On 2/25/2013 12:47 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/25/2013 11:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:21:58 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 10:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:55:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.

And who would do this? Chris's "foreign-born Muslim President"?

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the
nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of
more than 240,000 employees

Richard, I would not undertake to deal with someone else's paranoia.
Believe what you want.

And I really have to go. Hasta luego.



Sorry, Ed.
That was quoted straight off of their web site.

That's nice, but pointless.

On 2/25/2013 2:49 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/25/2013 12:47 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/25/2013 11:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:21:58 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 10:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:55:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.

And who would do this? Chris's "foreign-born Muslim President"?

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the
nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of
more than 240,000 employees

Richard, I would not undertake to deal with someone else's paranoia.
Believe what you want.

And I really have to go. Hasta luego.



Sorry, Ed.
That was quoted straight off of their web site.

That's nice, but pointless.


I know.

I'm good at that, I guess.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:19:09 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:38:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future.

We've had handgun registration in NJ since 1966, IIRC. How much longer
are we supposed to wait for confiscation?



License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?id=195


Registration Means Confiscation in California & Connecticut
by Stephen Cicero

Gun owners in California and Connecticut have discovered that it
really CAN happen here. Advertising has been strong here in San Diego
recently, urging all owners of the SKS "Sporter" to turn them in for a
$230 reimbursement before January 1, 2000. "If you own an SKS Sporter,
you can’t sell it and you can’t shoot it. You MUST turn it in before
January 1 or face criminal charges and confiscation" goes the ad which
has been run on local radio stations.

This particular problem started with passage of the Roberti-Roos
Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. At that time there were two
available models of the SKS rifle - one with a fixed magazine, and one
designed to accept a detachable magazine, the "Sporter" model.

The Roberti-Roos law banned sales of the SKS Sporter rifle, but owners
of the gun were able to keep them so long as they complied with a
background check and had the gun registered. Apparently, most records
of long gun sales were not retained, but the Sporter was treated
differently. Ownership was actually registered, and the records kept.

There was additional confusion over the SKS since there were
after-market kits available to convert the unregistered fixed-magazine
model to accept a detachable magazine. In response to the confusion,
California passed AB48 which granted immunity to SKS owners, but also
established a buyback program. As an aside, the buyback pays a higher
price than that for which the rifles were originally sold!

NOW, California has a new Attorney General, a Democratic Governor, and
a State Legislature also controlled by the Democrats. NOW the law is
being reinterpreted, and SKS owners who acted in good faith by
complying with the terms of Roberti-Roos are left holding the bag.
There are also some sixty additional models of "assault rifle",
outlawed since 1992, which appear on the list currently designated for
confiscation!

During his run for Governor in 1997, Former Attorney General Dan
Lungren reversed his own earlier decision about the SKS Sporter.
Bowing to political pressure, he declared them illegal, thus
demonstrating that the trust of SKS owners was misplaced.

In Connecticut, Governor John Rowland has signed a new law that allows
police to seize firearms from the home of any person whom authorities
believe may be CONSIDERING a criminal act. A warrant must be issued
based on probable cause, and the judge issuing the warrant may
consider numerous factors including threats or acts of violence,
cruelty to animals, and (of course) drug or alcohol abuse. This is
probably the first law in the nation that allows confiscation prior to
any overt violent act.

Of course, several people have raised Constitutional questions
regarding both of these developments, but here is a chilling comment
from Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California: "When
people turn in these guns and they get their vouchers, you know their
name is going into a hat. It’s going to go into a database as a
previous owner of an illegal assault gun and that concerns us."

The California DOJ has admitted they have records, they know who own
these firearms through the registration process, and have ordered
seizure and/or prosecution by law enforcement agencies throughout the
State.

A flyer printed by the San Diego Libertarian Party warns that "If this
trend continues we can expect that, in the future, other
semi-automatic firearms will be outlawed as well. The policies could
well spread state by state countrywide, outlawing semi-automatic
firearms of every sort. Seizure from those who abide by the law will
follow. Subsequent laws will eventually be targeted at pistols, rifles
and shotguns."

Some opponents of the new Connecticut law call it the 'turn in your
neighbor' law. They fear some people might attempt to use the law to
try to resolve petty disputes or to impose their views about guns on
their neighbors.

"The Constitution is being broken apart, piece by piece," said another
opponent of the new law.

The potential here for wholesale destruction of our remaining rights
is enormous. Opportunistic politicians around the country are sure to
jump onto the bandwagon unless we see serious political opposition,
and see it soon. Remember that this event turned on a weakness in one
political party which was quickly exploited by their victorious
opponents, and even if the tide turns at next election, we have lost
ground which will be difficult to regain."

Eddy again demonstrates that his widdle puddle in his widdle Blue
state matches his brain capacity.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6143039AAIVbUH

What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun
confiscation?
Let's stick to fairly recent examples, say the last 25 years. Anywhere
in the world. Are there any?

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian
states?

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed
in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to
confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this
list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of
the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to
confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about
every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use
the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same
registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was
covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was
closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace
period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that
those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the
grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law
enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the
firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from
the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners
turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or
whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and
counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt,
but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who
demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on
whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean
Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the
LA riots happened."


"Los Angeles Gun squad came to houses, slowly over years and took away
registered Assault Weapons. A friend of my Dad lost his, because his
"Paperwork" on an Armalite 180 was "wrong," Appears he didn't fill out
the form correctly. He abbreviated several times. So the police picked
up his gun. Two years before, the State of California asked all owners
of Assault Weapons to register them. They promised they would not use
the lists to confiscate any weapons.

Los Angeles Police Gun Squad is famous. Los Angeles is the second
largest city in America. There is ONE gun shop that sells handguns
within the actuall city limits. The LAPD gun squad found
technicalities to run the rest out. LAPD is very anti gun. If you fill
out a report for a stolen gun, you will get a long, rude, high
pressure lecture on why owning guns is wrong."

http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/1...s-on-the-bayou



That was a 30 second search. Yet Eddy couldnt be bothered to do just
that.

Gunner


3 years ago
The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

It should be no surprise to anyone that this is a crock of crap,
written by gun nutz for gun nutz, with only an incidental relationship
to reality.

Gunner's article regarding the SKS in California was published 13
YEARS AGO. Note that it doesn't talk about any specific
"confiscations." That's because they didn't happen. Ten or so people
were convicted under the confusion described, and the convictions were
all reversed by an act of the California legislature. There were, at
that time, "several hundred thousand" SKS rifles in California, says
the legislature.

The act that reversed those convictions and that extended by 18 months
the registration period for the "SKS Sporter," and for other SKS
versions converted to use detachable magazines, is available here, if
you're up for some tedious reading:

http://tinyurl.com/afgeopj

I have a lot of work to do, and this is the end of my tracking down
the endless bull**** from the gun nutz. Bogus quotes; twisted stories;
mysterious confiscations; gun laws in China and Cuba as examples of
what the US is like: these guys are out of their minds and they're
feeding paranoia on the part of those who are so inclined. If you
believe anything that comes from their mouths and keyboards, I'm sorry
for you.

But facts have little to do with anything the nutz believe, as we've
all learned by now. Believe what you want, and if you're still
paranoid, make sure you spend your money on US-made guns and ammo,
down to your last dollar and your kids' lunch money, if it makes you
feel safer. At least you'll be giving a boost to the US economy. d8-)

Hasta luego; I'm off to edit a metrology book.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:37:38 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:00:15 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 1:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:06 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

Tom's question is a nonsense question. My answer was a nonsense
answer.
snip

An excellent example of an ad hominid logic error!

Hmmm. "Ad hominid"? Is that someone who opposes all primates? Or only
the ones who think they're being logical? g


Oh look, the spelling police! OK officer, it's "ad Hominem". Aren't
spelling flames ANOTHER form of such?

You don't seem to know what either means. I thought you were taught by
the Jezzies?

Everyone I know who was taught by Jezzies thinks he knows all about
logic. But I've never seen a single one who does.

If I say "Tom is a jerk," that's ad hominem. If I say "Tom's question
is nonsense," that is not.

Arguing "To the man" means that I'm disparaging your character, and
that therefore you aren't to be believed. An example would be "Tom
beats his wife, so don't believe anything he says." If I say that you
said something foolish, that's not ad hominem.

The Jezzies would be annoyed with you, Tom.

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner wrote:

He is suffering from Blue Zone illness. Sadly.


It's usually fatal.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:15:05 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:19:09 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:38:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future.

We've had handgun registration in NJ since 1966, IIRC. How much longer
are we supposed to wait for confiscation?



License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?id=195


Registration Means Confiscation in California & Connecticut
by Stephen Cicero

Gun owners in California and Connecticut have discovered that it
really CAN happen here. Advertising has been strong here in San Diego
recently, urging all owners of the SKS "Sporter" to turn them in for a
$230 reimbursement before January 1, 2000. "If you own an SKS Sporter,
you can’t sell it and you can’t shoot it. You MUST turn it in before
January 1 or face criminal charges and confiscation" goes the ad which
has been run on local radio stations.

This particular problem started with passage of the Roberti-Roos
Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. At that time there were two
available models of the SKS rifle - one with a fixed magazine, and one
designed to accept a detachable magazine, the "Sporter" model.

The Roberti-Roos law banned sales of the SKS Sporter rifle, but owners
of the gun were able to keep them so long as they complied with a
background check and had the gun registered. Apparently, most records
of long gun sales were not retained, but the Sporter was treated
differently. Ownership was actually registered, and the records kept.

There was additional confusion over the SKS since there were
after-market kits available to convert the unregistered fixed-magazine
model to accept a detachable magazine. In response to the confusion,
California passed AB48 which granted immunity to SKS owners, but also
established a buyback program. As an aside, the buyback pays a higher
price than that for which the rifles were originally sold!

NOW, California has a new Attorney General, a Democratic Governor, and
a State Legislature also controlled by the Democrats. NOW the law is
being reinterpreted, and SKS owners who acted in good faith by
complying with the terms of Roberti-Roos are left holding the bag.
There are also some sixty additional models of "assault rifle",
outlawed since 1992, which appear on the list currently designated for
confiscation!

During his run for Governor in 1997, Former Attorney General Dan
Lungren reversed his own earlier decision about the SKS Sporter.
Bowing to political pressure, he declared them illegal, thus
demonstrating that the trust of SKS owners was misplaced.

In Connecticut, Governor John Rowland has signed a new law that allows
police to seize firearms from the home of any person whom authorities
believe may be CONSIDERING a criminal act. A warrant must be issued
based on probable cause, and the judge issuing the warrant may
consider numerous factors including threats or acts of violence,
cruelty to animals, and (of course) drug or alcohol abuse. This is
probably the first law in the nation that allows confiscation prior to
any overt violent act.

Of course, several people have raised Constitutional questions
regarding both of these developments, but here is a chilling comment
from Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California: "When
people turn in these guns and they get their vouchers, you know their
name is going into a hat. It’s going to go into a database as a
previous owner of an illegal assault gun and that concerns us."

The California DOJ has admitted they have records, they know who own
these firearms through the registration process, and have ordered
seizure and/or prosecution by law enforcement agencies throughout the
State.

A flyer printed by the San Diego Libertarian Party warns that "If this
trend continues we can expect that, in the future, other
semi-automatic firearms will be outlawed as well. The policies could
well spread state by state countrywide, outlawing semi-automatic
firearms of every sort. Seizure from those who abide by the law will
follow. Subsequent laws will eventually be targeted at pistols, rifles
and shotguns."

Some opponents of the new Connecticut law call it the 'turn in your
neighbor' law. They fear some people might attempt to use the law to
try to resolve petty disputes or to impose their views about guns on
their neighbors.

"The Constitution is being broken apart, piece by piece," said another
opponent of the new law.

The potential here for wholesale destruction of our remaining rights
is enormous. Opportunistic politicians around the country are sure to
jump onto the bandwagon unless we see serious political opposition,
and see it soon. Remember that this event turned on a weakness in one
political party which was quickly exploited by their victorious
opponents, and even if the tide turns at next election, we have lost
ground which will be difficult to regain."

Eddy again demonstrates that his widdle puddle in his widdle Blue
state matches his brain capacity.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6143039AAIVbUH

What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun
confiscation?
Let's stick to fairly recent examples, say the last 25 years. Anywhere
in the world. Are there any?

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian
states?

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed
in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to
confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this
list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of
the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to
confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about
every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use
the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same
registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was
covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was
closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace
period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that
those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the
grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law
enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the
firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from
the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners
turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or
whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and
counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt,
but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who
demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on
whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean
Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the
LA riots happened."


"Los Angeles Gun squad came to houses, slowly over years and took away
registered Assault Weapons. A friend of my Dad lost his, because his
"Paperwork" on an Armalite 180 was "wrong," Appears he didn't fill out
the form correctly. He abbreviated several times. So the police picked
up his gun. Two years before, the State of California asked all owners
of Assault Weapons to register them. They promised they would not use
the lists to confiscate any weapons.

Los Angeles Police Gun Squad is famous. Los Angeles is the second
largest city in America. There is ONE gun shop that sells handguns
within the actuall city limits. The LAPD gun squad found
technicalities to run the rest out. LAPD is very anti gun. If you fill
out a report for a stolen gun, you will get a long, rude, high
pressure lecture on why owning guns is wrong."

http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/1...s-on-the-bayou



That was a 30 second search. Yet Eddy couldnt be bothered to do just
that.

Gunner


3 years ago
The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

It should be no surprise to anyone that this is a crock of crap,
written by gun nutz for gun nutz, with only an incidental relationship
to reality.

Gunner's article regarding the SKS in California was published 13
YEARS AGO. Note that it doesn't talk about any specific
"confiscations." That's because they didn't happen. Ten or so people
were convicted under the confusion described, and the convictions were
all reversed by an act of the California legislature. There were, at
that time, "several hundred thousand" SKS rifles in California, says
the legislature.

So 13 yrs ago is outside of your frame of reference or your ability to
comprehend? What IS your maximum ability to focus on civil law? 30
seconds? 30 minutes? 30 days? 30 months? Obviously its somewhere
short of 13 yrs...isnt it?

The act that reversed those convictions and that extended by 18 months
the registration period for the "SKS Sporter," and for other SKS
versions converted to use detachable magazines, is available here, if
you're up for some tedious reading:

Oh.."reversed those convictions", so you are admitting there were
arrests and convictions..but they were later reversed. And how much
money did the victims have to come up with during their arrest, trial,
conviction and incarceration, no matter how long? Did the State
reimburse them? Did the State wipe their records clean? Are they no
longer listed as "felons" who are unable to own firearms.



http://tinyurl.com/afgeopj

I have a lot of work to do, and this is the end of my tracking down
the endless bull**** from the gun nutz. Bogus quotes; twisted stories;
mysterious confiscations; gun laws in China and Cuba as examples of
what the US is like: these guys are out of their minds and they're
feeding paranoia on the part of those who are so inclined. If you
believe anything that comes from their mouths and keyboards, I'm sorry
for you.

But facts have little to do with anything the nutz believe, as we've
all learned by now. Believe what you want, and if you're still
paranoid, make sure you spend your money on US-made guns and ammo,
down to your last dollar and your kids' lunch money, if it makes you
feel safer. At least you'll be giving a boost to the US economy. d8-)

Hasta luego; I'm off to edit a metrology book.

Dont let the door hit you in the ass.

Gunner


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:46:49 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:37:38 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:24 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:00:15 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 1:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:06 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

Tom's question is a nonsense question. My answer was a nonsense
answer.
snip

An excellent example of an ad hominid logic error!

Hmmm. "Ad hominid"? Is that someone who opposes all primates? Or only
the ones who think they're being logical? g


Oh look, the spelling police! OK officer, it's "ad Hominem". Aren't
spelling flames ANOTHER form of such?

You don't seem to know what either means. I thought you were taught by
the Jezzies?

Everyone I know who was taught by Jezzies thinks he knows all about
logic. But I've never seen a single one who does.

If I say "Tom is a jerk," that's ad hominem. If I say "Tom's question
is nonsense," that is not.

Arguing "To the man" means that I'm disparaging your character, and
that therefore you aren't to be believed. An example would be "Tom
beats his wife, so don't believe anything he says." If I say that you
said something foolish, that's not ad hominem.

The Jezzies would be annoyed with you, Tom.


And we have yet another example of Leftwing hate speech and bias and
bigotry.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:47:02 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 11:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:21:58 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 10:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:55:56 -0600,
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 2:07 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?


First question:

Yes, Ed. I do.

And who would do this? Chris's "foreign-born Muslim President"?

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the
nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of
more than 240,000 employees

Richard, I would not undertake to deal with someone else's paranoia.
Believe what you want.

And I really have to go. Hasta luego.



Sorry, Ed.
That was quoted straight off of their web site.


But an example of why taxes really do need to be increased :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:19:09 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:38:56 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future.

We've had handgun registration in NJ since 1966, IIRC. How much longer
are we supposed to wait for confiscation?



License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?id=195


Registration Means Confiscation in California & Connecticut
by Stephen Cicero

Gun owners in California and Connecticut have discovered that it
really CAN happen here. Advertising has been strong here in San Diego
recently, urging all owners of the SKS "Sporter" to turn them in for a
$230 reimbursement before January 1, 2000. "If you own an SKS Sporter,
you can’t sell it and you can’t shoot it. You MUST turn it in before
January 1 or face criminal charges and confiscation" goes the ad which
has been run on local radio stations.

This particular problem started with passage of the Roberti-Roos
Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. At that time there were two
available models of the SKS rifle - one with a fixed magazine, and one
designed to accept a detachable magazine, the "Sporter" model.

The Roberti-Roos law banned sales of the SKS Sporter rifle, but owners
of the gun were able to keep them so long as they complied with a
background check and had the gun registered. Apparently, most records
of long gun sales were not retained, but the Sporter was treated
differently. Ownership was actually registered, and the records kept.

There was additional confusion over the SKS since there were
after-market kits available to convert the unregistered fixed-magazine
model to accept a detachable magazine. In response to the confusion,
California passed AB48 which granted immunity to SKS owners, but also
established a buyback program. As an aside, the buyback pays a higher
price than that for which the rifles were originally sold!

NOW, California has a new Attorney General, a Democratic Governor, and
a State Legislature also controlled by the Democrats. NOW the law is
being reinterpreted, and SKS owners who acted in good faith by
complying with the terms of Roberti-Roos are left holding the bag.
There are also some sixty additional models of "assault rifle",
outlawed since 1992, which appear on the list currently designated for
confiscation!

During his run for Governor in 1997, Former Attorney General Dan
Lungren reversed his own earlier decision about the SKS Sporter.
Bowing to political pressure, he declared them illegal, thus
demonstrating that the trust of SKS owners was misplaced.

In Connecticut, Governor John Rowland has signed a new law that allows
police to seize firearms from the home of any person whom authorities
believe may be CONSIDERING a criminal act. A warrant must be issued
based on probable cause, and the judge issuing the warrant may
consider numerous factors including threats or acts of violence,
cruelty to animals, and (of course) drug or alcohol abuse. This is
probably the first law in the nation that allows confiscation prior to
any overt violent act.

Of course, several people have raised Constitutional questions
regarding both of these developments, but here is a chilling comment
from Sam Paredes, deputy director of Gun Owners of California: "When
people turn in these guns and they get their vouchers, you know their
name is going into a hat. It’s going to go into a database as a
previous owner of an illegal assault gun and that concerns us."

The California DOJ has admitted they have records, they know who own
these firearms through the registration process, and have ordered
seizure and/or prosecution by law enforcement agencies throughout the
State.

A flyer printed by the San Diego Libertarian Party warns that "If this
trend continues we can expect that, in the future, other
semi-automatic firearms will be outlawed as well. The policies could
well spread state by state countrywide, outlawing semi-automatic
firearms of every sort. Seizure from those who abide by the law will
follow. Subsequent laws will eventually be targeted at pistols, rifles
and shotguns."

Some opponents of the new Connecticut law call it the 'turn in your
neighbor' law. They fear some people might attempt to use the law to
try to resolve petty disputes or to impose their views about guns on
their neighbors.

"The Constitution is being broken apart, piece by piece," said another
opponent of the new law.

The potential here for wholesale destruction of our remaining rights
is enormous. Opportunistic politicians around the country are sure to
jump onto the bandwagon unless we see serious political opposition,
and see it soon. Remember that this event turned on a weakness in one
political party which was quickly exploited by their victorious
opponents, and even if the tide turns at next election, we have lost
ground which will be difficult to regain."

Eddy again demonstrates that his widdle puddle in his widdle Blue
state matches his brain capacity.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6143039AAIVbUH

What are some examples of where gun registration lead to gun
confiscation?
Let's stick to fairly recent examples, say the last 25 years. Anywhere
in the world. Are there any?

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian
states?

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed
in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to
confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this
list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of
the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to
confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about
every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use
the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same
registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was
covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was
closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace
period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that
those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the
grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law
enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the
firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from
the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners
turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or
whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and
counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt,
but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who
demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on
whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean
Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the
LA riots happened."


"Los Angeles Gun squad came to houses, slowly over years and took away
registered Assault Weapons. A friend of my Dad lost his, because his
"Paperwork" on an Armalite 180 was "wrong," Appears he didn't fill out
the form correctly. He abbreviated several times. So the police picked
up his gun. Two years before, the State of California asked all owners
of Assault Weapons to register them. They promised they would not use
the lists to confiscate any weapons.

Los Angeles Police Gun Squad is famous. Los Angeles is the second
largest city in America. There is ONE gun shop that sells handguns
within the actuall city limits. The LAPD gun squad found
technicalities to run the rest out. LAPD is very anti gun. If you fill
out a report for a stolen gun, you will get a long, rude, high
pressure lecture on why owning guns is wrong."

http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/1...s-on-the-bayou



That was a 30 second search. Yet Eddy couldnt be bothered to do just
that.

Gunner

Another point that you have missed is that "Gun Crime" has increased
substantially in England in spite of draconian gun laws. Apparently
criminals are actually ignoring (gasp) the laws forbidding the
ownership of firearms.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...89-decade.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...anned-n1464528
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-a-decade.html

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:47:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

"I'm a-coming Beenie Boy!" - Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent.


I figured you more for an 'El Kabooong!' type.

I couldn't go to school without first seeing an episode of Deputy Dawg
when I was 7, I guess.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

When I was in school, we learned of a concept
called "ex post facto". It's not legal for the
government to change the law later, and make
something legal (when you did it) into illegal,
later. So, the NYC folks legally bought guns.
Later, changed the law to make them illegal.
That's a violation of a very old principle.

Which some buttheads don't understand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:47:58 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...fiscation.html
This was true in New York City:
In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the
city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that
they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who
had
registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their
right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to
crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and
policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their
guns,
according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun
control.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

They were arrested for violating gun laws, butthead.

--
Ed Huntress

And, so why are there citizens groups like
Border Rescue, and Ranch Rescue? Because
the DHS and border folks either aren't doing
their job, or are being prevented from?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Richard" wrote in message
m...

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital
mission: to secure the nation from the many
threats we face. This requires the dedication of
more than 240,000 employees

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:47:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

"I'm a-coming Beenie Boy!" - Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent.


I figured you more for an 'El Kabooong!' type.

I couldn't go to school without first seeing an episode of Deputy Dawg
when I was 7, I guess.


And you'd still do it at 70, if some station would run them. ;-)

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:07:51 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Tom Gardner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html

I WANT one!


6272 Pearl Rd, Parma Heights, OH 44130
(440) 886-2170

I have one of those. NICE unit. Definitely get the one with the
piezo starter in it. They tend to blow out if you get the head too
close to a flammable object up up in the smoke.

I put my 20# propane tank on my HD pneumatic-tired hand truck and tie
the truck to my belt in the back. It hauls around quite easily.

I used it to sterilize the land under my fence to keep weeds down. And
I start burns with it after pruning.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

Those do look good for weed burning, temporary indoor heat (if you have a
lot of space!) and lighting bonfires, or for woodsmen, lighting back fires.
I'll admit, I havn't bought one, but it sure looks fun.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html


I have one of those. NICE unit. Definitely get the one with the
piezo starter in it. They tend to blow out if you get the head too
close to a flammable object up up in the smoke.

I put my 20# propane tank on my HD pneumatic-tired hand truck and tie
the truck to my belt in the back. It hauls around quite easily.

I used it to sterilize the land under my fence to keep weeds down. And
I start burns with it after pruning.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:13:21 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

Somehow you folks think that California is a typical Blue state.

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archive...is-a-red-state

Its not. Nor do I live in a Blue county. In fact..I live in a very
Red county where CCW is pretty much Shall issue and its chock full of
rednecks G As is most of the Central portion of the state.

We'uns only share some land mass with a few Blue areas..and we keep
them to the northwest or to the south..with mountains in between.


Can you imagine a week or two long power outage in the LA area?

In less than 72 hours, it would be a massive zombie apocalypse. With
all the food gone, they'd be eating corpses.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:14:37 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sun, 24 Feb 2013
21:13:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Gunner wrote:

Somehow you folks think that California is a typical Blue state.

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archive...is-a-red-state

Its not. Nor do I live in a Blue county. In fact..I live in a very
Red county where CCW is pretty much Shall issue and its chock full of
rednecks G As is most of the Central portion of the state.

We'uns only share some land mass with a few Blue areas..and we keep
them to the northwest or to the south..with mountains in between.


Can you imagine a week or two long power outage in the LA area?

It can be done. It might also cut off their water, too.

I'm surprised that Al Qaeda hasn't done that yet. That and the power
grids are easy targets for tangoes. Way too easy.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:52:54 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:07:41 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:19:27 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 12:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


Ed, if it comes to a law that says we can't buy guns, then I'd have to
join Gunner and the rest of the gun nuts.


And, I would hope, so would you.


Think of it as a question...

Let me try to clarify it:

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, where
would we be?

A. The UK

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, what would
it tell us about what just happened?

A: Something really bad. I'd be sure to keep two guns on my hips and
carry my pump shotgun loaded with #4 buck, in case the nutz get
frisky.

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, would I
follow Gunner?

A: He'd be playing banjo on his porch, going nowhere.

Next question? g

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...n-law/1859727/

Reducing the magazine capacity to 7 rounds makes all of New Yorks
police officers magazines illegal. The law granted NO dispensations
for cops. VBG

Um, with the exception of some compact .45s, aren't ALL semi-auto mags
considerably larger?

I wish all those farkin' idjuts would watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8adGfEJ-2Fg If someone wants to put a
lot of lead downrange, even smaller mags aren't going to make much
difference.


And this is what Eddy stands up For.

Yet he calls himself a Republican. Riiiiight.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:07:51 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Tom Gardner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html

I WANT one!


6272 Pearl Rd, Parma Heights, OH 44130
(440) 886-2170

I have one of those. NICE unit. Definitely get the one with the
piezo starter in it. They tend to blow out if you get the head too
close to a flammable object up up in the smoke.

I put my 20# propane tank on my HD pneumatic-tired hand truck and tie
the truck to my belt in the back. It hauls around quite easily.

I used it to sterilize the land under my fence to keep weeds down. And
I start burns with it after pruning.


How is it for roasting trolls? ;-)

Larry Jaques wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Can you imagine a week or two long power outage in the LA area?

In less than 72 hours, it would be a massive zombie apocalypse. With
all the food gone, they'd be eating corpses.


So, no real change other than the number of Zombies? ;-)

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:38:29 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:47:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

"I'm a-coming Beenie Boy!" - Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent.


I figured you more for an 'El Kabooong!' type.

I couldn't go to school without first seeing an episode of Deputy Dawg
when I was 7, I guess.


And you'd still do it at 70, if some station would run them. ;-)

Nah. I'm only 59, BTW. I'd watch Lloyd Bridges' 'Sea Hunt', though.
And I'd watch any older cartoon before watching any of the complete
trash animations they call "cartoons" nowadays. The new cartoon
characters are downright offensive!

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:47:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:07:51 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Tom Gardner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html

I WANT one!


6272 Pearl Rd, Parma Heights, OH 44130
(440) 886-2170

I have one of those. NICE unit. Definitely get the one with the
piezo starter in it. They tend to blow out if you get the head too
close to a flammable object up up in the smoke.

I put my 20# propane tank on my HD pneumatic-tired hand truck and tie
the truck to my belt in the back. It hauls around quite easily.

I used it to sterilize the land under my fence to keep weeds down. And
I start burns with it after pruning.


How is it for roasting trolls? ;-)

I'd be willing to bet it'd work like a charm, but shouldn't tests be
done? Be sure to tape it, Mikey, especially if you go to Joisey.

P.S: I'm still waiting for The Great Cull videos to start showing up
on YouTube. I'll bet they get shared and Liked a whole bunch.
wholesomely evil grinne

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:49:16 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Can you imagine a week or two long power outage in the LA area?

In less than 72 hours, it would be a massive zombie apocalypse. With
all the food gone, they'd be eating corpses.


So, no real change other than the number of Zombies? ;-)

sigh You have a real point there, sir.

--
When a quiet man is moved to passion, it seems the very earth will shake.
-- Stephanie Barron
(Something for the Powers That Be to remember, eh?)

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:38:29 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:47:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

"I'm a-coming Beenie Boy!" - Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent.


I figured you more for an 'El Kabooong!' type.

I couldn't go to school without first seeing an episode of Deputy Dawg
when I was 7, I guess.


And you'd still do it at 70, if some station would run them. ;-)

Nah. I'm only 59, BTW. I'd watch Lloyd Bridges' 'Sea Hunt', though.
And I'd watch any older cartoon before watching any of the complete
trash animations they call "cartoons" nowadays. The new cartoon
characters are downright offensive!


http://www.archive.org has some old cartoons that are in the public
domain. Lots of Buggs Bunny & Daffy Duck on Youtube.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:47:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:07:51 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Tom Gardner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html

I WANT one!


6272 Pearl Rd, Parma Heights, OH 44130
(440) 886-2170

I have one of those. NICE unit. Definitely get the one with the
piezo starter in it. They tend to blow out if you get the head too
close to a flammable object up up in the smoke.

I put my 20# propane tank on my HD pneumatic-tired hand truck and tie
the truck to my belt in the back. It hauls around quite easily.

I used it to sterilize the land under my fence to keep weeds down. And
I start burns with it after pruning.


How is it for roasting trolls? ;-)

I'd be willing to bet it'd work like a charm, but shouldn't tests be
done? Be sure to tape it, Mikey, especially if you go to Joisey.


What have I ever done that was bad enough that I have to go to
Joisey?


P.S: I'm still waiting for The Great Cull videos to start showing up
on YouTube. I'll bet they get shared and Liked a whole bunch.
wholesomely evil grinne


Viral, from day one?

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:49:16 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Can you imagine a week or two long power outage in the LA area?

In less than 72 hours, it would be a massive zombie apocalypse. With
all the food gone, they'd be eating corpses.


So, no real change other than the number of Zombies? ;-)

sigh You have a real point there, sir.


Still won't change the small amount of brains for them to feast on.
"California. The land of malnourished Zombies!"

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:35:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

When I was in school, we learned of a concept
called "ex post facto". It's not legal for the
government to change the law later, and make
something legal (when you did it) into illegal,
later.

Later, changed the law to make them illegal.
That's a violation of a very old principle.

Which some buttheads don't understand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Since ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution,
Article 1, Section 9, it seems likey that you don't understand what an
ex post facto law is, or that the story below is a bunch of bull.

--
Ed Huntress


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:47:58 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...fiscation.html
This was true in New York City:
In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the
city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that
they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who
had
registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their
right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to
crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and
policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their
guns,
according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun
control.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

They were arrested for violating gun laws, butthead.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:15:35 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:38:29 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:47:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

"I'm a-coming Beenie Boy!" - Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent.


I figured you more for an 'El Kabooong!' type.

I couldn't go to school without first seeing an episode of Deputy Dawg
when I was 7, I guess.


And you'd still do it at 70, if some station would run them. ;-)

Nah. I'm only 59, BTW. I'd watch Lloyd Bridges' 'Sea Hunt', though.
And I'd watch any older cartoon before watching any of the complete
trash animations they call "cartoons" nowadays. The new cartoon
characters are downright offensive!


http://www.archive.org has some old cartoons that are in the public
domain. Lots of Buggs Bunny & Daffy Duck on Youtube.

I won't ask _why_ you know that. wink

--
When a quiet man is moved to passion, it seems the very earth will shake.
-- Stephanie Barron
(Something for the Powers That Be to remember, eh?)

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:15:35 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:38:29 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:47:10 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

"I'm a-coming Beenie Boy!" - Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent.


I figured you more for an 'El Kabooong!' type.

I couldn't go to school without first seeing an episode of Deputy Dawg
when I was 7, I guess.


And you'd still do it at 70, if some station would run them. ;-)

Nah. I'm only 59, BTW. I'd watch Lloyd Bridges' 'Sea Hunt', though.
And I'd watch any older cartoon before watching any of the complete
trash animations they call "cartoons" nowadays. The new cartoon
characters are downright offensive!


http://www.archive.org has some old cartoons that are in the public
domain. Lots of Buggs Bunny & Daffy Duck on Youtube.

I won't ask _why_ you know that. wink


I looked for them when I was too sick to work for a couple weeks. I
needed something to distract me from the pain so I didn't fire up the
Sawsall and take off my left leg.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:26:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:35:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

When I was in school, we learned of a concept
called "ex post facto". It's not legal for the
government to change the law later, and make
something legal (when you did it) into illegal,
later.

Later, changed the law to make them illegal.
That's a violation of a very old principle.

Which some buttheads don't understand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Since ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution,
Article 1, Section 9, it seems likey that you don't understand what an
ex post facto law is, or that the story below is a bunch of bull.


You seem to forget the California SKS laws, Eddy.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:24:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:26:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:35:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

When I was in school, we learned of a concept
called "ex post facto". It's not legal for the
government to change the law later, and make
something legal (when you did it) into illegal,
later.

Later, changed the law to make them illegal.
That's a violation of a very old principle.

Which some buttheads don't understand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Since ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution,
Article 1, Section 9, it seems likey that you don't understand what an
ex post facto law is, or that the story below is a bunch of bull.


You seem to forget the California SKS laws, Eddy.

Wrong, on two counts.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/25/2013 9:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future.

We've had handgun registration in NJ since 1966, IIRC. How much longer
are we supposed to wait for confiscation?

License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.


You said the Christians in the ME would never be persecuted and
murdered. You were blind then as now. You don't see the camel's nose
in the tent.

It's OK, they are only taking away the Jews!

On 2/24/2013 9:07 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html

I WANT one!


6272 Pearl Rd, Parma Heights, OH 44130
(440) 886-2170


I have a "modified bitumin" roof coating or commonly called a melt-down
roof. A torch is used for installation and repair. So, I'll go get me one!

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:29:58 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/25/2013 9:38 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 05:22:54 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future.

We've had handgun registration in NJ since 1966, IIRC. How much longer
are we supposed to wait for confiscation?

License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?

How about NYC? No? Hmmm...

It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.


You said the Christians in the ME would never be persecuted and
murdered.

You keep saying that, but you've provided no example. I don't think I
ever said that. You were talking about them being "rounded up," like
the Nazis did with the Jews, and I said I didn't believe that would
happen. Whatever conflicts ensued between Muslimes and Christians, it
would be more like drive-by murders or gang attacks. And that's pretty
much what has happened since.

If you have an example, I'll correct my memory.

You were blind then as now. You don't see the camel's nose
in the tent.

snore


It's OK, they are only taking away the Jews!

They were rounding them up and slaughtering them!

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:58:49 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:24:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:26:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:35:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

When I was in school, we learned of a concept
called "ex post facto". It's not legal for the
government to change the law later, and make
something legal (when you did it) into illegal,
later.

Later, changed the law to make them illegal.
That's a violation of a very old principle.

Which some buttheads don't understand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Since ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution,
Article 1, Section 9, it seems likey that you don't understand what an
ex post facto law is, or that the story below is a bunch of bull.


You seem to forget the California SKS laws, Eddy.

Wrong, on two counts.

Then you lied. Shrug

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:43:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:58:49 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:24:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:26:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:35:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

When I was in school, we learned of a concept
called "ex post facto". It's not legal for the
government to change the law later, and make
something legal (when you did it) into illegal,
later.

Later, changed the law to make them illegal.
That's a violation of a very old principle.

Which some buttheads don't understand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Since ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution,
Article 1, Section 9, it seems likey that you don't understand what an
ex post facto law is, or that the story below is a bunch of bull.


You seem to forget the California SKS laws, Eddy.

Wrong, on two counts.

Then you lied. Shrug

No, you're just suffering from your education deficiency.

--
Ed Huntress

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/24/2013 9:07 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html

I WANT one!


6272 Pearl Rd, Parma Heights, OH 44130
(440) 886-2170


I have a "modified bitumin" roof coating or commonly called a melt-down
roof. A torch is used for installation and repair. So, I'll go get me one!


They are handy for dealing with union reps, too. ;-)

Larry Jaques wrote:

Um, with the exception of some compact .45s, aren't ALL semi-auto mags
considerably larger?


Uh , NO . Most semi-auto's that fire the .45 ACP are single stack mags
that hold 7 rounds . A lot of 9mm's are double stack , and hold more . That
makes the grip a bit too wide for guys with small hands like me . One of the
things I liked about the Ruger revolvers that I useta own was the small
handgrip . That's also why my hamhanded oldest son doesn't like 'em .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:59:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:43:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:58:49 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:24:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:26:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:35:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

When I was in school, we learned of a concept
called "ex post facto". It's not legal for the
government to change the law later, and make
something legal (when you did it) into illegal,
later.

Later, changed the law to make them illegal.
That's a violation of a very old principle.

Which some buttheads don't understand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Since ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution,
Article 1, Section 9, it seems likey that you don't understand what an
ex post facto law is, or that the story below is a bunch of bull.


You seem to forget the California SKS laws, Eddy.

Wrong, on two counts.

Then you lied. Shrug

No, you're just suffering from your education deficiency.

Denial is not a river in Egypt, Eddy.

VBG

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/26/2013 3:54 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:59:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:43:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:58:49 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:24:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:26:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:35:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

When I was in school, we learned of a concept
called "ex post facto". It's not legal for the
government to change the law later, and make
something legal (when you did it) into illegal,
later.

Later, changed the law to make them illegal.
That's a violation of a very old principle.

Which some buttheads don't understand.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Since ex post facto laws are prohibited by the US Constitution,
Article 1, Section 9, it seems likey that you don't understand what an
ex post facto law is, or that the story below is a bunch of bull.


You seem to forget the California SKS laws, Eddy.

Wrong, on two counts.

Then you lied. Shrug

No, you're just suffering from your education deficiency.

Denial is not a river in Egypt, Eddy.

Third time today you used that hackneyed expression, gummer.