On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
wrote:

On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

What a waste of 6061

http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
interference suppression.

Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!

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

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
wrote:

On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

What a waste of 6061

http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
interference suppression.

Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!

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

Nope:

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

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:30:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
wrote:

On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

What a waste of 6061

http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
interference suppression.

Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!

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

Nope:

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

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

Molon Labe!


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 00:08:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:30:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
wrote:

On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

What a waste of 6061

http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
interference suppression.

Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!

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

Nope:

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

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

Maybe Larry should attribute it to you. That would give it some
credibility, eh? d8-)

Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress



Molon Labe!






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 00:08:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:30:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
wrote:

On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

What a waste of 6061

http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
interference suppression.

Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!

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

Nope:

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.


Molon Labe!

From my cold, dead hands.


--
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 08:59:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


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

Nope:

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

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

Maybe Larry should attribute it to you. That would give it some
credibility, eh? d8-)

Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

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

Results 2,680,000

Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

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 06:16:02 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:08:52 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:30:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
wrote:

On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

What a waste of 6061

http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
interference suppression.

Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!

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

Nope:

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.


Molon Labe!

From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...


From my cold, dead hands.

That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:35:05 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


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

Nope:

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

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

Maybe Larry should attribute it to you. That would give it some
credibility, eh? d8-)

Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

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

Results 2,680,000

Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
not surprised.


Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.

--
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 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.


Molon Labe!

From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...

Leftwingers...dumber than dirt and mentally ill.


From my cold, dead hands.

That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)

See above.

Gunner


--
Ed Huntress

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 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

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

Results 2,680,000

Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
not surprised.

What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
them than just 2,680,000.

Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
over.


Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

See my posts to you.

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 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.

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.



Molon Labe!

From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...

Leftwingers...dumber than dirt and mentally ill.


From my cold, dead hands.

That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)

See above.

Gunner

Take care of your circulation, Gunner -- smoking sure doesn't help --
or they may be prying guns from your cold, dead hands before the rest
of you is dead. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

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

Results 2,680,000

Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
not surprised.

What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
them than just 2,680,000.

I doubt if there were many Democrats among those parrots. That's a gun
nutz quip if there ever was one.


Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
over.


Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

See my posts to you.

You haven't explained why it makes any sense. See above.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

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

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

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

--
Ed Huntress

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.

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.



Molon Labe!

From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...

Leftwingers...dumber than dirt and mentally ill.


From my cold, dead hands.

That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)

See above.

Gunner

Take care of your circulation, Gunner -- smoking sure doesn't help --
or they may be prying guns from your cold, dead hands before the rest
of you is dead. g

My circulation is just fine. In fact..its been discussed on the
internet more than once. I take pretty good care of myself these
days. I dont have a spare heart or too many more spare arteries.

VBG

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

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

On 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?

--
Ed Huntress




Molon Labe!

From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...

Leftwingers...dumber than dirt and mentally ill.


From my cold, dead hands.

That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)

See above.

Gunner

Take care of your circulation, Gunner -- smoking sure doesn't help --
or they may be prying guns from your cold, dead hands before the rest
of you is dead. g

My circulation is just fine. In fact..its been discussed on the
internet more than once. I take pretty good care of myself these
days. I dont have a spare heart or too many more spare arteries.

VBG

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

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

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:04:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

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

Results 2,680,000

Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
not surprised.

What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
them than just 2,680,000.

I doubt if there were many Democrats among those parrots. That's a gun
nutz quip if there ever was one.

You stated clearly "thoughtless parrots" so obviously you were talking
about Democrats.



Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
over.


Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

See my posts to you.

You haven't explained why it makes any sense. See above.

Are you that biased and stupid?

Im afraid it looks as if you actually are.

Pity.


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 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?


VBG


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 12:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

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

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

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

"...and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an
aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in
the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."
Representative Bob Dornan



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 12:10:34 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:04:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

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

Results 2,680,000

Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
not surprised.

What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
them than just 2,680,000.

I doubt if there were many Democrats among those parrots. That's a gun
nutz quip if there ever was one.

You stated clearly "thoughtless parrots" so obviously you were talking
about Democrats.



Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
over.


Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

See my posts to you.

You haven't explained why it makes any sense. See above.

Are you that biased and stupid?

Im afraid it looks as if you actually are.

Pity.


Gunner

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.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote in news:ilc7i8tcsjrqisfl36vbq4frkehhllhotc@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

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".

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.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?


VBG

So, what kind of insurance would reflect a parallel to the quip? How
about, "This insurance policy isn't needed until someone tries to take
it away. Otherwise, you won't need it."

Great. An insurance policy that insures you against having your
insurance policy taken away. Otherwise, it isn't needed. One wonders
what value the insurance policy is, if you won't "need" it before then
-- not if you die first, or have a heart attack first, or have your
car stolen first.

What a great and useful insurance policy! Try thinking before engaging
your keyboard.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:13:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

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

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

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

"...and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an
aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in
the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."
Representative Bob Dornan

That's not what the quip says. It says you won't need it until someone
tries to take it away.

So, Gunner, if someone invades your house and threatens to kill you,
just roll over. You won't need the 2nd, if you believe that quip.

--
Ed Huntress

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.

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.


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 20:32:47 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in news:ilc7i8tcsjrqisfl36vbq4frkehhllhotc@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

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

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:39:41 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:13:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

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

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

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

"...and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an
aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in
the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."
Representative Bob Dornan

That's not what the quip says. It says you won't need it until someone
tries to take it away.

So, Gunner, if someone invades your house and threatens to kill you,
just roll over. You won't need the 2nd, if you believe that quip.

What..you dont like B1 Bob either?


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 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.
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. 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.

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 15:35:49 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?


VBG

So, what kind of insurance would reflect a parallel to the quip? How
about, "This insurance policy isn't needed until someone tries to take
it away. Otherwise, you won't need it."

Great. An insurance policy that insures you against having your
insurance policy taken away. Otherwise, it isn't needed. One wonders
what value the insurance policy is, if you won't "need" it before then
-- not if you die first, or have a heart attack first, or have your
car stolen first.

What a great and useful insurance policy! Try thinking before engaging
your keyboard.

With the 2nd Amendment graven in stone (not simply a pesky
"suggestion")....I may have no "need" of it until the moment I do,
just like fire extinguishers and seat belts.

Having that 2nd Amendment well known and graven in stone.....helps
prevent government from attempting to infringe the rest of the
Constitution. It helps..doesnt guarentee prevention. The Great Cull
will do just that after all the gun grabbers and mentally ill
Leftwingers are killed and bulldozed into mass graves in the very very
near future.



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 15:31:09 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:34 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:04:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

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

Results 2,680,000

Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
not surprised.

What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
them than just 2,680,000.

I doubt if there were many Democrats among those parrots. That's a gun
nutz quip if there ever was one.

You stated clearly "thoughtless parrots" so obviously you were talking
about Democrats.



Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
over.


Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

See my posts to you.

You haven't explained why it makes any sense. See above.

Are you that biased and stupid?

Im afraid it looks as if you actually are.

Pity.


Gunner

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.

You RINOs and Neos tend to be rather mentally ill, sadly.

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 12:44:18 -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.

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.


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

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.

--
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 12:51:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:39:41 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:13:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

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

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

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

"...and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an
aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in
the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."
Representative Bob Dornan

That's not what the quip says. It says you won't need it until someone
tries to take it away.

So, Gunner, if someone invades your house and threatens to kill you,
just roll over. You won't need the 2nd, if you believe that quip.

What..you dont like B1 Bob either?

Oh, yeah, the congressman who declared 1994 the "Year of the Penis."
g

The precursor to the Tea Party. Is he still alive?

--
Ed Huntress

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.

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.


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.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:59:49 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:35:49 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?


VBG

So, what kind of insurance would reflect a parallel to the quip? How
about, "This insurance policy isn't needed until someone tries to take
it away. Otherwise, you won't need it."

Great. An insurance policy that insures you against having your
insurance policy taken away. Otherwise, it isn't needed. One wonders
what value the insurance policy is, if you won't "need" it before then
-- not if you die first, or have a heart attack first, or have your
car stolen first.

What a great and useful insurance policy! Try thinking before engaging
your keyboard.

With the 2nd Amendment graven in stone (not simply a pesky
"suggestion")....I may have no "need" of it until the moment I do,
just like fire extinguishers and seat belts.

True enough. But that's not what the quip says.


Having that 2nd Amendment well known and graven in stone.....helps
prevent government from attempting to infringe the rest of the
Constitution. It helps..doesnt guarentee prevention.

It's an important symbol that distinguishes the basis of power in our
government from all others. Well, except for Yemen and East Timor,
maybe. d8-)

The Great Cull
will do just that after all the gun grabbers and mentally ill
Leftwingers are killed and bulldozed into mass graves in the very very
near future.

I thought that was the plan for last year? Did their GPS receivers run
out of charge?

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:01:40 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:31:09 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:34 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:04:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

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

Results 2,680,000

Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
not surprised.

What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
them than just 2,680,000.

I doubt if there were many Democrats among those parrots. That's a gun
nutz quip if there ever was one.

You stated clearly "thoughtless parrots" so obviously you were talking
about Democrats.



Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
over.


Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

See my posts to you.

You haven't explained why it makes any sense. See above.

Are you that biased and stupid?

Im afraid it looks as if you actually are.

Pity.


Gunner

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.


You RINOs and Neos tend to be rather mentally ill, sadly.

"Neo" what?

--
Ed Huntress

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


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 16:28:40 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:51:14 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:39:41 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:13:56 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:taa7i8p7ske73lb901tret8rvb2qsj7p31@4ax. com...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

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

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

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

"...and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an
aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in
the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."
Representative Bob Dornan

That's not what the quip says. It says you won't need it until someone
tries to take it away.

So, Gunner, if someone invades your house and threatens to kill you,
just roll over. You won't need the 2nd, if you believe that quip.

What..you dont like B1 Bob either?

Oh, yeah, the congressman who declared 1994 the "Year of the Penis."
g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dornan

"On a January 28, 1994 appearance on Politically Incorrect, Dornan
declared it was "The Year of the Penis" due to recent events in the
news. This was a joke in regard to the 1992 media and political
reference as that election being referred to as "The Year of the
Woman", when 4 women won election to the United States Senate. In
relation to this comment by Dornan, Representative Barney Frank noted
"Bob Dornan isn't even rational on the House floor. You can't expect
him to be rational on Politically Incorrect."[10]"


The precursor to the Tea Party. Is he still alive?

Dornan currently works with the American Life League, his primary
mission as a member of the American Life League team will be
refocusing attention on the Right to Life Act, a proposal that
establishes the personhood of each human being as beginning at
fertilization."

Quite a gentleman. Ive met him 2x. Funny as hell and takes no
prisoners

VBG

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

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

On 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.....

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?


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?

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 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.

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.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?


VBG

So, what kind of insurance would reflect a parallel to the quip? How
about, "This insurance policy isn't needed until someone tries to
take
it away. Otherwise, you won't need it."

Great. An insurance policy that insures you against having your
insurance policy taken away. Otherwise, it isn't needed. One wonders
what value the insurance policy is, if you won't "need" it before
then
-- not if you die first, or have a heart attack first, or have your
car stolen first.

What a great and useful insurance policy! Try thinking before
engaging
your keyboard.

--
Ed Huntress

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.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:44:42 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:58 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...

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?

Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?


VBG

So, what kind of insurance would reflect a parallel to the quip? How
about, "This insurance policy isn't needed until someone tries to
take
it away. Otherwise, you won't need it."

Great. An insurance policy that insures you against having your
insurance policy taken away. Otherwise, it isn't needed. One wonders
what value the insurance policy is, if you won't "need" it before
then
-- not if you die first, or have a heart attack first, or have your
car stolen first.

What a great and useful insurance policy! Try thinking before
engaging
your keyboard.

--
Ed Huntress

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

--
Ed Huntress