more
than sufficient if perhaps absurd for the likes of me. My petit
carry need not have the one-shot-drop potential of dropping a gorilla
like a sack of doorknobs to accomplish its mission of making spooky
old moi feel a bit safer on the trail.

I suspect you'll understand a bit about spooky. Some might call it
situational awareness. Tomato, tomahto. Being spooked by noticed
non-threats may mark us as odd in polite society but it doesn't get
us killed. We are still alive partly because we heeded our spooks,
our unknown senses, the short hairs on the back of our necks. There's
a difference between fear and paying attention. Managing fear is an
essential survival skill for those who go in harm's way willingly or
otherwise and the memory, learned behavior, tends to stick.

The life-preservation/defense device I'm actually more likely to need
is a defibrillator and I do pack one of those everywhere 24/7. Very
concealed in it's USP (under skin pocket). G 40 joules or 29.5
ft-lb per whack, about a seventh of the energy of a .380 round but
they tell me that it usually gits 'er done. It's a heart shot every
time, dead certain. Um, let's just say certain...

This logic and POV (not privately owned vehicle, GI, and why did they
think only privates owned vehicles anyway) is actually consistent
with my approach from the gitgo. I didn't think I needed a handgun
back in '06 when I bought my first one but I knew that if something
changed so I did need one it'd be far too late then to start shopping
and developing skills. It took me most of a year to select one (a
..40), purchase it, and develop what I regarded as a functional level
of proficiency with it. My primary armed defense interest was then
and still is defense against home invasion. I wanted to supplement
the somewhat unwieldy 12-gage that's been in the closet for decades
and retire the Louisville Slugger.

Note please that we're not nearly as advanced a civilization out here
in flyover country as y'all are in California. We just started
locking our doors at night a few years ago. In more rural MN it is
not uncommon to see a truck parked in town with keys in the ignition
and power tools loose in the bed though that's changing rapidly in
those counties being invaded by illegal immigrants. That isn't
widespread yet, but like aquatic Asian milfoil, purple loosestrife and
other noxious species it will inexorably spread until we find a way to
control it.

I thought and think that any civilian who owns a handgun should be
competently trained in the legal rights, responsibilities and rules of
engagement applicable in his jurisdiction. Vets need this as much as
anyone, probably more. I think it's foolish to do less because the
laws are what they are regardless of what one might think they should
be. The objective was not to check a box, it was to keep my tender ass
out of jail. I regard that as a priority. The fact that you are still
at large may indicate that you have a similar priority.

In MN the CCW courses are exactly this sort of training so I took the
course very shortly after my first handgun purchase. I had no desire
or intent to carry and didn't even intend to apply for a permit. But
once I'd passed the course and range qual I figured "why not". The
answer to that was "because it costs another hunnerd bux" but I went
ahead and did it anyway. If nothing else it simplifies transport of
handguns and ammo considerably.

We now have a selection of handguns in various sizes and calibers, and
some proficiency with all of them. No safe queens; we shoot them all.
That isn't due to any sense of need but simply because we discovered
that we enjoy owning them and shooting them. We don't enjoy carrying
them and, as you observed, we don't need to as things stand right now.
If our threat/risk level assessment should change we can easily and
instantly adapt because we have the kit, the permits and the skills.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:42:23 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


I'm sorry that's so difficult for you to understand,
but if you don't get it by now, I'm suspect you never
will.

So with that, I guess it's about time for me to also
say...

plonk

That's probably a good idea, because I don't think even your casuistic
skills can reconcile your convoluted position.

Quote this for Ed since he continues to post negative things about me
after plonking me. That isn't the moral high ground, is it?


Ed...moral high ground? Surely you jest. He at best was a RINO..at
worst..just another Leftist kook. Since the Obamassiah and the DNC run
all branches of the government...and we are rapidly heading towards the
Great Depression Part Deux...he has hitched his wagon to the Leftwing
and is riding in it..waving his hat and screaming Yahooo!!! as it heads
ever downwards.


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:32:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:07:15 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



Then you obviously have no need for a weapon. Or a CCW.

I thought at some length (about half a mile) about your comment today
while out hiking my daily three on a lovely September day in MN. The
hills seemed a bit less arduous today with the nice breeze. I
sometimes temper my pace a bit up the steep hills but I didn't today.
Quicktime march all the way hooaahhh.

I concluded that you're probably right: I probably don't need a CCW
or to carry a weapon. I always carry a blade but that hardly counts
at my age. Your note logically follows from what I've written in
previous posts, and I think it's so. Gunner Asch, voice of moderate
reason? Holy moley, Ole!

This being so, carrying a pocket .380 now and then is obviously more
than sufficient if perhaps absurd for the likes of me. My petit
carry need not have the one-shot-drop potential of dropping a gorilla
like a sack of doorknobs to accomplish its mission of making spooky
old moi feel a bit safer on the trail.

I suspect you'll understand a bit about spooky. Some might call it
situational awareness. Tomato, tomahto. Being spooked by noticed
non-threats may mark us as odd in polite society but it doesn't get
us killed. We are still alive partly because we heeded our spooks,
our unknown senses, the short hairs on the back of our necks. There's
a difference between fear and paying attention. Managing fear is an
essential survival skill for those who go in harm's way willingly or
otherwise and the memory, learned behavior, tends to stick.

The life-preservation/defense device I'm actually more likely to need
is a defibrillator and I do pack one of those everywhere 24/7. Very
concealed in it's USP (under skin pocket). G 40 joules or 29.5
ft-lb per whack, about a seventh of the energy of a .380 round but
they tell me that it usually gits 'er done. It's a heart shot every
time, dead certain. Um, let's just say certain...

This logic and POV (not privately owned vehicle, GI, and why did they
think only privates owned vehicles anyway) is actually consistent
with my approach from the gitgo. I didn't think I needed a handgun
back in '06 when I bought my first one but I knew that if something
changed so I did need one it'd be far too late then to start shopping
and developing skills. It took me most of a year to select one (a
.40), purchase it, and develop what I regarded as a functional level
of proficiency with it. My primary armed defense interest was then
and still is defense against home invasion. I wanted to supplement
the somewhat unwieldy 12-gage that's been in the closet for decades
and retire the Louisville Slugger.

Note please that we're not nearly as advanced a civilization out here
in flyover country as y'all are in California. We just started
locking our doors at night a few years ago. In more rural MN it is
not uncommon to see a truck parked in town with keys in the ignition
and power tools loose in the bed though that's changing rapidly in
those counties being invaded by illegal immigrants. That isn't
widespread yet, but like aquatic Asian milfoil, purple loosestrife and
other noxious species it will inexorably spread until we find a way to
control it.

I thought and think that any civilian who owns a handgun should be
competently trained in the legal rights, responsibilities and rules of
engagement applicable in his jurisdiction. Vets need this as much as
anyone, probably more. I think it's foolish to do less because the
laws are what they are regardless of what one might think they should
be. The objective was not to check a box, it was to keep my tender ass
out of jail. I regard that as a priority. The fact that you are still
at large may indicate that you have a similar priority.

In MN the CCW courses are exactly this sort of training so I took the
course very shortly after my first handgun purchase. I had no desire
or intent to carry and didn't even intend to apply for a permit. But
once I'd passed the course and range qual I figured "why not". The
answer to that was "because it costs another hunnerd bux" but I went
ahead and did it anyway. If nothing else it simplifies transport of
handguns and ammo considerably.

We now have a selection of handguns in various sizes and calibers, and
some proficiency with all of them. No safe queens; we shoot them all.
That isn't due to any sense of need but simply because we discovered
that we enjoy owning them and shooting them. We don't enjoy carrying
them and, as you observed, we don't need to as things stand right now.
If our threat/risk level assessment should change we can easily and
instantly adapt because we have the kit, the permits and the skills.


Fair enough. When you feel the Need to carry...carry something a bit
better than a .380...ok? Id hate to read the crime report and find out
you pumped a full magazine into the perp and he still cut out your
heart.

Respects

Gunner

The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
Fair enough. When you feel the Need to carry...carry something a bit
better than a .380...ok? Id hate to read the crime report and find out
you pumped a full magazine into the perp and he still cut out your
heart.

Respects

Gunner


If the only resource at hand is a .380 at the moment of need, think
knee caps not body mass. Then simply outrun the perp.

Best Regards
Tom.

Gunner Asch wrote:

Fair enough. When you feel the Need to carry...carry something a bit
better than a .380...ok? Id hate to read the crime report and find out
you pumped a full magazine into the perp and he still cut out your
heart.

Respects

Gunner

You still miss the point. The .380 is for when you DON'T feel the need
to carry. If you feel the need to carry, you carry something more
powerful.

AND the .380.

David

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:06:39 -0600, the infamous Steve Ackman
scrawled the following:

In , on Tue, 08 Sep 2009
18:42:23 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

Quote this for Ed since he continues to post negative things about me
after plonking me.

Sorry, no can do. I skimmed over your remarks, but
snipped the whole thing without reading it. Very easy
to do when quoted material is red on black (not
particularly easy to read anyway), while new material
is teal on black.

So dump SLRN, eh? Or change the display to suit. Linux doesn't
_have_ to be just like good, old DOS, y'know. g


Put the cursor at the top, hit ^K
and it disappears with great dispatch.

....though it has its advantages.


That isn't the moral high ground, is it?

Would you have expected anything different?

From a guy who's looking and acting more and more like a Democrat? No.

--
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite
at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
--Ronald Reagan

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:41:58 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:32:02 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:07:15 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



Then you obviously have no need for a weapon. Or a CCW.

I thought at some length (about half a mile) about your comment today
while out hiking my daily three on a lovely September day in MN. The
hills seemed a bit less arduous today with the nice breeze. I
sometimes temper my pace a bit up the steep hills but I didn't today.
Quicktime march all the way hooaahhh.

I concluded that you're probably right: I probably don't need a CCW
or to carry a weapon. I always carry a blade but that hardly counts
at my age. Your note logically follows from what I've written in
previous posts, and I think it's so. Gunner Asch, voice of moderate
reason? Holy moley, Ole!

This being so, carrying a pocket .380 now and then is obviously more
than sufficient if perhaps absurd for the likes of me. My petit
carry need not have the one-shot-drop potential of dropping a gorilla
like a sack of doorknobs to accomplish its mission of making spooky
old moi feel a bit safer on the trail.

I suspect you'll understand a bit about spooky. Some might call it
situational awareness. Tomato, tomahto. Being spooked by noticed
non-threats may mark us as odd in polite society but it doesn't get
us killed. We are still alive partly because we heeded our spooks,
our unknown senses, the short hairs on the back of our necks. There's
a difference between fear and paying attention. Managing fear is an
essential survival skill for those who go in harm's way willingly or
otherwise and the memory, learned behavior, tends to stick.

The life-preservation/defense device I'm actually more likely to need
is a defibrillator and I do pack one of those everywhere 24/7. Very
concealed in it's USP (under skin pocket). G 40 joules or 29.5
ft-lb per whack, about a seventh of the energy of a .380 round but
they tell me that it usually gits 'er done. It's a heart shot every
time, dead certain. Um, let's just say certain...

This logic and POV (not privately owned vehicle, GI, and why did they
think only privates owned vehicles anyway) is actually consistent
with my approach from the gitgo. I didn't think I needed a handgun
back in '06 when I bought my first one but I knew that if something
changed so I did need one it'd be far too late then to start shopping
and developing skills. It took me most of a year to select one (a
.40), purchase it, and develop what I regarded as a functional level
of proficiency with it. My primary armed defense interest was then
and still is defense against home invasion. I wanted to supplement
the somewhat unwieldy 12-gage that's been in the closet for decades
and retire the Louisville Slugger.

Note please that we're not nearly as advanced a civilization out here
in flyover country as y'all are in California. We just started
locking our doors at night a few years ago. In more rural MN it is
not uncommon to see a truck parked in town with keys in the ignition
and power tools loose in the bed though that's changing rapidly in
those counties being invaded by illegal immigrants. That isn't
widespread yet, but like aquatic Asian milfoil, purple loosestrife and
other noxious species it will inexorably spread until we find a way to
control it.

(We're still pretty rural here in most of OR, too. I just discovered
some puncturevine along the road at the front of my lot. The upwind
neighbor has thistles and lets them blow, so I'm now constantly
digging up new stickery plants.)


I thought and think that any civilian who owns a handgun should be
competently trained in the legal rights, responsibilities and rules of
engagement applicable in his jurisdiction. Vets need this as much as
anyone, probably more. I think it's foolish to do less because the
laws are what they are regardless of what one might think they should
be. The objective was not to check a box, it was to keep my tender ass
out of jail. I regard that as a priority. The fact that you are still
at large may indicate that you have a similar priority.

In MN the CCW courses are exactly this sort of training so I took the
course very shortly after my first handgun purchase. I had no desire
or intent to carry and didn't even intend to apply for a permit. But
once I'd passed the course and range qual I figured "why not". The
answer to that was "because it costs another hunnerd bux" but I went
ahead and did it anyway. If nothing else it simplifies transport of
handguns and ammo considerably.

(It simplifies the fear/guilt feelings regarding cops, right, Don?
I know it shows up that you have a CCW on a traffic cop's laptop, but
I wonder if they treat us differently because of it. I don't plan on
being pulled over and easing my curiosity any time soon.)


We now have a selection of handguns in various sizes and calibers, and
some proficiency with all of them. No safe queens; we shoot them all.
That isn't due to any sense of need but simply because we discovered
that we enjoy owning them and shooting them. We don't enjoy carrying
them and, as you observed, we don't need to as things stand right now.
If our threat/risk level assessment should change we can easily and
instantly adapt because we have the kit, the permits and the skills.

Exactly, it's insurance, plain and simple. I want to be able to defend
myself when I'm out shooting pictures in the wilds of SoOR, and that
includes from thugs, hillbillies, pot farmers, wild animals, or other
threats. Jackelopes and vicious rabbits of Caerbannog need not apply.
We'd have to use one of these for one of those:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk


Fair enough. When you feel the Need to carry...carry something a bit
better than a .380...ok? Id hate to read the crime report and find out
you pumped a full magazine into the perp and he still cut out your
heart.

Don might have the last laugh there, as the 40 joules from Don's IED
zapped the heart burgurgular and stopped his heart.

--
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite
at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
--Ronald Reagan

Gunner Asch wrote:

Ed...moral high ground? Surely you jest. He at best was a RINO..at
worst..just another Leftist kook. Since the Obamassiah and the DNC run
all branches of the government...and we are rapidly heading towards the
Great Depression Part Deux...he has hitched his wagon to the Leftwing
and is riding in it..waving his hat and screaming Yahooo!!! as it heads
ever downwards.


Well, you have to admit that the 'Yahoo' part fits him. The
screaming will be worse when he wakes up.


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

Larry Jaques wrote:

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!


I know the feeling. My left index finger took a hit when I was hammering on a breaker bar
and the oversized wood workers mallet (looks like half a rolling pin) caught the edge of
the fender just enough to deflect my aim from the end of my breaker bar to my hand that
WAS going to be in the clear.

Cascading waves of pain with reverberation. I thought the finger was broken. Another
couple days and I'll be able to make a fist again.

So, I can say, "I feel your pain" with a straight face.

Wes

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:42:38 -0600, the infamous Steve Ackman
scrawled the following:

In , on Wed, 09 Sep 2009
06:13:39 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 00:06:39 -0600, the infamous Steve Ackman
scrawled the following:

Sorry, no can do. I skimmed over your remarks, but
snipped the whole thing without reading it. Very easy
to do when quoted material is red on black (not
particularly easy to read anyway), while new material
is teal on black.

So dump SLRN, eh? Or change the display to suit. Linux doesn't
_have_ to be just like good, old DOS, y'know. g

Exactly. I HAVE changed the display to suit. :-)

Sure, I could give it a white background, different
font, etc., and I could make the quoted text light
gray... but this
http://wizard.dyndns.org/slrn.pre1.0.0-11.png
is just familiar, and it makes picking out the new
material SO easy.

Egad, shades of MS-DOS 3.0 and the ElectroShock Therapy BBS! I'll bet
it's heaps faster there than it was on my old 6MHz 286 box with 640k
of memory!


I can just as easily set it to ignore quoted
material, but sometimes it's nice to be able to refer
back up, even if it is red. If it's something I find I
need more than a line or two to refresh my memory, I
simply hit ^P which takes me to the parent article, and
I can read it all in easier-on-the-eyes teal.

All in five minutes or less (for _each_ message), right?


I've tried just about every other newsreader there
is, and there just ISN'T anything better than slrn.
Exclamation Point. ;-)

Are you saying that you'd put one there _if_ the reader supported
them? snort


Put the cursor at the top, hit ^K and it disappears
with great dispatch.

...though it has its advantages.

Actually, that's due to the editor I'm using with it.
I've never found anything I like better than nano.
Which you'd probably also consider to be DOS-like.
If you ever did e-mail in Pine, the nano editor is
very similar Pine's pico editor, only improved.

Yeah, I used to use Pine all the time to fix my email boxes when
spammers would send 8MB files and choke my 5MB box.


Hey, I still prefer ncurses aumix for controlling the
audio http://wizard.dyndns.org/aumix.png even though
it can take on a lot of different looks.
http://jpj.net/~trevor/aumix/screenshot.html

Man, oh, MAN! Hain't ya ever heerd of Gnome, KDE, or Motif, son?


I'm sure I'll be playing around with the aumix
configs a lot more if a used Megatar Dragon happens to
show up here. ;-)

Ooooooooh! swoon Ye olde coffee biz must be doing well.

--
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite
at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
--Ronald Reagan

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:58:17 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

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!


I know the feeling. My left index finger took a hit when I was hammering on a breaker bar
and the oversized wood workers mallet (looks like half a rolling pin) caught the edge of
the fender just enough to deflect my aim from the end of my breaker bar to my hand that
WAS going to be in the clear.

Ouch! I use a Shop Fox urethane mallet. NICE! My wrists thank me.
http://www.amazon.com/Shop-Fox-oz-No.../dp/B0006618PO
I'd have used a dead blow on the breaker, though. How's the fender?
titter


Cascading waves of pain with reverberation. I thought the finger was broken. Another
couple days and I'll be able to make a fist again.

So, I can say, "I feel your pain" with a straight face.

4 days later it still hurts like hell, but the swelling is going down
and the skin on the top is starting to come up as it heals. I'm still
hoping the nail bed wasn't harmed. The deck/rails/metal cover demo
I'm doing on Friday ought to be interesting. I'll pad the hell out of
it and wear 2 gloves, at least on that hand. Luckily, tearing things
down doesn't take nearly the finess that building 'em requires, so
I'll have an extra week for it to heal.

It sure hurts worse than it looks.

--
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite
at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
--Ronald Reagan

Larry Jaques wrote:

I know the feeling. My left index finger took a hit when I was hammering on a breaker bar
and the oversized wood workers mallet (looks like half a rolling pin) caught the edge of
the fender just enough to deflect my aim from the end of my breaker bar to my hand that
WAS going to be in the clear.

Ouch! I use a Shop Fox urethane mallet. NICE! My wrists thank me.
http://www.amazon.com/Shop-Fox-oz-No.../dp/B0006618PO
I'd have used a dead blow on the breaker, though. How's the fender?
titter

Not a mark, except on me. Was a nice shade of purple.


Cascading waves of pain with reverberation. I thought the finger was broken. Another
couple days and I'll be able to make a fist again.

So, I can say, "I feel your pain" with a straight face.

4 days later it still hurts like hell, but the swelling is going down
and the skin on the top is starting to come up as it heals. I'm still
hoping the nail bed wasn't harmed. The deck/rails/metal cover demo
I'm doing on Friday ought to be interesting. I'll pad the hell out of
it and wear 2 gloves, at least on that hand. Luckily, tearing things
down doesn't take nearly the finess that building 'em requires, so
I'll have an extra week for it to heal.

Hire a kid to do the tear down. I hope the nail bed is okay. So far I'm lucky, in all my
mishaps over the years, I still have all my fingernails and phalanges.


It sure hurts worse than it looks.

At least you are still looking at it attached to you. Your doing better than that elderly
man that met the rabid Obama supporter.

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