On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.


At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
won't need.

Really? Cites?

The actual words of that silly quip:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

cough, cough.... It says you'll only need it when they try to take
it, Gunner. If they try to kill you, no problem. You won't need it
then.



Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.

Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
until the moment I do.

Again, that's a different issue.

Cites?

See above.

What you're doing is knee-jerking about what you WANT that quip to
say. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. It's all noise in your
head.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"


Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)


At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
won't need.

Really? Cites?

The actual words of that silly quip:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

Makes sense to me.

cough, cough.... It says you'll only need it when they try to take
it, Gunner. If they try to kill you, no problem. You won't need it
then.

Only if they DO kill me. If they try to take it..Im covered by it up
to the point they kill me. And the next guy kills them and so on and
so forth.




Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.

Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
until the moment I do.

Again, that's a different issue.

Cites?

See above.

What you're doing is knee-jerking about what you WANT that quip to
say. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. It's all noise in your
head.

Spoken like a true RINO

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, 19 Feb 2013 16:51:34 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Don't try that cheap shot with me, Gunner. You aren't fooling anyone.

You repeated that silly quip without even thinking about what it
means. If it "isn't needed until they try to take it," then you don't
think it's "needed" to protect yourself against an intruder (he
doesn't give a damn about no steenking Second Amendment, he just wants
to shoot you), right?

In other words, you didn't think. You just jerked your knee.

I dont need those pesky fire extingushers and seat belts until the
moment I need them.

'Same with the 2nd. But that's not what the quip says. It says you
don't need them until someone tries to take the 2nd Amendment away. It
says nothing about home assaults, or personal assaults, or citizen
militias, or other militias.

Of course not. The Second Amendment isnt only about fighting off those
pesky common criminals. Its also about killing those pesky
politicians.

You dont understand that?

I thought you were a wonder brain....sad really to find one of my
icons no better than a slug mentally.

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, 19 Feb 2013 17:08:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:58:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:10:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:44:18 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:48:43 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:20:23 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:01:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:56:19 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:40:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,

It _Must_ Be True.


The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
generally made sense.

Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?

Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
about what it means.

Must have been a technical writer. Shrug.

You're dodging the point: the meaning of that quip, which is
self-referential, and could be a joke if it was dressed up.

The form would be something like, "I'd give my right hand to be
ambidextrous."


More likely a mindless gun nut, who jerks his knee at anything that
sounds like it supports his wishful thinking. That's one of the
chronic problems in the entire gun debate.

Perhaps a technical writer who used to like guns.

I still like guns. I just don't care for mindless gun nutz.

Did you ever make something with that Martini?

I have it barreled, and have the butt stock. Im still working on the
foreend. I was in something of a tither trying to find a small
centerfire cartridge that would work, but it was modified to the
point that it was most difficult to convert back to centerfire, so I
installed a Beyer stainless barrel that I swapped for. Im considering
fluting it because it is a bit..heavy. Id considered a carbon fiber
barrel..but the $$ was way out of my reach..and then I had that
medical issue....shrug.

Well, it's mostly a historical curiosity, since those Miniature Rifle
Clubs were started by Rudyard Kipling. It was their equivalent of
junior DCM, or something like that.

I hope you don't expect it to be a fine shooter. It isn't worth a lot
of work. Like all full-size Martinis, it has a very slow lock time and
it would be more work than it's worth to make a special titanium or
hollow firing pin. The trigger on those guns is creepy, and the lockup
at the rear end of that long bolt mitigates against shooting tight
groups. The smaller, target-shooting rimfire Martinis have a short
bolt and they were finely finished to get a fairly tight lockup at the
bolt face.

Indeed. I had a BSA that I shot until I got the Anshutz and have had
several others. Id have to check the records..shrug.

But it was a clever action, and one of historical importance.

It's been a while but I didn't think it was converted to rimfire. The
later ones were, (I think) using an offset barrel bushing. But most of
them were chambered for a small, pistol-sized centerfire made
especially for the job. The mid-sized Australian Martini Cadet was
made for still another cartridge, somewhat larger but still
sub-caliber for a military rifle.

Anyway, it's a collector's item that's good for conversation.

Id originally thought about 38-55 or even 32-20..but...converted to
rimfire left those out. 38-55 would have been way cool.


And I thank you again. When the ship comes in..and/or manufacturing
once again blooms in California, Ill finish it up and shoot it in my
Saturday morning small bore matches.

It will be a challenge, especially offhand. But you'll have the
coolest gun, anyway. g

Indeed. Its wrapped in a zip bag after being spritzed with Good Stuff
.

Remember Bob Richardson? (or was he on CompuServe?) I found a Martini
Model 12 for him, a high-end rimfire target gun. He used it in small
bore matches in California and he did great with it.

The guys at Navy Arms used to let me climb through their bins of
imported British Martinis. That's how I found your MRC action. It was
the only one out of hundreds. Hang on to it.

Oh..its not going anywhere. I never give up gifts from people I like.

G

Gunner

heh...Do you remember if the firing pin has a flat face? If so, it was
modified for rimfire. But that should be the only difference, IIRC.
The barrel thread is the same; the rimfires just had a screw-in
bushing to offset the cartridge head from the firing pin.

Id have to go dig it out of the vault. There is no screw in
bushing..this one was silver soldered in.

If the face is flat, the firing pin can be replaced to shoot
centerfire. But watch the cartridge pressure! That milled notch behind
the bolt was intended to "disable" the gun from shooting standard
military ammo.

Hence the 38-55 cartridge. Its low pressure enough to not stress the
action.

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, 19 Feb 2013 17:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed forgets that Self Defense is a human right. Yet it took the 2nd
Amendment to give teeth and tail to defending against an out of
control government.

Which is why the saying works.

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, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?



Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.



At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
won't need.

Really? Cites?

The actual words of that silly quip:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

Makes sense to me.

That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
there somewhere. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


cough, cough.... It says you'll only need it when they try to take
it, Gunner. If they try to kill you, no problem. You won't need it
then.

Only if they DO kill me. If they try to take it..Im covered by it up
to the point they kill me. And the next guy kills them and so on and
so forth.




Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.

Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
until the moment I do.

Again, that's a different issue.

Cites?

See above.

What you're doing is knee-jerking about what you WANT that quip to
say. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. It's all noise in your
head.

Spoken like a true RINO

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, 19 Feb 2013 16:30:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:51:34 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Don't try that cheap shot with me, Gunner. You aren't fooling anyone.

You repeated that silly quip without even thinking about what it
means. If it "isn't needed until they try to take it," then you don't
think it's "needed" to protect yourself against an intruder (he
doesn't give a damn about no steenking Second Amendment, he just wants
to shoot you), right?

In other words, you didn't think. You just jerked your knee.

I dont need those pesky fire extingushers and seat belts until the
moment I need them.

'Same with the 2nd. But that's not what the quip says. It says you
don't need them until someone tries to take the 2nd Amendment away. It
says nothing about home assaults, or personal assaults, or citizen
militias, or other militias.

Of course not. The Second Amendment isnt only about fighting off those
pesky common criminals. Its also about killing those pesky
politicians.

You dont understand that?

I thought you were a wonder brain....sad really to find one of my
icons no better than a slug mentally.

Gunner

But the quip says you won't need it for that. " [i]t will not be
needed until they try to take it," says your quip. Nothing about
criminals or defense. That sounds pretty clear, no?

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:33:18 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:08:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:58:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:10:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:44:18 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:48:43 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:20:23 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:01:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:56:19 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:40:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,

It _Must_ Be True.


The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
generally made sense.

Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?

Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
about what it means.

Must have been a technical writer. Shrug.

You're dodging the point: the meaning of that quip, which is
self-referential, and could be a joke if it was dressed up.

The form would be something like, "I'd give my right hand to be
ambidextrous."


More likely a mindless gun nut, who jerks his knee at anything that
sounds like it supports his wishful thinking. That's one of the
chronic problems in the entire gun debate.

Perhaps a technical writer who used to like guns.

I still like guns. I just don't care for mindless gun nutz.

Did you ever make something with that Martini?

I have it barreled, and have the butt stock. Im still working on the
foreend. I was in something of a tither trying to find a small
centerfire cartridge that would work, but it was modified to the
point that it was most difficult to convert back to centerfire, so I
installed a Beyer stainless barrel that I swapped for. Im considering
fluting it because it is a bit..heavy. Id considered a carbon fiber
barrel..but the $$ was way out of my reach..and then I had that
medical issue....shrug.

Well, it's mostly a historical curiosity, since those Miniature Rifle
Clubs were started by Rudyard Kipling. It was their equivalent of
junior DCM, or something like that.

I hope you don't expect it to be a fine shooter. It isn't worth a lot
of work. Like all full-size Martinis, it has a very slow lock time and
it would be more work than it's worth to make a special titanium or
hollow firing pin. The trigger on those guns is creepy, and the lockup
at the rear end of that long bolt mitigates against shooting tight
groups. The smaller, target-shooting rimfire Martinis have a short
bolt and they were finely finished to get a fairly tight lockup at the
bolt face.

Indeed. I had a BSA that I shot until I got the Anshutz and have had
several others. Id have to check the records..shrug.

But it was a clever action, and one of historical importance.

It's been a while but I didn't think it was converted to rimfire. The
later ones were, (I think) using an offset barrel bushing. But most of
them were chambered for a small, pistol-sized centerfire made
especially for the job. The mid-sized Australian Martini Cadet was
made for still another cartridge, somewhat larger but still
sub-caliber for a military rifle.

Anyway, it's a collector's item that's good for conversation.

Id originally thought about 38-55 or even 32-20..but...converted to
rimfire left those out. 38-55 would have been way cool.


And I thank you again. When the ship comes in..and/or manufacturing
once again blooms in California, Ill finish it up and shoot it in my
Saturday morning small bore matches.

It will be a challenge, especially offhand. But you'll have the
coolest gun, anyway. g

Indeed. Its wrapped in a zip bag after being spritzed with Good Stuff
.

Remember Bob Richardson? (or was he on CompuServe?) I found a Martini
Model 12 for him, a high-end rimfire target gun. He used it in small
bore matches in California and he did great with it.

The guys at Navy Arms used to let me climb through their bins of
imported British Martinis. That's how I found your MRC action. It was
the only one out of hundreds. Hang on to it.

Oh..its not going anywhere. I never give up gifts from people I like.

G

Gunner

heh...Do you remember if the firing pin has a flat face? If so, it was
modified for rimfire. But that should be the only difference, IIRC.
The barrel thread is the same; the rimfires just had a screw-in
bushing to offset the cartridge head from the firing pin.

Id have to go dig it out of the vault. There is no screw in
bushing..this one was silver soldered in.

Well, just keep in mind that it's the firing pin that makes the
difference. And if it already has a bushing in the receiver, check the
center location of the thread relative to the firing pin location.
That will tell you if it's ready for a rimfire barrel.


If the face is flat, the firing pin can be replaced to shoot
centerfire. But watch the cartridge pressure! That milled notch behind
the bolt was intended to "disable" the gun from shooting standard
military ammo.

Hence the 38-55 cartridge. Its low pressure enough to not stress the
action.

Gunner

Yeah, I think I'd go for centerfire, unless it already has a
sweated-in bushing in the receiver. Replacing the firing pin should be
a snap.

I'd sure as heck proof it in an old tire, which I'm sure you'll do.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?

Oh thats well covered by the right to self protection. No so much in
Socialist nations. And Blue States...but I repeat myself.



Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.

Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
sorts of threats. Government threats.



At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
won't need.

Really? Cites?

The actual words of that silly quip:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

Makes sense to me.

That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
there somewhere. d8-)

So slam your head against the corner of the fridge door and see it it
starts firing again.

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 2/19/2013 4:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

How do you know in advance that you will never need to defend
yourself? Or if awareness of your carry permit deterred a break-in?
You have only absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson.g



Hey, Ed.
Welcome back to the monkey cage.

I've recently seen the quip about how the founding fathers didn't mean
ASSAULT weapons, but their quaint muzzle loading muskets.

Only problem with that is that those WERE the assault weapons of their time.

But how about let's give the 2nd amendment a break and take a really
close look at the 10th?


And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
bills?


Who ya gonna call THEN?



BTW, glad to see you back as Ed.
I hated that asshole TMT persona.


Richard

Would you two get a room!

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:05:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:33:18 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:08:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:58:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:10:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:44:18 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:48:43 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:20:23 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:01:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:56:19 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:40:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,

It _Must_ Be True.


The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
generally made sense.

Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?

Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
about what it means.

Must have been a technical writer. Shrug.

You're dodging the point: the meaning of that quip, which is
self-referential, and could be a joke if it was dressed up.

The form would be something like, "I'd give my right hand to be
ambidextrous."


More likely a mindless gun nut, who jerks his knee at anything that
sounds like it supports his wishful thinking. That's one of the
chronic problems in the entire gun debate.

Perhaps a technical writer who used to like guns.

I still like guns. I just don't care for mindless gun nutz.

Did you ever make something with that Martini?

I have it barreled, and have the butt stock. Im still working on the
foreend. I was in something of a tither trying to find a small
centerfire cartridge that would work, but it was modified to the
point that it was most difficult to convert back to centerfire, so I
installed a Beyer stainless barrel that I swapped for. Im considering
fluting it because it is a bit..heavy. Id considered a carbon fiber
barrel..but the $$ was way out of my reach..and then I had that
medical issue....shrug.

Well, it's mostly a historical curiosity, since those Miniature Rifle
Clubs were started by Rudyard Kipling. It was their equivalent of
junior DCM, or something like that.

I hope you don't expect it to be a fine shooter. It isn't worth a lot
of work. Like all full-size Martinis, it has a very slow lock time and
it would be more work than it's worth to make a special titanium or
hollow firing pin. The trigger on those guns is creepy, and the lockup
at the rear end of that long bolt mitigates against shooting tight
groups. The smaller, target-shooting rimfire Martinis have a short
bolt and they were finely finished to get a fairly tight lockup at the
bolt face.

Indeed. I had a BSA that I shot until I got the Anshutz and have had
several others. Id have to check the records..shrug.

But it was a clever action, and one of historical importance.

It's been a while but I didn't think it was converted to rimfire. The
later ones were, (I think) using an offset barrel bushing. But most of
them were chambered for a small, pistol-sized centerfire made
especially for the job. The mid-sized Australian Martini Cadet was
made for still another cartridge, somewhat larger but still
sub-caliber for a military rifle.

Anyway, it's a collector's item that's good for conversation.

Id originally thought about 38-55 or even 32-20..but...converted to
rimfire left those out. 38-55 would have been way cool.


And I thank you again. When the ship comes in..and/or manufacturing
once again blooms in California, Ill finish it up and shoot it in my
Saturday morning small bore matches.

It will be a challenge, especially offhand. But you'll have the
coolest gun, anyway. g

Indeed. Its wrapped in a zip bag after being spritzed with Good Stuff
.

Remember Bob Richardson? (or was he on CompuServe?) I found a Martini
Model 12 for him, a high-end rimfire target gun. He used it in small
bore matches in California and he did great with it.

The guys at Navy Arms used to let me climb through their bins of
imported British Martinis. That's how I found your MRC action. It was
the only one out of hundreds. Hang on to it.

Oh..its not going anywhere. I never give up gifts from people I like.

G

Gunner

heh...Do you remember if the firing pin has a flat face? If so, it was
modified for rimfire. But that should be the only difference, IIRC.
The barrel thread is the same; the rimfires just had a screw-in
bushing to offset the cartridge head from the firing pin.

Id have to go dig it out of the vault. There is no screw in
bushing..this one was silver soldered in.

Well, just keep in mind that it's the firing pin that makes the
difference. And if it already has a bushing in the receiver, check the
center location of the thread relative to the firing pin location.
That will tell you if it's ready for a rimfire barrel.


If the face is flat, the firing pin can be replaced to shoot
centerfire. But watch the cartridge pressure! That milled notch behind
the bolt was intended to "disable" the gun from shooting standard
military ammo.

Hence the 38-55 cartridge. Its low pressure enough to not stress the
action.

Gunner

Yeah, I think I'd go for centerfire, unless it already has a
sweated-in bushing in the receiver. Replacing the firing pin should be
a snap.

I'd sure as heck proof it in an old tire, which I'm sure you'll do.

its not my first rodeo.

Send me an email to and Ill give you a link to my
firearms collection, which is posted on Picasa, but secured

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, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

Not true at all, Eddie, you dolt. It points out one good aspect of
it.


You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.
But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

Sooooo, why are you still talking to him?


I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns. At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.

Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
until the moment I do.

Right, like insurance: Not needed until the moment you do. And when
you do need it, it had better be handy and in force. I'm happy it's
there, especially this term. Any day now, folks...

--
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:09:10 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/19/2013 4:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

How do you know in advance that you will never need to defend
yourself? Or if awareness of your carry permit deterred a break-in?
You have only absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson.g



Hey, Ed.
Welcome back to the monkey cage.

I've recently seen the quip about how the founding fathers didn't mean
ASSAULT weapons, but their quaint muzzle loading muskets.

There was a really interesting show on PBS tonight, with considerable
comments by NRA President David Keene, in which one historian pointed
out the obvious, which every gun nut gleefully ignores: Shooting
muzzle loaders, one shot at a time, presents a QUALITATIVELY different
issue than 30-round ARs. The historian had tracked homicides in
America for the past couple of centuries and found that the sharpest
jump occurred in the decade after Colt introduced the six-shooter.

So it's hard to say what they would have said about the situation we
face today. As it is, that doesn't matter, because we have a dead
Constitution. g


Only problem with that is that those WERE the assault weapons of their time.

But how about let's give the 2nd amendment a break and take a really
close look at the 10th?

Sure. Start with the most conservative view, that of Judge Bork. He
said it was a meaningless redundancy.

Or you could try Madison:

"“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in State
governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison, "The
Federalist" No. 45,

Then came the 14th Amendment. As a governor of Texas once said,
"Oops..."

Next issue?



And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
bills?

Those are our bills. And they can always pay them. They have the
printing presses.

Of course, the Tea Party may decide we don't really have to pay them.



Who ya gonna call THEN?

When?




BTW, glad to see you back as Ed.
I hated that asshole TMT persona.



Shirley you jest. TMT's antics are a big part of why I left. I
couldn't stand the noise.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:33:07 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:05:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:33:18 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:08:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:58:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:10:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:44:18 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:48:43 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:20:23 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:01:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:56:19 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:40:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...ment-quotation

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,

It _Must_ Be True.


The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
generally made sense.

Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?

Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
about what it means.

Must have been a technical writer. Shrug.

You're dodging the point: the meaning of that quip, which is
self-referential, and could be a joke if it was dressed up.

The form would be something like, "I'd give my right hand to be
ambidextrous."


More likely a mindless gun nut, who jerks his knee at anything that
sounds like it supports his wishful thinking. That's one of the
chronic problems in the entire gun debate.

Perhaps a technical writer who used to like guns.

I still like guns. I just don't care for mindless gun nutz.

Did you ever make something with that Martini?

I have it barreled, and have the butt stock. Im still working on the
foreend. I was in something of a tither trying to find a small
centerfire cartridge that would work, but it was modified to the
point that it was most difficult to convert back to centerfire, so I
installed a Beyer stainless barrel that I swapped for. Im considering
fluting it because it is a bit..heavy. Id considered a carbon fiber
barrel..but the $$ was way out of my reach..and then I had that
medical issue....shrug.

Well, it's mostly a historical curiosity, since those Miniature Rifle
Clubs were started by Rudyard Kipling. It was their equivalent of
junior DCM, or something like that.

I hope you don't expect it to be a fine shooter. It isn't worth a lot
of work. Like all full-size Martinis, it has a very slow lock time and
it would be more work than it's worth to make a special titanium or
hollow firing pin. The trigger on those guns is creepy, and the lockup
at the rear end of that long bolt mitigates against shooting tight
groups. The smaller, target-shooting rimfire Martinis have a short
bolt and they were finely finished to get a fairly tight lockup at the
bolt face.

Indeed. I had a BSA that I shot until I got the Anshutz and have had
several others. Id have to check the records..shrug.

But it was a clever action, and one of historical importance.

It's been a while but I didn't think it was converted to rimfire. The
later ones were, (I think) using an offset barrel bushing. But most of
them were chambered for a small, pistol-sized centerfire made
especially for the job. The mid-sized Australian Martini Cadet was
made for still another cartridge, somewhat larger but still
sub-caliber for a military rifle.

Anyway, it's a collector's item that's good for conversation.

Id originally thought about 38-55 or even 32-20..but...converted to
rimfire left those out. 38-55 would have been way cool.


And I thank you again. When the ship comes in..and/or manufacturing
once again blooms in California, Ill finish it up and shoot it in my
Saturday morning small bore matches.

It will be a challenge, especially offhand. But you'll have the
coolest gun, anyway. g

Indeed. Its wrapped in a zip bag after being spritzed with Good Stuff
.

Remember Bob Richardson? (or was he on CompuServe?) I found a Martini
Model 12 for him, a high-end rimfire target gun. He used it in small
bore matches in California and he did great with it.

The guys at Navy Arms used to let me climb through their bins of
imported British Martinis. That's how I found your MRC action. It was
the only one out of hundreds. Hang on to it.

Oh..its not going anywhere. I never give up gifts from people I like.

G

Gunner

heh...Do you remember if the firing pin has a flat face? If so, it was
modified for rimfire. But that should be the only difference, IIRC.
The barrel thread is the same; the rimfires just had a screw-in
bushing to offset the cartridge head from the firing pin.

Id have to go dig it out of the vault. There is no screw in
bushing..this one was silver soldered in.

Well, just keep in mind that it's the firing pin that makes the
difference. And if it already has a bushing in the receiver, check the
center location of the thread relative to the firing pin location.
That will tell you if it's ready for a rimfire barrel.


If the face is flat, the firing pin can be replaced to shoot
centerfire. But watch the cartridge pressure! That milled notch behind
the bolt was intended to "disable" the gun from shooting standard
military ammo.

Hence the 38-55 cartridge. Its low pressure enough to not stress the
action.

Gunner

Yeah, I think I'd go for centerfire, unless it already has a
sweated-in bushing in the receiver. Replacing the firing pin should be
a snap.

I'd sure as heck proof it in an old tire, which I'm sure you'll do.

its not my first rodeo.

Send me an email to and Ill give you a link to my
firearms collection, which is posted on Picasa, but secured

Ok. Sent.

--
Ed Huntress


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, 19 Feb 2013 19:40:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

Not true at all, Eddie, you dolt. It points out one good aspect of
it.

It does nothing of the kind, you dolt. It says "it won't be needed
until...," not "one good aspect of it is...."

It's a really simple sentence, Larry, in plain English. You posted it.
Are you having trouble with it?

--
Ed Huntress



You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.
But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

Sooooo, why are you still talking to him?


I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns. At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.

Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
until the moment I do.

Right, like insurance: Not needed until the moment you do. And when
you do need it, it had better be handy and in force. I'm happy it's
there, especially this term. Any day now, folks...

On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

You know, I've always enjoyed reading you, Ed.
Sometime I agree, sometimes you are just pig headed wrong.
But always interesting.

But I hate it when you just tell God's honest unvarnished truth...

So it's hard to say what they would have said about the situation we
face today. As it is, that doesn't matter, because we have a dead
Constitution.g

On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Shirley you jest. TMT's antics are a big part of why I left. I
couldn't stand the noise.


Don't call me Shirley!

On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Then came the 14th Amendment. As a governor of Texas once said,
"Oops..."

Next issue?



And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
bills?

Who ya gonna call THEN?

When?


When the Federal government can't (or won't) pay the interest on the
national debt...





BTW, glad to see you back as Ed.
I hated that asshole TMT persona.



Shirley you jest. TMT's antics are a big part of why I left. I
couldn't stand the noise.


Me too. What a toad.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:47:49 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Then came the 14th Amendment. As a governor of Texas once said,
"Oops..."

Next issue?



And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
bills?

Who ya gonna call THEN?

When?


When the Federal government can't (or won't) pay the interest on the
national debt...

Well, they *can*, for the reason stated above. If they won't, it means
that the people who voted for Tea Party congressmen should have their
heads examined.

Otherwise, nothing much will happen.






BTW, glad to see you back as Ed.
I hated that asshole TMT persona.



Shirley you jest. TMT's antics are a big part of why I left. I
couldn't stand the noise.


Me too. What a toad.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:44:13 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

You know, I've always enjoyed reading you, Ed.
Sometime I agree, sometimes you are just pig headed wrong.
But always interesting.

But I hate it when you just tell God's honest unvarnished truth...

So it's hard to say what they would have said about the situation we
face today. As it is, that doesn't matter, because we have a dead
Constitution.g

Time to hit it with the machine and jump start it again. Course it
will mean the deaths of millions of leftwingers..but its a small price
to pay.


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, 19 Feb 2013 17:16:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?

Oh thats well covered by the right to self protection. No so much in
Socialist nations. And Blue States...but I repeat myself.

Hmm. Which part of the Constitution says that? Only the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

So, we're in a recursive circle here. You do need the 2nd, and for
more than defense against "them taking it away."




Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.

Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
sorts of threats. Government threats.

This is all fine philosophy, and a good reason for the 2nd (see
Scalia, et al.). But it's not what the quip says, and that's what's in
dispute.

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g




At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
won't need.

Really? Cites?

The actual words of that silly quip:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

Makes sense to me.

That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
there somewhere. d8-)

So slam your head against the corner of the fridge door and see it it
starts firing again.

You're locked in one of your delusional cycles of wishful thinking,
Gunner. The quip says nothing about the things you've described above.
That's why it's dim-witted.

--
Ed Huntress


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, 19 Feb 2013 16:34:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed forgets that Self Defense is a human right. Yet it took the 2nd
Amendment to give teeth and tail to defending against an out of
control government.

I forget nothing of the kind. I'm just remarking about the mindless
drivel Larry attributes to Jefferson.

Note that he did it again, even after I provided a link to the
Jefferson scholars' Monticello site, which says it's spurious.

That's a man who really doesn't give a damn about the truth. It's all
about whatever he makes up between his ears.


Which is why the saying works.

Only in your dreams.

--
Ed Huntress


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 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:16:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?

Oh thats well covered by the right to self protection. No so much in
Socialist nations. And Blue States...but I repeat myself.

Hmm. Which part of the Constitution says that? Only the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Its found in "Natural Law"...on which much of the Constitution is
based. G

So, we're in a recursive circle here. You do need the 2nd, and for
more than defense against "them taking it away."

It sure makes killing politicians legal when they come to take the
Peoples guns away.
VBG





Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.

Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
sorts of threats. Government threats.

This is all fine philosophy, and a good reason for the 2nd (see
Scalia, et al.). But it's not what the quip says, and that's what's in
dispute.

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g

Oh it works just fine. Perhaps not to you..but enough people here ..a
majority in fact...seem to understand it well enough. So it would
appear you are out....voted.





At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
won't need.

Really? Cites?

The actual words of that silly quip:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

Makes sense to me.

That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
there somewhere. d8-)

So slam your head against the corner of the fridge door and see it it
starts firing again.

You're locked in one of your delusional cycles of wishful thinking,
Gunner. The quip says nothing about the things you've described above.
That's why it's dim-witted.

Your opinion, is once again...noted with great amusment and laughter.

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 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:29:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:34:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed forgets that Self Defense is a human right. Yet it took the 2nd
Amendment to give teeth and tail to defending against an out of
control government.

I forget nothing of the kind. I'm just remarking about the mindless
drivel Larry attributes to Jefferson.

Note that he did it again, even after I provided a link to the
Jefferson scholars' Monticello site, which says it's spurious.

That's a man who really doesn't give a damn about the truth. It's all
about whatever he makes up between his ears.


Which is why the saying works.

Only in your dreams.

So why do the majority of those responding to you indicate it is a
good statement, no matter the source?

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 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:16:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?

Oh thats well covered by the right to self protection. No so much in
Socialist nations. And Blue States...but I repeat myself.

Hmm. Which part of the Constitution says that? Only the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Its found in "Natural Law"...on which much of the Constitution is
based. G

So, we're in a recursive circle here. You do need the 2nd, and for
more than defense against "them taking it away."

It sure makes killing politicians legal when they come to take the
Peoples guns away.
VBG





Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.

Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
sorts of threats. Government threats.

This is all fine philosophy, and a good reason for the 2nd (see
Scalia, et al.). But it's not what the quip says, and that's what's in
dispute.

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g

Oh it works just fine. Perhaps not to you..but enough people here ..a
majority in fact...seem to understand it well enough. So it would
appear you are out....voted.


Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
them in bullet points. d8-)

Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.

--
Ed Huntress






At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
won't need.

Really? Cites?

The actual words of that silly quip:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

Makes sense to me.

That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
there somewhere. d8-)

So slam your head against the corner of the fridge door and see it it
starts firing again.

You're locked in one of your delusional cycles of wishful thinking,
Gunner. The quip says nothing about the things you've described above.
That's why it's dim-witted.

Your opinion, is once again...noted with great amusment and laughter.

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 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:20:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:29:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:34:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed forgets that Self Defense is a human right. Yet it took the 2nd
Amendment to give teeth and tail to defending against an out of
control government.

I forget nothing of the kind. I'm just remarking about the mindless
drivel Larry attributes to Jefferson.

Note that he did it again, even after I provided a link to the
Jefferson scholars' Monticello site, which says it's spurious.

That's a man who really doesn't give a damn about the truth. It's all
about whatever he makes up between his ears.


Which is why the saying works.

Only in your dreams.

So why do the majority of those responding to you indicate it is a
good statement, no matter the source?

Because they're gun nutz -- a little vague in their thinking, not too
careful with words, and given to cheering for stupid sayings that ring
their chimes.

That's the difference between pro-gun, pro-2nd Amenndment gun
enthusiasts, and gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:17:43 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:16:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?

Oh thats well covered by the right to self protection. No so much in
Socialist nations. And Blue States...but I repeat myself.

Hmm. Which part of the Constitution says that? Only the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Its found in "Natural Law"...on which much of the Constitution is
based. G

So, we're in a recursive circle here. You do need the 2nd, and for
more than defense against "them taking it away."

It sure makes killing politicians legal when they come to take the
Peoples guns away.
VBG





Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.

Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
sorts of threats. Government threats.

This is all fine philosophy, and a good reason for the 2nd (see
Scalia, et al.). But it's not what the quip says, and that's what's in
dispute.

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g

Oh it works just fine. Perhaps not to you..but enough people here ..a
majority in fact...seem to understand it well enough. So it would
appear you are out....voted.


Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
them in bullet points. d8-)

You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?

Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.

Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.

Does it matter who said it? Its still true.

So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?

Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
front of you. Fall through?

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 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:28:58 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:20:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:29:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:34:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed forgets that Self Defense is a human right. Yet it took the 2nd
Amendment to give teeth and tail to defending against an out of
control government.

I forget nothing of the kind. I'm just remarking about the mindless
drivel Larry attributes to Jefferson.

Note that he did it again, even after I provided a link to the
Jefferson scholars' Monticello site, which says it's spurious.

That's a man who really doesn't give a damn about the truth. It's all
about whatever he makes up between his ears.


Which is why the saying works.

Only in your dreams.

So why do the majority of those responding to you indicate it is a
good statement, no matter the source?

Because they're gun nutz -- a little vague in their thinking, not too
careful with words, and given to cheering for stupid sayings that ring
their chimes.

That's the difference between pro-gun, pro-2nd Amenndment gun
enthusiasts, and gun nutz.

Ah..another bigot and biased Lefty heard from.

You really need to go for regrooving. It would improve your
presonality 100% and Id also suggest relocating out of the Blue Morass
you inhabit. Perhaps move to Texas or somewhere they appreciate bags
of hot air?

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 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:15:45 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:17:43 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:16:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?


If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?

Oh thats well covered by the right to self protection. No so much in
Socialist nations. And Blue States...but I repeat myself.

Hmm. Which part of the Constitution says that? Only the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Its found in "Natural Law"...on which much of the Constitution is
based. G

So, we're in a recursive circle here. You do need the 2nd, and for
more than defense against "them taking it away."

It sure makes killing politicians legal when they come to take the
Peoples guns away.
VBG





Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.

Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
sorts of threats. Government threats.

This is all fine philosophy, and a good reason for the 2nd (see
Scalia, et al.). But it's not what the quip says, and that's what's in
dispute.

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g

Oh it works just fine. Perhaps not to you..but enough people here ..a
majority in fact...seem to understand it well enough. So it would
appear you are out....voted.


Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
them in bullet points. d8-)

You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?

No, I mean gun nutz. You know, people who never read the Constitution,
but who think they know all about it. Like some of the people here.



Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.

Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.

Does it matter who said it? Its still true.

It matters who said it if you care about the truth. I realize that's a
questionable proposition here, but it matters to some.


So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?

Not much. I spend more time correcting bull**** for the sake of those
who care about the truth.


Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
front of you. Fall through?

No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
Bay.



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 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:17:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:28:58 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:20:57 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:29:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:34:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.


Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed forgets that Self Defense is a human right. Yet it took the 2nd
Amendment to give teeth and tail to defending against an out of
control government.

I forget nothing of the kind. I'm just remarking about the mindless
drivel Larry attributes to Jefferson.

Note that he did it again, even after I provided a link to the
Jefferson scholars' Monticello site, which says it's spurious.

That's a man who really doesn't give a damn about the truth. It's all
about whatever he makes up between his ears.


Which is why the saying works.

Only in your dreams.

So why do the majority of those responding to you indicate it is a
good statement, no matter the source?

Because they're gun nutz -- a little vague in their thinking, not too
careful with words, and given to cheering for stupid sayings that ring
their chimes.

That's the difference between pro-gun, pro-2nd Amenndment gun
enthusiasts, and gun nutz.

Ah..another bigot and biased Lefty heard from.

???

I'm "biased" against the drivel posted by nutz.


You really need to go for regrooving. It would improve your
presonality 100% and Id also suggest relocating out of the Blue Morass
you inhabit. Perhaps move to Texas or somewhere they appreciate bags
of hot air?

They have plenty of hot air, and with the people they've elected to
Congress, and the hot air they brought with them, it looks like
they're going to float the halls of Congress into the stratosphere.

Like this laugher: "How out of control has the Chuck Hagel opposition
become? A Daily News reporter says he posed a sarcastic question to a
GOP aide of whether Hagel took money from any groups like “Friends of
Hamas,” an over-the-top, non-existent group, and the next thing he
knew it was a headline on a conservative website."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...t-it-down?lite

Ted Cruz is doing his best impersonation of Joe McCarthy, hot air and
all.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
them in bullet points. d8-)

You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?

No, I mean gun nutz. You know, people who never read the Constitution,
but who think they know all about it. Like some of the people here.

Yourself included one assumes.



Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.

Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.

Does it matter who said it? Its still true.

It matters who said it if you care about the truth. I realize that's a
questionable proposition here, but it matters to some.

Obviously the "truth" means nothing to Leftwingers. Thats a provable
fact btw.



So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?

Not much. I spend more time correcting bull**** for the sake of those
who care about the truth.

So why arent you hammering on the Leftwingers with both hands swinging
sledge hammers? Bull**** is written into their OPs plan.


Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
front of you. Fall through?

No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
Bay.

The fish got blown away???

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 Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g

So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.


--
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:24:30 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
front of you. Fall through?

No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
Bay.

The fish got blown away???

It's that evil AGWK, I tell ya.
(Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya)

Y'know, those Easterners sure are wimpy. Sandy was a Class 1
hurricane. Think what would have happened if it had been a _real_
storm.

--
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:24:30 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
them in bullet points. d8-)

You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?

No, I mean gun nutz. You know, people who never read the Constitution,
but who think they know all about it. Like some of the people here.

Yourself included one assumes.


Ah, I have read it.




Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.

Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.

Does it matter who said it? Its still true.

It matters who said it if you care about the truth. I realize that's a
questionable proposition here, but it matters to some.

Obviously the "truth" means nothing to Leftwingers. Thats a provable
fact btw.



So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?

Not much. I spend more time correcting bull**** for the sake of those
who care about the truth.

So why arent you hammering on the Leftwingers with both hands swinging
sledge hammers? Bull**** is written into their OPs plan.


Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
front of you. Fall through?

No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
Bay.

The fish got blown away???

They got covered with sand. My favorite spot has 7 feet of sand piled
on top of the mussles, crabs, and other food that the fish were
feeding on. So the fish took a hike.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/20/2013 4:05 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800,
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry.g

So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.


--
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson


Aw, Larry, it's not all that bad.
Ed, like most of earth, is "mostly harmless".

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:05:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g

So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.

Stay in your echo chamber, Larry, where people think it's just ducky
to threaten to kill duly elected officials.

You'll get real far with that one.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:12:03 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:24:30 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
front of you. Fall through?

No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
Bay.

The fish got blown away???

It's that evil AGWK, I tell ya.
(Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya)

Y'know, those Easterners sure are wimpy. Sandy was a Class 1
hurricane. Think what would have happened if it had been a _real_
storm.

This is where I used to surf fish, you ignorant asshole:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-bpKCZgdM

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:

Y'know, those Easterners sure are wimpy. Sandy was a Class 1
hurricane. Think what would have happened if it had been a _real_
storm.


It would have blown their flimsy shacks all the way to West Virginia,
and left the survivors wandering in circles.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. g

So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.


He still writes like his 'Ed Anger' column in the 'Weekly World
News', and it's obvious that he's still "pig biting mad".