"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
John Rumm writes:

You know its a bad day when you fall off a scaffold and "Carpenter
fell from a 2nd floor scaffold onto a running table saw, lost most of
his hand."

If I fell from a second floor scaffold onto a running table saw and
the news said "lost most of his hand", I'd consider myself to have
gotten off very lucky.

I somehow doubt that any of us would really feel lucky in such an event.

--

-Mike-

on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"willshak" wrote in message
My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.

Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.

G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.

regards
John
Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was a
singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I don't
know if that was by the Crew Cuts

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

on 9/11/2007 7:36 AM John B said the following:
dennis@home wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from John B ""johntoymaker\"@large puddle.com" contains these words:

While at Tech, doing my apprenticeship we where warned never to wear
jewellery, including rings in the work shop. (Although some of the
instructors wore ties).
To drive home the message several large posters of photographs were
displayed.
One that I've never forgotten was of a finger with a wedding ring
and a
long piece of string like stuff protruding from where it had been torn
from a hand.
This was a tendon that had stayed attached and pulled out from the
shoulder. No use or very little left in the blokes arm.

That photo made a lasting impression on me as well (back in 1962 or
63).
I was thinking about making a similar post myself when I found John had
beaten me to it.


Probably faked though as the tendon would only go till just after the
wrist where it attaches to the muscles that work the fingers.
About 6 inches I would estimate.
I always took my watch off after being told what happens if you
forget and reach between the battery bus bars and never have worn a
ring as they are naff and dangerous everywhere not just at work.
G'day Roger,
Could have been ?? May not have been a tendon, but that's the way I
remember it.
It still did the trick, even if they played around with it in the 60's
and 70's.
I won't let the War Office see this in case she takes your point of
view and makes me hunt up the ring

regards
John

Between then and now, your recollection of the length of the tendon has
been growing longer with each telling. :-)

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

In message , willshak
writes
on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"willshak" wrote in message
My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.

Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.

G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.

regards
John
Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"


We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:40:47 -0400, "Charley"
wrote:


Let this be a lesson to all of you - If you have to use a rope to do your
high maintenance repairs, make sure you tie it to something that isn't going
to drive away.


Charley

Same thing happened to the guy who had his cottage next to my
neighbour's cottage on Lake Huron. The cottage was down at the bottom
of a bank, parking up top, just about roof height.He was repairing the
roof, roped off to the car when his wife backed the car out to go play
cards with her friends down the road. She stopped when she saw him
come over the roof, and he ended up falling off the roof and broke his
leg. He gets home and is on the mend when his wife decided to do some
painting. She cleaned the brushes with turpentine or some other
flamable solvent and dumped it down the hole of the outhouse.
Poor guy goes in for a crap, sits down and lights his pipe, and drops
the (still burning) match down the hole. KABOOOM!!!
Now he's got his leg in a cast and second degree burns on his keester.
Both courtesy of his lovin' wife!!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:24:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
raden wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

In the UK if we had the right to carry a gun and be immune to defending
ourselves against a mugger with a knife, or a burglar in the house,
then I am all for it.

Do you understand nurfink?


I understant that you're aren't qualified to own a gun, in your nanny
state.

One of the more sensible laws we have

True. Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either. Pity your nation is filled with such.

Gunner

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:24:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result


Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Spoils your day a bit if you're not a baddie, though


Of course it does. Nearly as bad as crashing through your windshield
on the highway.

Or falling off a ladder

Or drowning in a swimming pool

Or bleeding to death after misusing a power tool

Or choking to death on food

Etc

So you have no issues with banning motorcars, ladders, swimming pools,
power tools and food.

Correct?

Gunner

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result

Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.

We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic


Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

Gunner

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:24:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
raden wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

In the UK if we had the right to carry a gun and be immune to
defending ourselves against a mugger with a knife, or a burglar in the
house, then I am all for it.

Do you understand nurfink?


I understant that you're aren't qualified to own a gun, in your nanny
state.

One of the more sensible laws we have

True. Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either. Pity your nation is filled with such.

Gunner

Seems there is a significant scandal in the UK right now regarding
ministers having cooked to books to under-report the number of, and
escalating amount of gun crimes in that safe, gun-free country.

Free men own guns, slaves don't.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:

John
Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"


We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff


why would anyone want to brush a swamp?

Gunner

on 9/11/2007 11:34 PM Gunner said the following:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:


In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result

Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner

He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.


We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic



Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

Gunner


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

willshak wrote:

| Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees
| weapons ownership?

Because it does (in the last fourteen words of what you've quoted
below.)

| Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have
| read it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
| "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
| state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
| infringed".

That first clause is the rationale for what follows. If you don't
understand the motivation, a review of colonial history will
contribute to your appreciation of the principles involved. You might
find a review of the grievances listed in the Declaration of
Independence illuminating. The authors of the Constitution ensured
that citizens would be empowered to say "No!" to tyranny - both from
outside and from within our borders.

If you want to rebut by pointing out that there is no tyranny, then I
give you my very happiest smiley. :-)

| How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

I, and a great many others here, have so belonged. I was a gun owner
before, during, and after so belonging - not much different from
millions of other Americans. Like those others I took an oath to
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and I intend to keep
that oath. You might prefer that I do so with a pitchfork or club, but
the authors of the Constitution preferred otherwise and gave their
preference force of law.

My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.

--
Morris Dovey
Declaration of Independence: www.iedu.com/mrd/07041776.html
Constitution: www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:37:03 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:24:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
raden wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

In the UK if we had the right to carry a gun and be immune to
defending ourselves against a mugger with a knife, or a burglar in the
house, then I am all for it.

Do you understand nurfink?


I understant that you're aren't qualified to own a gun, in your nanny
state.

One of the more sensible laws we have

True. Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either. Pity your nation is filled with such.

Gunner

Seems there is a significant scandal in the UK right now regarding
ministers having cooked to books to under-report the number of, and
escalating amount of gun crimes in that safe, gun-free country.

That's been happening for years. Only crimes that were solved and
arrests made, were often only counted.

In fact..my friends in the UK say law enforcement is so incompetent or
overwhelmed, that most don't bother reporting crimes.

Shrug

Gunner


Free men own guns, slaves don't.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:52:48 -0400, willshak
wrote:


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?

It doesn't. It guarantees the Right to own a weapon. If you choose not
to exercise that right...you don't have to.

Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

You seem to have missed that tiny little "comma" between the first and
second clauses in the verbiage as well as the third clause.


Is there some reason for your reading comprehension issues? Some form
of autism perhaps?

Gunner

Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with the number of murders by gun crime
both in the US and the UK then - just to prove you're right.

Remember to cite your sources.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:37:03 +0100, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with the number of murders by gun crime
both in the US and the UK then - just to prove you're right.

Remember to cite your sources.

Of course.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Note that those are total murders by all methods

Now lets look at those committed with firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Seems that you have more than your fair share of murders by means
other than firearms.

So a murder by blunt object is superior to murder by bullet eh?

Oh..it should be noted that the UK has been under reporting its crime
rate by a significant number of incidents. Millions in fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Cont...&site=5&page=0



Now..lets look at gun crime in the UK shall we?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

"By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than
America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New
York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed
individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but
criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A
study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the
police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when
people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England. "

"A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New
York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although
for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted
access to firearms.

When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A
government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun
homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for
both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7
times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and
by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in
startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest
for 100 years the two are on a path to converge. "


Oh oh.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2317307.ece

Geeze..seems like its (murder) is out of control ..and they want to
redefine it in the UK....

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc304.pdf


2006 totals of murders by country (by all methods)

United States: 12,658
United Kingdom: 850


US population 302,849,527
UK population 60,600,00

US population is nearly 5 times that of the UK

Adjusted UK murder rate is 4250

Murders committed by gang members in the US (ages 12- 30yrs)
8,239

12,658 minus 8239 = 4419 or 169 more in the US than in the UK.

Odd..shouldnt the numbers be radically different? Odd that with so
many guns in the US, as opposed to so few in the UK...why is there
only 169 more in the US than in the UK?

The numbers of course should be zero or close to it in the UK, with
their draconian gun ban.

Why isnt it?

But then..that explains why rape, hot burglarly and assaults are
higher in the UK, by an order of magntude than those in the US.
Because its illegal to defend oneself in the UK.Ne?


gunner









http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm

Odd..while the crime rate in the US is falling like a rock..it seems
to be skyrocketing in the UK, along with gun crime.

Strange how that happens

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:21:29 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:


| How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

I, and a great many others here, have so belonged.

United States Code 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.


Pay particular attention to Section 2

Gunner

Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:

John
Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"

We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff


why would anyone want to brush a swamp?

"bog" being a UK slang expression for toilet ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
...
Gunner wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:24:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
raden wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

In the UK if we had the right to carry a gun and be immune to
defending ourselves against a mugger with a knife, or a burglar in
the
house, then I am all for it.

Do you understand nurfink?


I understant that you're aren't qualified to own a gun, in your nanny
state.

One of the more sensible laws we have

True. Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either. Pity your nation is filled with such.

Gunner

Seems there is a significant scandal in the UK right now regarding
ministers having cooked to books to under-report the number of, and
escalating amount of gun crimes in that safe, gun-free country.

Where did you read this. There is no such scandal of that
type that I know. True gun ownership by 'gangs' is rife, by
no-one is out there "cooking the books"

tim

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:37:03 +0100, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with the number of murders by gun crime
both in the US and the UK then - just to prove you're right.

Remember to cite your sources.

Of course.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Note that those are total murders by all methods

Now lets look at those committed with firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Seems that you have more than your fair share of murders by means
other than firearms.

So a murder by blunt object is superior to murder by bullet eh?

Oh..it should be noted that the UK has been under reporting its crime
rate by a significant number of incidents. Millions in fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Cont...&site=5&page=0

And other countries don't do that?

I betya they do.

tim

Colin Wilson wrote:
Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with the number of murders by gun crime
both in the US and the UK then - just to prove you're right.

Remember to cite your sources.

Uh, what does "the number of murders by gun crime" have to do with
"letting the mentally ill own firearms"? Are you suggesting that
committing murder is prima facie evidence that one is mentally ill?
If not then what are you suggesting?


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

tim..... wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:37:03 +0100, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with the number of murders by gun
crime
both in the US and the UK then - just to prove you're right.

Remember to cite your sources.

Of course.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Note that those are total murders by all methods

Now lets look at those committed with firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Seems that you have more than your fair share of murders by means
other than firearms.

So a murder by blunt object is superior to murder by bullet eh?

Oh..it should be noted that the UK has been under reporting its
crime
rate by a significant number of incidents. Millions in fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Cont...&site=5&page=0

And other countries don't do that?

I betya they do.

You might find
http://www.statscom.org.uk/uploads/f...view-final.pdf
to be of interest. Among other things, they point out that in the UK
the national crime reporting system has only been in place since 2002.
In the US it has been in places since some time in the 1930s and it is
generally accepted (at least among those who have been involved with
the development of that system) that it initially badly underestimated
the amount of crime that went on as the local departments on whose
data it relies didn't bother to file reports--now it's mostly
automated and tied into the National Crime Information Center. Still,
some of the issues raised in the UK report also apply to the US--if
nobody reports the crime then it doesn't go into the system for
example.

Would be very interesting if the difference in US and worldwide crime
rates turned out to be an artifact of the reporting.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"willshak" wrote in message
...


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read it,
completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

It's not a clause (except to a lawyer), because it contains no predicate.
It's a phrase, and the sentence is a type called "nominative absolute."
Nominative absolute sentences tell you nothing about the dependency of the
clause ("the right of the people..." etc.) upon the phrase. It may be a
dependency, or it may be incidental. Often it's a sufficient but not
necessary condition.

Nobody ever gets this right, so don't feel badly about it. And it wouldn't
be the first time the FFs wrote something that was intentionally ambiguous.
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to get the anti-federalists to
calm down and ratify the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Gunner does identify the source of the idea of our 2nd Amendment as a
"right," however, which is English common law.

--
Ed Huntress

The perfect machinists clothing. No sleeves, no tie, not loose, only
comes in black and made in extra large. What more can you ask for?:
http://www.allaboutdance.com/s.nl/it...&categor y=28
Karl





On Sep 10, 5:10 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:17:39 -0400, "Ed Huntress"





wrote:

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

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair cut
short...

--
Ed Huntress

Back in the early to mid 70's when I was living with my grandparents and
had grown my hair to about my belt loops, Grandpa and I went to the store
one evening. Saw the ugliest looking person you ever saw. Grandpa asked
him, "What happened to you?"
The guy answered, "I got my ponytail caught in the lathe at work!"

Yikes

5 minutes later and several aisles over, Grandpa told me, "I ain't gonna
ever tell you to get your hair cut again."

Didn't have long hair very much after that.

Man, these stories are piling up. My 1943 edition of _How to Run a Lathe_
doesn't say anything about it. d8-)

A kid at the highschool where a friend's wife teaches always wore
baggy track pants to school - regimental. Thought he was IT.

One day he somehow got his drawstring caught (wrapped around) on the
wood lathe. Got a few good wraps of the track pants wound up too. They
got the lathe stopped in time to save "the boys" - but JUST.
Didn't faze the idiot at all - - -

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:52:48 -0400, willshak
wrote:

on 9/11/2007 11:34 PM Gunner said the following:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:


In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result

Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner

He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.


We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic



Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

Gunner


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

And where's the part of that which says a "well regulated militia" is
the ONLY reason you can own a gun?

I expect you don't know, and are just mindlessly repeating some
nonsense you heard somewhere (from someone who doesn't know either).

on 9/12/2007 5:09 AM Gunner said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:21:29 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:


| How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

I, and a great many others here, have so belonged.


United States Code 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.


Pay particular attention to Section 2

Gunner



311.(a) says the militia shall consist of 'able bodied males' between
the ages of 17 and 45, and 'females who are members of the National Guard'.
I read that as males not in that age group, or females not in the
National Guard, are not members of a militia.
That's what it says, whether or not one disagrees with it.
(2) refers to 'members of the militia', which is defined in 311 (a)

From http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

"Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used
interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided
difference between the two. _Militia were men in arms formed _to protect
their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a
small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile
and able to assemble quickly. _Minutemen were selected from militia
muster rolls by their commanding officers_. Typically 25 years of age or
younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and
physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as
Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the
first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.

Bring on more insults.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

on 9/12/2007 10:48 AM Sam E said the following:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:52:48 -0400, willshak
wrote:


on 9/11/2007 11:34 PM Gunner said the following:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:



In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes


Gunner wrote:


On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:



Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left


Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say



Free men own guns


And dead people are the result


Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.



We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic


Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

Gunner


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?


And where's the part of that which says a "well regulated militia" is
the ONLY reason you can own a gun?


It is the section that gun proponents quote. If there is another section
that outlines gun ownership other than the 'militia, please cite it.

I expect you don't know, and are just mindlessly repeating some
nonsense you heard somewhere (from someone who doesn't know either).

I haven't insulted anyone over this issue. Why is it that you fell the
need to do so?

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:52:48 -0400, willshak
wrote:
snip
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?
snip

This is simply another red herring for a yet another "gun grab."

The idea of armed and trained citizens united in well-regulated
and organized local militia units strikes terror in the hearts of
politicians and political functionaries everywhere.

In many states this is specifically prohibited unless they are
under the control of the political authorities as is our
so-called national guard.

As in most things, if the politicians and bureaucrats are against
it, it is the best thing for the people.

FWIW -- as soon as it became obvious that using national guard
troops to augment the border patrol / ICE was having very
positive effects on reducing illegal immigration, they were
removed from such duty. Why are national guard units on border
security duty a good thing in Iraq but a bad thing in Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona and California?


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 11:34 PM Gunner said the following:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:



In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes


Gunner wrote:


On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden wrote:



Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left


Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say



Free men own guns


And dead people are the result


Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.



We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic




Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

Gunner



Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?




The Constitution of the United States of America contains in the first
TEN amendments FOUR references to "PEOPLE". Why is it that the second
reference is interpreted by the anti gun fanatics to mean the GOVERNMENT
and the other THREE references to mean them?

A clear and concise answer please, no prevarications....

Ed Huntress wrote:

"willshak" wrote in message
...


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read it,
completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?


It's not a clause (except to a lawyer), because it contains no predicate.
It's a phrase, and the sentence is a type called "nominative absolute."
Nominative absolute sentences tell you nothing about the dependency of the
clause ("the right of the people..." etc.) upon the phrase. It may be a
dependency, or it may be incidental. Often it's a sufficient but not
necessary condition.

Nobody ever gets this right, so don't feel badly about it. And it wouldn't
be the first time the FFs wrote something that was intentionally ambiguous.
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to get the anti-federalists to
calm down and ratify the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Gunner does identify the source of the idea of our 2nd Amendment as a
"right," however, which is English common law.

--
Ed Huntress



Ed;

The Founding Fathers may have been unnecessarily ambigous in the
phrasing of the Second Amendment but the Resolution of Congress that
became the 2ND Amendment upon ratification by the states was NUMBER ONE
on the list of Resolutions passed by Congress and sent to the states.


Dave

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:45:10 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:37:03 +0100, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with the number of murders by gun crime
both in the US and the UK then - just to prove you're right.

Remember to cite your sources.

Of course.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Note that those are total murders by all methods

Now lets look at those committed with firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Seems that you have more than your fair share of murders by means
other than firearms.

So a murder by blunt object is superior to murder by bullet eh?

Oh..it should be noted that the UK has been under reporting its crime
rate by a significant number of incidents. Millions in fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Cont...&site=5&page=0

And other countries don't do that?

I betya they do.

tim


When you can provide cites from major media in those countries
themselves admitting it, please bring it forth.

Gunner

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:52:48 -0400, willshak
wrote:
snip
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?
snip

This is simply another red herring for a yet another "gun grab."

The idea of armed and trained citizens united in well-regulated
and organized local militia units strikes terror in the hearts of
politicians and political functionaries everywhere.

Oh, I doubt that. Is there some historical support for that, say, in the
first years after our independence? There sure were plenty of armed citizens
around.

Say, George, have you gotten any surprise calls from the NRA lately? I got
one last evening, intended for my wife. How they got her on the list I'll
never know. It was either AARP or the NJ Education Association. g

Anyway, this sweet young thing named Angel asked if I had time to hear from
Wayne and I said sure, I hadn't talked to him in nearly 20 years and it
would be a pleasure. Wayne came on the phone and started talking but he
didn't let up when I talked back. He acted as if he didn't even hear me. I
guess we had a bad connection.

Wayne was running on about some new bill, H.R. 1022 I think, that the
Democrats from Hell had introduced, which must be something awful. If I
heard him correctly it allows registered Democrats to slit my throat and
disembowel me if I'm caught with a gun, or something like that. Anyway,
Wayne was talking a mile a minute (the guy still has *some* energy) and then
he left. Another sweet young thing came back on and seemed surprised that I
was still there. She said she needed for me to take out a five-year
membership for the limited-time price of $100. I started to tell her about
why I had not renewed my NRA membership but it obviously didn't interest
her, so I changed the subject. I wanted to know how everybody at HQ was
doing, and how the gun-rights battle is going.

I don't think she was equipped to answer that but she filled in by offering
me something if I re-upped; it sounded like some kind of Swiss Army knife. I
haven't had one of those so I was intrigued. Then she threw in the real coup
de grace: a gen-you-wine, rosewood-handled NRA knife. This excited me. I
didn't even wait to hear if it was a sheath knife or a folding knife. I just
pictured myself whipping out a knife with "NRA" on the side at a client
meeting in NYC, cleaning my fingernails with it while discussing market
shares or something.

So I told her OK. This appeared to nearly knock her off her seat. I had my
choice of magazines (no Playboy, unfortunately, and they didn't offer
Harper's or Mother Jones), so I went for trusty old _American Rifleman_.
It's time for me to catch up on the new technology, especially those
1,000-yard woodchuck guns. I could sit on a hill near hear and cover half
the county with one of those, which may be just a fantasy but it's something
that definitely would be easier on my legs than walking all over hell. I
would have scoffed at those things 20 years ago but no more. I'm tired of
walking.

Before she hung up she asked if I wanted to contribute another $15
specifically to take out a political contract on Hillary. I told her don't
push it.

I wonder how long before I get the Swiss Army thingie and the real prize, my
NRA knife? I can't wait.

--
Ed Huntress

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

"willshak" wrote in message
...


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?


It's not a clause (except to a lawyer), because it contains no predicate.
It's a phrase, and the sentence is a type called "nominative absolute."
Nominative absolute sentences tell you nothing about the dependency of
the clause ("the right of the people..." etc.) upon the phrase. It may be
a dependency, or it may be incidental. Often it's a sufficient but not
necessary condition.

Nobody ever gets this right, so don't feel badly about it. And it
wouldn't be the first time the FFs wrote something that was intentionally
ambiguous. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to get the
anti-federalists to calm down and ratify the Constitution. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Gunner does identify the source of the idea of our 2nd Amendment as a
"right," however, which is English common law.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed;

The Founding Fathers may have been unnecessarily ambigous in the phrasing
of the Second Amendment but the Resolution of Congress that became the 2ND
Amendment upon ratification by the states was NUMBER ONE on the list of
Resolutions passed by Congress and sent to the states.

I'm not sure what that means. Was it the shortest one? It seems like it must
have been the shortest.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:20:38 -0400, willshak
wrote:

on 9/12/2007 5:09 AM Gunner said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:21:29 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:


| How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

I, and a great many others here, have so belonged.


United States Code 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.


Pay particular attention to Section 2

Gunner



311.(a) says the militia shall consist of 'able bodied males' between
the ages of 17 and 45, and 'females who are members of the National Guard'.
I read that as males not in that age group, or females not in the
National Guard, are not members of a militia.
That's what it says, whether or not one disagrees with it.
(2) refers to 'members of the militia', which is defined in 311 (a)

From http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

"Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used
interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided
difference between the two. _Militia were men in arms formed _to protect
their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a
small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile
and able to assemble quickly. _Minutemen were selected from militia
muster rolls by their commanding officers_. Typically 25 years of age or
younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and
physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as
Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the
first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.

Bring on more insults.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/tech...d5882.jpg.html


Since you wish to make claims regarding the 18th century....

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Militia

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,
.... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either
Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall
have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American
.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the
federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever
remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

http://www.a-human-right.com/predict2_s.jpg
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5320-2/freedom.jpg


Oh..btw...the 45yr age restriction is unlawful, according to Federal
ADA laws.

In practice..the age restriction is ignored. Keep in mind that in
1778...45 yrs of age was close to the average life expectancy, so that
was considered close to elderly.




Oh..something else you should read...

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things
have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to
make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If
during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in
their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door
and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had
nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush
of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at
hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of
officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed
machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag
Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_gulag.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg


Since you have difficulties with written word....perhaps pictures may
be of assistance to you...

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_order.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg


http://www.a-human-right.com/history_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_colors3.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5329-2/defender.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_how.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_rob.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_grenades.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_irs.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/panther_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_constitutional.jpg

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:20:38 -0400, willshak
wrote:

on 9/12/2007 5:09 AM Gunner said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:21:29 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:


| How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

I, and a great many others here, have so belonged.


United States Code 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.


Pay particular attention to Section 2

Gunner



311.(a) says the militia shall consist of 'able bodied males' between
the ages of 17 and 45, and 'females who are members of the National
Guard'.
I read that as males not in that age group, or females not in the
National Guard, are not members of a militia.
That's what it says, whether or not one disagrees with it.
(2) refers to 'members of the militia', which is defined in 311 (a)

From http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

"Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used
interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided
difference between the two. _Militia were men in arms formed _to protect
their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a
small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile
and able to assemble quickly. _Minutemen were selected from militia
muster rolls by their commanding officers_. Typically 25 years of age or
younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and
physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as
Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the
first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.

Bring on more insults.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/tech...d5882.jpg.html


Since you wish to make claims regarding the 18th century....

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Militia

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,
... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
- "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either
Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall
have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American
... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the
federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever
remain, in the hands of the People."
- Tench Coxe, 1788.

http://www.a-human-right.com/predict2_s.jpg
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5320-2/freedom.jpg


Oh..btw...the 45yr age restriction is unlawful, according to Federal
ADA laws.

In practice..the age restriction is ignored. Keep in mind that in
1778...45 yrs of age was close to the average life expectancy, so that
was considered close to elderly.




Oh..something else you should read...

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things
have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to
make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If
during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in
their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door
and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had
nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush
of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at
hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of
officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed
machine would have ground to a halt."
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag
Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_gulag.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg


Since you have difficulties with written word....perhaps pictures may
be of assistance to you...

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_order.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg


http://www.a-human-right.com/history_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_colors3.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5329-2/defender.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_how.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_rob.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_grenades.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_irs.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/panther_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_constitutional.jpg

Here we go! Hang on, folks, it's the battle of the Gun Quotes, and it's
going to be a bumpy ride...

--
Ed Huntress

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:45:10 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:37:03 +0100, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with the number of murders by gun crime
both in the US and the UK then - just to prove you're right.

Remember to cite your sources.

Of course.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

Note that those are total murders by all methods

Now lets look at those committed with firearms

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Seems that you have more than your fair share of murders by means
other than firearms.

So a murder by blunt object is superior to murder by bullet eh?

Oh..it should be noted that the UK has been under reporting its crime
rate by a significant number of incidents. Millions in fact.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Cont...&site=5&page=0

And other countries don't do that?

I betya they do.

tim


When you can provide cites from major media in those countries
themselves admitting it, please bring it forth.

Aw come on.

Everyone knows that the press exagerate (in the UK
anyway) and you want me to bring you press reports
as *proof*!

tim

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:27:31 -0000, "
wrote:

The perfect machinists clothing. No sleeves, no tie, not loose, only
comes in black and made in extra large. What more can you ask for?:
http://www.allaboutdance.com/s.nl/it...&categor y=28
Karl


Crom but thats soooooo gay......geeze....






On Sep 10, 5:10 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:17:39 -0400, "Ed Huntress"





wrote:

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

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair cut
short...

--
Ed Huntress

Back in the early to mid 70's when I was living with my grandparents and
had grown my hair to about my belt loops, Grandpa and I went to the store
one evening. Saw the ugliest looking person you ever saw. Grandpa asked
him, "What happened to you?"
The guy answered, "I got my ponytail caught in the lathe at work!"

Yikes

5 minutes later and several aisles over, Grandpa told me, "I ain't gonna
ever tell you to get your hair cut again."

Didn't have long hair very much after that.

Man, these stories are piling up. My 1943 edition of _How to Run a Lathe_
doesn't say anything about it. d8-)

A kid at the highschool where a friend's wife teaches always wore
baggy track pants to school - regimental. Thought he was IT.

One day he somehow got his drawstring caught (wrapped around) on the
wood lathe. Got a few good wraps of the track pants wound up too. They
got the lathe stopped in time to save "the boys" - but JUST.
Didn't faze the idiot at all - - -

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ameijers wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Lee Michaels wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote


I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my
hair cut short...


Reminds me of a conversation I had with a deputy sheriff. He used
to have a handsome head of hair. Until the night he got involved
in an altercation with a crazed, very intoxicated woman. She
grabbed his hair in a death grip and they could not pry her loose
for several minutes. By that time, she had torn much of his scalp
loose from his head.

The resulting injuries were very painful and took awhile to heal.
They shaved his head before they did the surgery to reattach his
scalp. He had to keep it shaved during the recovery. It has never
been more than a half an inch long since.

He said if he retires or takes up another line of work, he might
grow some hair agin. But as long as he is a law enforcement
officer, he will go with a buzz cut.

I don't know what a buzz cut is, but I suspect that it is a cut of
the hair that can not be grabbed/held.

'Buzz Cut' draws its name from the buzzing sound the clippers make
as
they ride along the scalp. Think electric dog clippers- basically
the
same thing. The buzz is 60hz, from the alternating line current,
that
is used to move the heads back and forth. In UK, it would be a 50hz
buzz. You hear it right through your skull. I had buzz cuts as a
kid,
until I looked in the mirror one day around 4th or 5th grade. I had
a
pony tail as a teenager, but am back to above-the collar now. The
current buzz-cut fad, presumably war-inspired, leaves me cold.

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war. Circle goes
around--when I was a little kid buzz cuts and crew cuts were popular.
When I was a bit older styles got longer (I remember when the Beatles,
as they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, had scandalously long hair)
and longer and longer and then shorter and shorter and shorter and now
we're back to buzz cuts. In another 30 years or so it will be long
again.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:07:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:20:38 -0400, willshak
wrote:

on 9/12/2007 5:09 AM Gunner said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:21:29 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:


| How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

I, and a great many others here, have so belonged.


United States Code 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.


Pay particular attention to Section 2

Gunner



311.(a) says the militia shall consist of 'able bodied males' between
the ages of 17 and 45, and 'females who are members of the National
Guard'.
I read that as males not in that age group, or females not in the
National Guard, are not members of a militia.
That's what it says, whether or not one disagrees with it.
(2) refers to 'members of the militia', which is defined in 311 (a)

From http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

"Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used
interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided
difference between the two. _Militia were men in arms formed _to protect
their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a
small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile
and able to assemble quickly. _Minutemen were selected from militia
muster rolls by their commanding officers_. Typically 25 years of age or
younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and
physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as
Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the
first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.

Bring on more insults.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/tech...d5882.jpg.html


Since you wish to make claims regarding the 18th century....

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Militia

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,
... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
- "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either
Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall
have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American
... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the
federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever
remain, in the hands of the People."
- Tench Coxe, 1788.

http://www.a-human-right.com/predict2_s.jpg
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5320-2/freedom.jpg


Oh..btw...the 45yr age restriction is unlawful, according to Federal
ADA laws.

In practice..the age restriction is ignored. Keep in mind that in
1778...45 yrs of age was close to the average life expectancy, so that
was considered close to elderly.




Oh..something else you should read...

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things
have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to
make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If
during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in
their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door
and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had
nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush
of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at
hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of
officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed
machine would have ground to a halt."
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag
Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_gulag.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg


Since you have difficulties with written word....perhaps pictures may
be of assistance to you...

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_order.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg


http://www.a-human-right.com/history_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_colors3.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5329-2/defender.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_how.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_rob.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_grenades.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_irs.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/panther_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_constitutional.jpg

Here we go! Hang on, folks, it's the battle of the Gun Quotes, and it's
going to be a bumpy ride...

So presenting verifyable data points to counter raw emotionalism from
my opponents is somehow a bad thing?

Gunner

willshak wrote:
on 9/11/2007 11:34 PM Gunner said the following:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:


In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden
wrote:


Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left

Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say


Free men own guns

And dead people are the result

Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner

He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment
cult.


We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic



Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

Gunner


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees
weapons ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have
read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

It seems that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit disagrees with your intepretation.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)