"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

No, you don't get it. I didn't see YOU at the NJ statehouse lobbying like
hell against "assault rifle" bans, when I was there. I didn't see YOU
testifying at state senate hearings.

One of the real problems with the usenet-inhabiting second
amendment supporter, in general. Lots of smoke but precious
little fire.

Talks a good line, goes and drinks beer.

Or, as the book title says, "Eats, shoots, and leaves." d8-)

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


The NRA chose to fight the battle on those terms some time ago. It's one way
to fight a battle. It's the divisive way. The question is, whether they'll
find themselves on the smaller side of the divide one day. It hasn't
happened yet, and it wavers back and forth. But neither winning the day, nor
losing it, is going to justify the fact that you, and they, squandered
widespread public support for the sake of building a cadre of True
Believers.


Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm

"Clark Magnuson" wrote in message
...


When I see somebody at the range with a big clip hanging down from some
little semiauto gun, my blood boils.


You need ice water in the veins. Stick with the mind, not the emotions.


And I don't give a flying **** what
arguments Gunner makes about it. g

Ed Huntress


Don't retreat from reality.

Huh? Is this a joke? Clark is telling *me* not to retreat from reality?

Jeez, Clark, you'll be trying to make me believe in the tooth fairy before
this is over. g

The second amendment is not for gun collectin, target practice, hunting,
or self defense.
It is about poltitical power. The power to make a revoultion and the
power to stop a revolution. This is the last balance of power.
We need the same kind of magazines that governments have.

There's a comforting thought, Clark. That really scores big. You've probably
just driven another 10-penny nail into the coffins of gun owners.


When I take my old eyes and old bolt rifle to the range, and see a young
man shooting with a high capactiry magazine, I am inspired that there IS
hope for the future...

Be careful what you pray for, it can happen.

You can say that again.

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:02:59 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

Greetings and Salutations....
(feeling that I am walking into a flame war where
rational thought is a waste of breath) I wanted to touch
base on this on this as it seems to be one of those "Aliens
abducted my sister" stories.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:28:51 -0600, e wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:


You reveal your ignorance here. This guy obviously did NOT go "spraying rounds
trying to make up for an lack of skill". He appeared to have some degree of
skill with the weapon and seems to have employed it fairly skillfully.

You're saying mass murder was his objective and you will defend to the
death his right to have the proper weapons to do it?

Thought so.

At this point in time, I have googled a number of stories on
the incident, and, I have found a foggy battleground. As far as I
can tell, though, these facts seem to be mentioned in enough places
that they are likely near the "truth".
So...Here are some of MY observations.

1) The shooter, Chai Soua Vang, was on private property, in
a tree stand put in place by some other hunter.
2) He was "asked to leave" by the group of hunters that DID
have permission to hunt on the property, when they returned to the
area.
3) Shots were fired, Ending up with five people dead, some
with a couple of bullets in them.
4) It appears that Chai had come down out of the stand, and
was on the ground when the shootings happened, and, from the fact
that the bodies were scattered over a 75 or more yard area, there
was, perhaps, some "hide & seek" going on.
5) In at least one place Vang is reported as saying that
he did not fire first...
6) ONE story mentions that the gun could hold 20 rounds, and
several of them mention that the gun was empty when apprehended by
the cops. Since at most, they won't recover more than 12 or 14
bullets from bodies...that would mean that about 25% of them stuck
in trees out in the woods someplace...or...he did not have a 20
round clip in the rifle.

The report I read said he was out of ammo. One other possibility: he
started with less than 20 rounds in a 20 round clip/magazine.

7) Vang is listed as being 36 years old. That would have
made him a young man, in Cambodia, at about the time that the USA
was pulling out. He is also Hmong, which means that he and his
folks were the ones WORKING with the US...I suspect he saw some
pretty nasty stuff go down at a very formative time in his life.

If he wasn't old enough to become familiar with weapons, he at least
later had influence from elders whose weapon of choice was similar to
the SKS. How many of our first firearms were just like the one Dad
had?

He did not go into the woods intending to kill a human. He would not
have bothered to have a hunting license.

8) There are some notes that recently there has been
an influx of Hmong to the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, where Vang is
from, and, that there has been enough friction between the Hmong and
other (white) residents that the police had assigned a Hmong officer
to work with the situation.

So...I could easily see a sitaution where Vang in alone
in the woods, and, is confronted by a group of testosterone (and
perhaps beer) loaded hunters with weapons. I suspect they might
not have used politically correct or tactful language in requesting
that he leave the property. I could also see this easily escalating
into a full-scale fire-fight because everyone started pushing.
Now...that does not excuse the deaths, but, it would certainly
explain what happened.
I have a couple of questions myself that I have not seen any
answers for, and I would like to hear more about:

1) The stories imply that Vang was the only one
shooting. What is the likelihood of that, and, how many
of US think that these hunters would simply scatter without
returning fire? I would like to know how many rounds THEY
got off.
2) It would be interesting to know what was said and
done in that hazy period between the time that Vang was discovered
in the tree stand, and, when he ran out of ammo.
3) Why is it that the reports were that the folks
killed were shot in the back? I could find no detailed information
about the bullet paths for most of them, but, the ones that I did
find indicate that they were shot from the front.
4) Was Vang's rifle a semi-automatic, or had it been
illegally modified to be a full automatic?

In any case, this is a terrible tragedy for the folks
in Wisconsin, for Vang's family, and for the Hmong community
in Mn. It smells more to me of a guy being tired and scared and
pushed to the point of snapping, than (as has been portrayed
here in this thread and a few other agenda loaded places) a
madman with a terrible weapon out to hunt the ultimate prey - man.

I suppose we can never know the truth there, but
hopefully, eventually, we will get some more truth about what
happened. This is an aberation, though, and hardly a reason
to enact more unenforced gun laws and to remove yet MORE
freedoms from the American citizen...yet a lot of folks will
and have jumped on the bandwagon calling for JUST that result
Things to ponder on
Regards
Dave Mundt

What ARE we to do with this logical thinking? Thanks.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

(snip)
Nope, the magazines don't create the image problem OR the real problem.

Yeah, it did. Half the copy written about it concerns the size of the
magazine -- which everyone seems to think is different, but they all
think
is big.

So? If you know anything about problem-solving, you'd know the first step
in
problem-solving is to identify the problem.

Good luck. I don't hold out much hope for you guys in that regard, having
worked rather hard at it in the past.

Ed Huntress

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:30:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
)

True enough. What I'm talking about is the good sens of gun owners,
not
of
anti-gunners.

Nope, you're talking about caving in to the demands of gun grabbers.

No, you don't get it. I didn't see YOU at the NJ statehouse lobbying like
hell against "assault rifle" bans, when I was there. I didn't see YOU
testifying at state senate hearings.

When we see what you've actually done, then maybe you can judge what I'm
"talking about." Until then, I know what I'm talking about, and you
don't.

That's funny. I was referring to what you are talking about HERE, and what
you
are talking about HERE is caving in to the demands of the gun grabbers
because
you don't want to hurt their feelings. Personally, I say **** their
feelings.

And another astute policital observer explains the reasons he supports
20-round magazines...

they have problems with high-capacity magazines, black rifles, or anything
else,
they can just get over it. It's not my problem.

Well, yeah, actually it IS your problem. That's why you've just spent your
time posting a dozen or so messages on the subject. If it wasn't a problem,
you'd have no reason to do so.

Ed Huntress

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


The NRA chose to fight the battle on those terms some time ago. It's one
way
to fight a battle. It's the divisive way. The question is, whether
they'll
find themselves on the smaller side of the divide one day. It hasn't
happened yet, and it wavers back and forth. But neither winning the day,
nor
losing it, is going to justify the fact that you, and they, squandered
widespread public support for the sake of building a cadre of True
Believers.


Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm

Jeez, and you guys don't even KILL the damned foxes. g

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

losing it, is going to justify the fact that you, and they, squandered
widespread public support for the sake of building a cadre of True
Believers.


Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm


Jeez, and you guys don't even KILL the damned foxes. g


Go back 30-40 years and those redcoats would have had large
public support, been seen as part of the national tapestry,
part of the culture.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:25:58 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Gunner, here's the bottom line. You've fought this battle like a blind man
with a brain hemorrhage. For half of my life I've been on the defending end
of gun rights, and for a couple of years I did it damned near full-time, in
it up to my elbows, working just enough to pay the bills while I met, wrote,
lobbied, and damned near wrecked my life over it.

Having seen these legislative gun battles from the inside, I finally got
close enough to see what the real dynamic is: They set you up, and you play
right into their hands, time after time. You took a situation in which
support for gun rights was *overwhelming* in this country, and you let it
get chiselled away, one piece at a time, until it's now a divisive issue on
which you have to rally your base and fight like hell over every piece of
legislation. You've gone from being mainstream to becoming what looks more
and more like a faction -- a large one, to be sure, but every political
conflict now requires an outright battle. You've squandered more political
capital than Bill Clinton ever did.

The reason, without going into detail, is that your posturing has been
toward *dividing* yourself from the public interest. Of course, you won't
see it that way. That's your blindness. But look at the words and the
positioning used in this battle: It's none of your business. It's my right.
You have no right to question me unless I break the law. I have a right to
arm myself against the government.

You don't hear yourself the way the general public, and the press, and your
antagonists hear you. So you have some people who are on your side, and some
from whom you divide yourself ever more sharply with time. It's you, and
them. Now you need to keep your numbers up or you'll lose the battle. By
catering ever more to the fringes -- the people who want to carry Tec-9s on
city streets and who see nothing wrong with 20-round magazines in the deer
woods -- you push the division further. You're going to wind up completely
on one side of a great divide, with everyone either identifying completely
with you or completely against you.

It didn't used to be that way. Every cause has a fringe of antagonists, but
not every cause so foolishly lets them gain so much ground. Given public
opinion 40 years ago, you should have been able to keep them on the fringes
forever, like the people who want to eliminate cars and replace them all
with public transportation. That cause has a huge general interest keeping
the fringes on the fringe. Your cause did, too...until you squandered it.

So your arguments all sound silly, and worse. And they're all beside the
point. Now you have to keep cultivating the pure vision, keeping yourselves
ideologically pure and absolute, because you'll lose your identity as a
cause if you don't keep the dividing lines clear and sharp. You wind up
defending nutty things like 20-round magazines, for little purpose, and with
the consequence of convincing large numbers of people in this country that
you really have no sense, and that you're losing more of it all the time.

The NRA chose to fight the battle on those terms some time ago. It's one way
to fight a battle. It's the divisive way. The question is, whether they'll
find themselves on the smaller side of the divide one day. It hasn't
happened yet, and it wavers back and forth. But neither winning the day, nor
losing it, is going to justify the fact that you, and they, squandered
widespread public support for the sake of building a cadre of True
Believers.

Ed Huntress

I can't disagree with your observations. You were in the thick of it.
I would like to hear your vision of what the ideal tactics would have
been. Let's start at that 40 year threshold and work it out to the
present. Where could/should the pro-gunners have compromised and what
would they have gotten in return? Or do you think they squandered an
opportunity to maintain the status quo? Is it too late to apply your
suggestions?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ...

Sorry for tacking this here, Ed, but to make my position clear:

I am not against anyone owning any particular weapon, and I am not
against them taking it to a target range and shooting all they want to
in controlled conditions. It's their money, if they want to shoot it
away, that's their thing.

I am against taking those same weapons into the woods, in uncontrolled
conditions, and almost always not knowing if they are endangering
others by doing so.

Hunting areas in the midwest are shrinking, housing is being built,
other lands are being closed by the landowners, and with very good
reason. The day when a hunter was a gentleman has long been dead and
buried, and will probably never return. It is not uncommon to hear of
people being robbed of their game at gunpoint, it happens often. It
is also common to have hunters told to leave the land they are legally
hunting on, by someone from another atate, that does not have
permission, but he has his weapon. Yes, this is illegal, but it still
happens. Finding out of state hunters, in packs, on land posted by
someone else is common, and is of some concern to the law enforcement
people.

People **** and moan that the wardens are pricks, but almost every
violation they come on, the violator is armed to the teeth. Now, you
have a man that has already broken a law, the warden MUST take the
position that murder would not be beyond the violator. There are too
many dead wardens to testify to the folly of assuming otherwise.

If someone wants to hunt, I have no objection, used to do that myself.
If they want to loudly proclaim their right to have whatever pos
weapon, I also have the right to demand that they use it responsibly
and safely. Chai Vang is one example of the "right" without the
responsibility. You don't have thousands of people going into the
woods, now you have millions. More precautions have to be taken as
the risk is now thousands of times higher.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:42:57 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:27:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
. ..

Well, inflammatory headlines sell papers. Since the report
is that there had been a NUMBER of incidents between asian and white
hunters in the area over the past few years, perhaps there is quite
a bit more to find out. The article also calls into question the
number of rounds in Vang's gun, as it reports he had to reload five or
six rounds...hardly the killing machine portrayed elsewhere.
Still, there is a lot more of the story to come out,
I think...and I am still not convinced that any kind of a gun ban
should show up from this.

Regardless of WHAT the facts turn out to be, there's nothing here that
argues for any kind of gun ban. One incident, among people who are obviously
half out of their minds (at least some of them were), isn't a sound basis
for any kind of policy -- unless you can figure out who is a nut,

Could you start with the NRA membership rolls? Under the "Patriot
Act"?

Have I been slandered or is it libel?

Rus

Russ wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:42:57 -0500, Cliff wrote:


On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:27:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Regardless of WHAT the facts turn out to be, there's nothing here that
argues for any kind of gun ban. One incident, among people who are obviously
half out of their minds (at least some of them were), isn't a sound basis
for any kind of policy -- unless you can figure out who is a nut,

Could you start with the NRA membership rolls? Under the "Patriot
Act"?


Have I been slandered or is it libel?


Outted?

"Ed Huntress" wrote

Regardless of WHAT the facts turn out to be, there's nothing here that
argues for any kind of gun ban.

Pardon the cynacism, but that has something to do with gun bans?

Some of the mainstream media starts yelling for gun bans after *knifings*,
of all things.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:47:14 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:26:22 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

And the idiots that think outlawing extended magazines because some people use
them in crimes is sound logic don't seem to want to apply the same "logic" to
all the other things that are used in crimes. I guess they don't really think
the logic is valid, but are just looking for an excuse to further their agenda.
Too bad they're not honest enough to come right out and say so. Being
intellectually dishonest like that really tends to make many people distrust
anything they say later.

All of which makes one wonder what possible valid use those things
have.

Valid use?

Well, they are designed to kill, right? People, usually?

I hadn't read anywhere in the Constitution where I'm required to
prove that I NEED a valid use for something to YOU before I can own it.

So your neighbor's pocket nukes are fine with you?
What about Saddam's claimed WMDs?

BTW, The subject was the need & the US Constitution. You got lost.

While
we're on the red herring subject of "valid use", do you have a "valid use" for a
car that will drive above the speed limit? Since there's no place in the US with
a speed limit of 120 mph or so, we should just go ahead and outlaw any of those
dangerous cars, shouldn't we?

Something that accelerates well enough to get into traffic is nice.
Along with that is the power to go faster than the speed limit.

I assume that they took your license long ago but that between
your stays in jail you still drive. Should you be allowed guns too?

Of course, that would be ASSuming YOUR "logic" was
really valid and not just a pretense to further your real agenda.

Teaching wingers to think before flapping the lips?

Are you going to claim that they make fine hammers?

Nope, they don't go much good for driving nails.

Tell Gunner.

Please supply some logic here. A bit of foorp would be nice too.

How would you know? Logic would be lost on you, I think.

I am amused that you lack both.
HAND
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:48:00 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:28:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

Untainted fact, Ed, six people are dead because one kook with a huge
magazine was allowed to legally carry that piece of **** into the
woods, and commit murder. Six dead, others wounded, one huge clip
against only one sporting weapon. Either admit that those huge clips
aren't needed,

Needed? My copy of the Constitution doesn't have a requirement that anything
pass a standard of "need". Does yours?

What does it say about your neighbor's craven desire for nukes?
Those are "arms" too, right?

Nothing. I notice you didn't anwer my question. A Freudian avoidance, maybe?

The clever will note that you asked me no question.
Wingers, OTOH .....

HTH
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:56:39 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:50:26 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
What's interesting is the way that anytime someone uses logical
discussion the gunnuts, instead of reasoning:

A) Whine about "attacking the messenger"

Yeah, since your "logical" discussion was to attack the messenger. :/

And you are some deity's appointed messenger? Attacking Ed?

B) Brag about their guns

?????

?????

C) Call on the second amendment to the US constitution, as if
it had anything to do with any of the arguments.

Yeah, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun control. :/

So?

D) Usually get upset if the other guy has more or bigger guns

Quotes?

Cites?

E) Get really, really upset if the other guys have reason or logic.

Really couln't quote any of that, since it isn't possible.

Study law & the US Constitution.
You have a perfect right to be an idiot too, right?
What amendment covers that?

HTH
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:59:04 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

Personally, I say **** their feelings. If
they have problems with high-capacity magazines, black rifles, or anything else,
they can just get over it. It's not my problem.

Then you'll have no problem if they get banned ...
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:23:22 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

It all makes me wonder what part of "a well regulated militia" is so
****ing difficult for some folks to understand--

IIRC A standing military is rather new. Prior to that IIRC the
militias were called on if needed.

What is the timeframe on the 2nd and the standing military?
Ed may recall.

If you have the later you no longer need the former, do you?
Perhaps it's time to repeal the 2nd ....
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:00:54 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:51:18 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing
your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else.

Tell us again why you *need* guns?

Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU.

LMAO.


I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG.

Nope, you're the moron claiming there's a reason to provide a need. :/

You just wiped out most of the arguments FOR the 2nd amendment
BSEG.
Want to try for 1 out of 10?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:48:24 +0000, Guido wrote:

Cliff wrote:

And anyway, all you have to do is claim that you thought
that they had or used to have guns too, right?

Remember guns don't kill people gun owners do.

They have a harder time of it without their guns G.
Probably be reduced to just gibbering instead of shooting.

"Gimme all the money or I'll gibber at you."
How many get in practice here?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:01:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The second amendment is not for gun collectin, target practice, hunting,
or self defense.
It is about poltitical power. The power to make a revoultion and the
power to stop a revolution. This is the last balance of power.
We need the same kind of magazines that governments have.

There's a comforting thought, Clark. That really scores big. You've probably
just driven another 10-penny nail into the coffins of gun owners.

So not only do you wish to trivialize the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st
as well?

Ed...Ed Chamberlain.... " We have peace in our times"

Appeasement is for those who wish plow for others.

Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

losing it, is going to justify the fact that you, and they, squandered
widespread public support for the sake of building a cadre of True
Believers.


Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4020453.stm


Jeez, and you guys don't even KILL the damned foxes. g


Go back 30-40 years and those redcoats would have had large
public support, been seen as part of the national tapestry,
part of the culture.

Well, there was always something perverse about it, anyway...all that effort
to chase something you aren't even going to eat. d8-)

Ed Huntress

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote

Redundant--you cant have the one without also having the other
anyways.....

Your lathe is "well regulated" only because there's some federal law
requiring it to stay in adjustment?

In this case, the "well regulated militia" means the able bodied men of a
community who have done "paramilitary drills" together.

("Paramilitary" organizations are presently illegal, and the laws making
them illegal are unconstitutional.)

Rather, what you would have is many, many, "one-man armies" ( otherwise
known as anarchy )

No, more like "posse".

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Regulated

Modern, and poorly worded, definition.

If your now wanting the definition for "Militia" then suggest go ****ing
look it up for yourself.

Jowoll, Mien Fuerher!!!

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...


Jeez, and you guys don't even KILL the damned foxes. g

Go back 30-40 years and those redcoats would have had large
public support, been seen as part of the national tapestry,
part of the culture.


Well, there was always something perverse about it, anyway...all that effort
to chase something you aren't even going to eat. d8-)


The argument just became silly, and ranged from

"We don't kill many foxes most get away"
"We've need to control the number of foxes"
"Its a social thing we aren't really interested in
killing foxes, its about riding over the countryside
with hounds"
"Drag hunting (where a trail is laid for the hounds
to follow) isn't the same as there is no fox."

there is a quaint custom in on some of the farms that
surround me, where they shoot a fox and tie its carcass to
the farm gates. Now that is ****ing weird.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:01:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The second amendment is not for gun collectin, target practice,
hunting,
or self defense.
It is about poltitical power. The power to make a revoultion and the
power to stop a revolution. This is the last balance of power.
We need the same kind of magazines that governments have.

There's a comforting thought, Clark. That really scores big. You've
probably
just driven another 10-penny nail into the coffins of gun owners.

So not only do you wish to trivialize the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st
as well?

Ed...Ed Chamberlain.... " We have peace in our times"

Appeasement is for those who wish plow for others.

"Appeasement"? Where do you live, in some foreign country?

Those are your fellow citizens, Gunner. They have as much right to decide
what goes on here as you do.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...



The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and
bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

Damn. And I didn't even know you had one. Next time I need a definition
from
the OED, I won't have to ask Guido anymore. d8-)


Ed,

I have some doubt as to them having ever been in that dictionary to begin
with.

--

SVL

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...



The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and
bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

Damn. And I didn't even know you had one. Next time I need a definition
from
the OED, I won't have to ask Guido anymore. d8-)


Ed,

I have some doubt as to them having ever been in that dictionary to begin
with.

If you haven't seen that quote of Gunner's before, it's been floating around
the Internet for at least 15 years, that I know of.

Sometimes the people you'd least expect pop up with those "examples" from
the OED. I'm often amazed at the people who are so devoted to lexicography
that they'll spend $1,500 for a set of dictionaries. g

BTW, Amazon has the 2nd Edition on sale now for $900. Hurry while supplies
last.

Ed Huntress

PrecisionMachinisT wrote:


...LOL...

Appears theres quite a few blogs out there where you copied that one
from--doubtless most of em say its TRUE so it MUST be, eh???

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

--not worth my time and effort to argue over a number of carefully selected
( and out of context ) writings from the period in attempt to show that
"well regulated" didn't apply equally to government.


It's a direct cut&paste from the OED up until

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use

which is some blogger's commentary. The 1927 OED has no
definition but just lists the usages. Perhaps the latest
version lists more. However, you should consider that this a
combination word so you have to look at 'Regulated'.

Governed by rule, properly controlled, or directed,
adjusted to some standard, etc
Also freq. in combs. as badly-, ill-, well-

Of troops: properly disciplined.

"Andy Asberry" wrote in message
...


I can't disagree with your observations. You were in the thick of it.
I would like to hear your vision of what the ideal tactics would have
been. Let's start at that 40 year threshold and work it out to the
present. Where could/should the pro-gunners have compromised and what
would they have gotten in return? Or do you think they squandered an
opportunity to maintain the status quo? Is it too late to apply your
suggestions?

Those are all good questions, Andy, and I'll volunteer a few thoughts when I
get a chance. I don't know certain answers to any of them, of course.

I've tucked your message away and I'll try to get to it over the weekend.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


If you haven't seen that quote of Gunner's before, it's been floating around
the Internet for at least 15 years, that I know of.

Sometimes the people you'd least expect pop up with those "examples" from
the OED. I'm often amazed at the people who are so devoted to lexicography
that they'll spend $1,500 for a set of dictionaries. g


Mine cost $15 20+ years ago.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:04:03 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...



The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and
bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

Damn. And I didn't even know you had one. Next time I need a definition
from
the OED, I won't have to ask Guido anymore. d8-)


Ed,

I have some doubt as to them having ever been in that dictionary to begin
with.

Amusing to see Gunner *claiming* to use a source from the UK to
justify something nutty of his own G.

I have Webster's Unabridged (hardcopy, 30 pounds at least,
probably), not the Oxford .... anyone have the Oxford or paid Web
access?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:26:43 -0800, "Phillep"
wrote:

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote

Redundant--you cant have the one without also having the other
anyways.....

Your lathe is "well regulated" only because there's some federal law
requiring it to stay in adjustment?

In this case, the "well regulated militia" means the able bodied men of a
community who have done "paramilitary drills" together.

("Paramilitary" organizations are presently illegal, and the laws making
them illegal are unconstitutional.)

Then how could they be illegal?
snicker

You just claimed that the 2nd is illegal, BTW.

Jowoll, Mien Fuerher!!!

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html


snicker snicker
--
Cliff

"Guido" wrote in message
...
PrecisionMachinisT wrote:


...LOL...

Appears theres quite a few blogs out there where you copied that one
from--doubtless most of em say its TRUE so it MUST be, eh???


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

--not worth my time and effort to argue over a number of carefully
selected
( and out of context ) writings from the period in attempt to show that
"well regulated" didn't apply equally to government.


It's a direct cut&paste from the OED up until

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use

which is some blogger's commentary. The 1927 OED has no
definition but just lists the usages. Perhaps the latest
version lists more. However, you should consider that this a
combination word so you have to look at 'Regulated'.

Governed by rule, properly controlled, or directed,
adjusted to some standard, etc
Also freq. in combs. as badly-, ill-, well-

Of troops: properly disciplined.



Yeah, there are enough other historical examples and references to make it
clear that a "well regulated militia" meant one that was trained and
disciplined. Gunner really isn't off the mark with his definition. I just
get a kick out of him quoting the OED. g

Which makes me wonder what happened to drilling on the village green. That's
how they disciplined militias. If we're a militia, we ought to be out there
marching around and presenting arms, and all that stuff. Nobody has
suggested doing close-order drill to me since I was around 11.

Ed Huntress

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:32:16 +0000, the renowned Guido
wrote:



Mine (the 2-volume "Compact" version with 4 of the previous pages on
each page (photographically reduced) came with a magnifying glass and
I think it cost around $200 25 years ago. It's great except for
relatively new words (for example "quisling").


Yep that's the one. Retailed over here at £50 ($100) but
there were bookclubs that offered it as a joiner for £10.

Useless as a day to day dictionary. But good if you want to
look up usages and such like, or trace the changes in its
meaning.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:32:16 +0000, the renowned Guido
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


If you haven't seen that quote of Gunner's before, it's been floating around
the Internet for at least 15 years, that I know of.

Sometimes the people you'd least expect pop up with those "examples" from
the OED. I'm often amazed at the people who are so devoted to lexicography
that they'll spend $1,500 for a set of dictionaries. g


Mine cost $15 20+ years ago.

Mine (the 2-volume "Compact" version with 4 of the previous pages on
each page (photographically reduced) came with a magnifying glass and
I think it cost around $200 25 years ago. It's great except for
relatively new words (for example "quisling").


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing
your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else.

Tell us again why you *need* guns?

Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU.

LMAO.


I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG.

WANT is enough, Cliff. No need is required. It's a right, not a privilege
to be doled out.

Joe

--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...


I have Webster's Unabridged (hardcopy, 30 pounds at least,
probably), not the Oxford .... anyone have the Oxford or paid Web
access?

I have the disc version, which I received as a present around 6 years ago.
But the last time my computer crashed I didn't reload it. I use the one in
my local library on those rare occassions that I want it.

Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:00:54 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:51:18 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing
your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else.

Tell us again why you *need* guns?

Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU.

LMAO.


I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG.

Nope, you're the moron claiming there's a reason to provide a need. :/

You just wiped out most of the arguments FOR the 2nd amendment
BSEG.
Want to try for 1 out of 10?
--
Cliff

Just Because is a good enough reason and sufficient need, Cliffie. Just
because it's a right. And the 2nd Ammendment exists and doesn't need
arguments to prove its existence. As for the interpretation, I'm sure
there's no convincing you that it's an individual right - Right? Well, be
sure that there are plenty of us out here who are already convinced of that
fact.

And, no... I'm not some redneck in flyover country. I live in California,
in the SF Bay Area - Heart of the Left Coast.

Yeah, yeah... you will contend that redneck is a state of mind. If so, I'm
proud to be in that state of mind.

Joe

Ed Huntress wrote:



Yeah, there are enough other historical examples and references to make it
clear that a "well regulated militia" meant one that was trained and
disciplined. Gunner really isn't off the mark with his definition. I just
get a kick out of him quoting the OED. g


I noticed and so obviously blogged.

Which makes me wonder what happened to drilling on the village green. That's
how they disciplined militias. If we're a militia, we ought to be out there
marching around and presenting arms, and all that stuff. Nobody has
suggested doing close-order drill to me since I was around 11.


Hmmm. Just re-read Thomas Hood's short comedy sketch "The
Yeomanry - An Unfavourable Review".

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:46:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted:

Have fun cooking up another story. Maybe, like Larry, you anticipate a
swarming hoard of Muslims who got past the US Navy, the US Air Force, the
US
Army and the National Guard, and who decided to attack your front porch.

Well, you got that one completely wrong, too, Ed. I'm more concerned
how our own people will react when the electricity/gas/fuel all stop
flowing.

Jeez, Larry, you worry too much. That's wackier than the story about the
hordes and the 20-round magazines.

Since GE Miniguns are a little tough to come by these days, here's something
you can do: Have the siding on your house replaced by 2-inch-thich armor
plate. Cut gun slots through it at judicious intervals. Buy a shotshell
reloader and make 10,000 or 20,000 buckshot loads. Stock them near the gun
slots. Have a pump-action shotgun ready at each gun slot station, along with
a gas mask and a flak jacket.

You'll be relatively safe from the hordes and from the people who are
looking for your secret cache of gasoline. And you'll be truly free.

NOW who's posting cockamamie ideas, hmmm?


bin Laden is counting on our self-destruction, and judging
by past riots, where people tore up their own neighborhoods, that's
not a bad assessment of how things might be. If you don't want to
stock up on food/water/cooking fuel/ammo, etc. that's up to you. But
don't label me a whacko for common sense preparedness.

You don't store your urine in Mason jars by any chance, do you? g

Not likely.


--------------------------------------
PESSIMIST: An optimist with experience
--------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Web Database Development