"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:31 am, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:
Make of this what you will... I thought it was interesting!

What's in your pocket? What's in your shop?

U.S. Customs has proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted
opening knives are not switchblades. The proposal would not only
outlaw assisted opening knives, its overly broad new definition of a
switchblade would also include all one-handed opening knives and
most other pocket knives.

I don't understand why people are getting worked up about this.
They're talking about assisted knives and one-handed operation.
That's the territory of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
So let the two branches of government fight it out.
Kind of like tossing a meat bone to a couple of dogs so they fight
each other instead of you.


You don't have a utility knife - the kind where you push a tab and the
blade extends?

I don't think the VA police would let a visitor bring such a weapon into
the hospital. For reasons of prior unpleasant experiences. Would you
like me to ask my friendly Manhattan VA Officer?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
"Leon" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
Swingman wrote in news:AaKdnX4ygp-
:


Exactly. But that is not my question. Why did an innocent guard
at a museum have to die? Why did all those people in the Murrah
building in Oklahoma City have to die? Or is that the risk of
living?


Might want to rethink that question. Do you know of any one that
will not eventually die? I suspect that more people die of natural
causes than from weapons. Being killed has always been and will
always be a risk of living.

I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your
number is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to
condone lunatics who hatch murderous plans?

So what do you propose to do about them?

We are paying the FBI to prevent terrorism, and we have monitors
exmining websites. People who openly advertise that they are crazy
(as von Brunn did on his website) should not be allowed to possess
firearms.

It is unlawful for anyone who has been adjudicated mentally defective to
possess a firearm. What are you proposing, that anyone who expresses an
unpopular opinion on a Web side be adjudicated mentally defective?

Tell us how to draft such a statute so that one could not have _you_
declared mentally defective on the basis of your continued off-topic
rantings on this newsgroup.

In addition, I am afraid that airport-type controls should
be instituted at places like the Holocaust museum(s). The ubiquitous
presence of firearms permits too many crazies to go around killing
people. If you don't want to limit firearms possession, we'll all
have to live in an armed defensive camp.

Or maybe we just train security guards to a high enough standard that some
decrepit old codger won't get the drop on them.

Why are you singling out that one murder as being of such vast significance?

HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Bob S. wrote:

There are people out there that would insist that a fully automatic
weapon is a necessary hunting gun - right up until they have been
shot at by one.

Bob S.

Can you quote any of them? I've followed the arguments of the
gun-rights crowd somewhat, and I don't recall seeing anyone insist
that they need full-auto weapons for hunting. I'd be interested in
knowing where I could find statements from people that they need
machine guns for hunting, got any links handy?

Just today:

"[FREETOWN, Sierra Leone] 'We have forced water into the building and
some of the snakes trying to escape were shot by our men carrying
AK-47s...About 250 of the estimated 400 snakes who had made the
[police] station their home have been killed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090613/od_nm/us_snakes

Huh? Once again you have found no statement that people need machine guns
for hunting, all that you have found is that some cops in Sierra Leone used
their issue AK-47s to shoot snakes. What would you have had them do, waste
time and money going off and obtaining more politically correct firearms for
that one incident when the ones they were issued would do the job just fine?

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:16:10 +0000, Han wrote:

"David G. Nagel" wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Han wrote:
Entering my place of work (VA Hospital) requires me to show ID and
send my briefcase or backpack through the Xray machine. If I leave
my Swiss Army-type knife in there I get a hard time. As an employee
I go through a minimally active magnetometer, so my pants pocket is
the obvious alternative. It's nonsense, because I have many sharp
or otherwise potentially hazardous things in my lab, but them's the
rules.

Meh!

In January, 2002 (right after 9-11) a senior citizen was discovered
trying to sneak a "Ninja Star" weapon aboard a flight leaving Sky
Harbor airport in Phoenix. Pulled aside and questioned, it was
discovered he was previously responsible for bringing down 34
aircraft with the loss of life of everybody aboard those planes!

His name was Joe Foss.

Foss was the former governor of South Dakota, retired brigadier
general in the South Dakota National Guard, for twenty-three years
the host of the TV program "The American Sportsman," former executive
director of the American Football League, and even graced the cover
of Time Magazine.

He had just left a board of directors meeting of the National Rifle
Association and was on his way to the United States Military Academy
at West Point to deliver a guest lecture on patriotism.

The "Ninja Star" gizmo? It was the Medal of Honor given him by
Franklin Roosevelt for downing 23 Japanese planes during the battle
of Guadalcanal.

When told he could continue his flight if he discarded this potential
weapon ("In the bucket, pops!") he is reported to have said: "You've
done ****ed with the wrong Marine, sonny!"

The only thing that could have made this episode more ironic would
have been to have it happen at Joe's home airport in Sioux Falls. The
name of the airport is "Joe Foss Field."

-----------
The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the

CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR
to
CAPTAIN JOSEPH J. FOSS
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE

for service as set forth in the following CITATION:

For outstanding heroism and courage above and beyond the call of duty
as Executive Officer of a Marine Fighting Squadron, at Guadalcanal,
Solomon Islands. Engaging in almost daily combat with the enemy from
October 9 to November 19, 1942, Captain Foss personally shot down
twenty-three Japanese planes and damaged others so severely that
their destruction was extremely probable...

Captain Foss entered the service from South Dakota.

/S/ Franklin D. Roosevelt


I wouldn't vote for Edward Kennedy for the position of Dog Catcher
but I was totally incensed when he was refused boarding of an aircraft
in Boston for a flight to Washington. His offense? Some asshole,
somewhere had his name placed on the do not fly list. Kennedy, even
though he was well known to the Boston Airport people was kept off the
plane. It took weeks for him to be cleared to fly again. The same list
has my name on it. So far I haven't been stopped. But a 8 month old
baby was refused boarding due to his name.

This is what is wrong with the defense against terrorism.

Dave N


Common sense is very uncommon, especially among bureaucrats.


It is not only that common sense is a thing of the past. It's also a
matter that the American public has gotten to the point that they believe
they have to put up with anything that is thrown at them. What do you
think would happen if every American in the U.S. refused to fly because of
the so-called security measures that have gotten completely out of hand.
Homeland Security is nothing more than a government agency that is
completely out of control, with no accountability to anyone. As far as I
can concerned that is the case now.

Paul T.

--
The only dumb question, is the one not asked

Han wrote in
:



We are paying the FBI to prevent terrorism, and we have
monitors exmining websites. People who openly advertise
that they are crazy (as von Brunn did on his website)
should not be allowed to possess firearms. In addition, I
am afraid that airport-type controls should be instituted
at places like the Holocaust museum(s). The ubiquitous
presence of firearms permits too many crazies to go around
killing people. If you don't want to limit firearms
possession, we'll all have to live in an armed defensive
camp.


You have a clear and obvious choice... move to Europe where they
have removed the option to defend yourself.

Larry

"Han" wrote in message
...

I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your number
is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to condone lunatics
who hatch murderous plans?


Well when your number is up, your number is up. Your number can be
presented to you in any number of ways.

Han wrote:

I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your number
is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to condone lunatics
who hatch murderous plans?

Of course. When your number is up, who better to make you gonzo?

;-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your
number is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to
condone lunatics who hatch murderous plans?

Of course. When your number is up, who better to make you gonzo?

;-)

I see your wink, and I take it that you really don't condone von Brunn's
actions any more than those of the 9/11 hijackers.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your
number is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to
condone lunatics who hatch murderous plans?

Of course. When your number is up, who better to make you gonzo?

;-)

I see your wink, and I take it that you really don't condone von
Brunn's actions any more than those of the 9/11 hijackers.

I'm curious as to why you seem to be condoning the actions of the other
several thousand murderers who commit their crimes every year and singling
out this one guy who shot an armed security guard.

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

Han wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your
number is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to
condone lunatics who hatch murderous plans?

Of course. When your number is up, who better to make you gonzo?

;-)

I see your wink, and I take it that you really don't condone von
Brunn's actions any more than those of the 9/11 hijackers.

I'm curious as to why you seem to be condoning the actions of the
other several thousand murderers who commit their crimes every year
and singling out this one guy who shot an armed security guard.

I do not condone any murderous acts by anyone, nor the complacencies that
would/could allow any of them. Is that not clear yet?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Han wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your
number is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to
condone lunatics who hatch murderous plans?

Of course. When your number is up, who better to make you gonzo?

;-)

I see your wink, and I take it that you really don't condone von
Brunn's actions any more than those of the 9/11 hijackers.

I'm curious as to why you seem to be condoning the actions of the other
several thousand murderers who commit their crimes every year and singling
out this one guy who shot an armed security guard.

This isn't really a response to the above, it simply adds dimension to the
complexity of the issues at hand.

Another aspect of criminal/terrorist deterrent discussion that seldom seems
to come up is the notion of "goal oriented attackers." If someone is bent on
causing harm weapons substitution will get them around any legal
restrictions on guns, knives, or explosives. As an example of how anything
could be used as a weapon a recent episode of Time Warp had a guy using
everything from ball point pens to scissors to screwdrivers and crowbars as
"throwing" weapons. Jackie Chan's movies bring up even more examples... even
if some are bizarre! Ban handguns and then more lethal long guns become more
prevalent.

Add in common household chemicals, simply ignoring the restrictions on
"real" weapons, and the theft of "real" weapons (even from police and
military) and a goal oriented attacker can still carry out his deeds. Add
in substance abuse, mental defect, and a zeal for control as motives and it
becomes clear that it is impossible to stop all of it... especially the lone
wolf types who keep their mouths shut.

It's a pretty interesting subject for which there are no "sound bite"
answers.

Anyhow, back on the topic of the Customs proposals and things like utility
knives and box knives suddenly become illegal... so substitute a fixed blade
sheathed knife for work or crime and they've accomplished nothing. First
responders often have need for one hand operation as well as those with
disabilities. Thus they'd also be hurting "legitimate" users even if they
think people don't need the functionality.

John

John Grossbohlin wrote:

Anyhow, back on the topic of the Customs proposals and things like
utility knives and box knives suddenly become illegal... so substitute a
fixed blade sheathed knife for work or crime and they've accomplished
nothing. First responders often have need for one hand operation as well
as those with disabilities. Thus they'd also be hurting "legitimate"
users even if they think people don't need the functionality.

http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html

Trust me, we WILL see efforts at some time in the future to institute
something similar in this country ... guaranteed!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Bob S. wrote:

There are people out there that would insist that a fully automatic
weapon is a necessary hunting gun - right up until they have been
shot at by one.

Bob S.

Can you quote any of them? I've followed the arguments of the
gun-rights crowd somewhat, and I don't recall seeing anyone insist
that they need full-auto weapons for hunting. I'd be interested in
knowing where I could find statements from people that they need
machine guns for hunting, got any links handy?

Just today:

"[FREETOWN, Sierra Leone] 'We have forced water into the building and
some of the snakes trying to escape were shot by our men carrying
AK-47s...About 250 of the estimated 400 snakes who had made the
[police] station their home have been killed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090613/od_nm/us_snakes

Huh? Once again you have found no statement that people need machine
guns for hunting, all that you have found is that some cops in Sierra
Leone used their issue AK-47s to shoot snakes. What would you have
had them do, waste time and money going off and obtaining more
politically correct firearms for that one incident when the ones they
were issued would do the job just fine?

Your point is well-taken, but we don't know whether they tried shotguns,
nets, or most any other devices. We do know they tried snake-charmers with
poor results. It could be, as you suggest, they simply used what's at hand.
Or maybe they tried tear gas or pepper-spray, rock music, pictures of
Madonna, prayer, fasting, and a call to the White House, but the only thing
that sort-of worked was a machine gun.

I thought you were asking for a civilian use for a machine gun and, since I
happened to see this article today, thought it might satisfy your
requirements.

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 13, 9:31 am, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:
Make of this what you will... I thought it was interesting!

What's in your pocket? What's in your shop?

U.S. Customs has proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted
opening knives are not switchblades. The proposal would not only
outlaw assisted opening knives, its overly broad new definition of
a switchblade would also include all one-handed opening knives and
most other pocket knives.

I don't understand why people are getting worked up about this.
They're talking about assisted knives and one-handed operation.
That's the territory of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
So let the two branches of government fight it out.
Kind of like tossing a meat bone to a couple of dogs so they fight
each other instead of you.


You don't have a utility knife - the kind where you push a tab and
the blade extends?

I don't think the VA police would let a visitor bring such a weapon
into the hospital. For reasons of prior unpleasant experiences.
Would you like me to ask my friendly Manhattan VA Officer?

The issue is not the VA; the issue is whether you could take a utility knife
to the job site - actually whether you could BUY a utility knife to take to
the job site. More specifically, whether you could buy a knife that had been
imported so you could take it to a job site. That wasn't a VA hospital.

My head hurts.

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
m:

Anyhow, back on the topic of the Customs proposals and things like
utility knives and box knives suddenly become illegal... so substitute
a fixed blade sheathed knife for work or crime and they've
accomplished nothing. First responders often have need for one hand
operation as well as those with disabilities. Thus they'd also be
hurting "legitimate" users even if they think people don't need the
functionality.

I agree completely, hence my refereences to common sense and its absence.

Nevertheless, it is a "pity" that someone could kill a security guard with
a weapon that should not have been in his possession (considering his frame
of mind). I doubt that anything Jacky Chan-like would have had that
effect.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I don't understand. I am the fatalist, I believe that when your
number is up, you're gonzo. But does that mean that we have to
condone lunatics who hatch murderous plans?

Of course. When your number is up, who better to make you gonzo?

;-)

I see your wink, and I take it that you really don't condone von Brunn's
actions any more than those of the 9/11 hijackers.

Of course not, but please be wary of over-simplifying. As soon as you
make it impossible for ordinary citizens to have a weapon, you will have
created the social environment in which broken individuals blow
themselves up in crowded places.

Life demands a certain minimum of courage.

Those who cannot muster that minimum are not made more secure by
disempowering others - ever.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140620091728347964%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

Who, in your opinion, should be allowed to decide whether or not a
legally available item should be in the possession of any particular
individual?

As a further exercise, what legally available items should be in that
decision tree?

I never said it would be easy to decide where the dividing line should be.
To me it is common sense that should dictate it. Go see Gran Torino, and
decide who should or should not have had weapons. To me it seems easy. I
for one should not have dangerous stuff, because I'm a hot head. And
because the only experience with "fire weapons" that I had was at a
carnival when I was 16.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140620091728347964%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

Who, in your opinion, should be allowed to decide whether or not a
legally available item should be in the possession of any particular
individual?

As a further exercise, what legally available items should be in that
decision tree?

I never said it would be easy to decide where the dividing line should be.
To me it is common sense that should dictate it. Go see Gran Torino, and
decide who should or should not have had weapons. To me it seems easy. I
for one should not have dangerous stuff, because I'm a hot head. And
because the only experience with "fire weapons" that I had was at a
carnival when I was 16.


Just watched Grand Torino about 1 hour ago. If the police did not have so
many ridiculous protectionism laws to have to tip toe through to keep from
violating a murderers rights perhaps they could work on the real problems
more efficiently. Perhaps if we ere not becoming so defenseless there would
not be so much crime. Trying to protect the public from itself results in
more crime.

If you remember in the movie, Clint Eastwood was not killed until he was
defenseless, when he carried a gun he was on more equal ground.

On Jun 13, 8:31*am, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:
Make of this what you will... I thought it was interesting!

What's in your pocket? What's in your shop?

U.S. Customs has proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted opening
knives are not switchblades. The proposal would not only outlaw assisted
opening knives, its overly broad new definition of a switchblade would also
include all one-handed opening knives and most other pocket knives... Seems
that our utility knives and other knife tools are covered under this too.

"It is now CBP's position that knives incorporating spring- and
release-assisted opening mechanisms are prohibited..." *fromhttp://www.kniferights.org/U%20S%20Customs%20Proposed%20Ruling%20-%20...

I found this stuff mentioned in a gun rights e-mail and followed the path tohttp://www.kniferights.org/

John

The above quote says "spring- and release-assisted opening
mechanisms..." How does that apply to a pocketknife that you have to
pull open?

"Leon" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140620091728347964%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

Who, in your opinion, should be allowed to decide whether or not a
legally available item should be in the possession of any particular
individual?

As a further exercise, what legally available items should be in
that decision tree?

I never said it would be easy to decide where the dividing line
should be. To me it is common sense that should dictate it. Go see
Gran Torino, and decide who should or should not have had weapons.
To me it seems easy. I for one should not have dangerous stuff,
because I'm a hot head. And because the only experience with "fire
weapons" that I had was at a carnival when I was 16.


Just watched Grand Torino about 1 hour ago. If the police did not
have so many ridiculous protectionism laws to have to tip toe through
to keep from violating a murderers rights perhaps they could work on
the real problems more efficiently. Perhaps if we ere not becoming so
defenseless there would not be so much crime. Trying to protect the
public from itself results in more crime.

If you remember in the movie, Clint Eastwood was not killed until he
was defenseless, when he carried a gun he was on more equal ground.

He felt at the end that he was near the end of his life. To be able to
get the gang members in jail he sacrificed himself, in full knowledge of
what was going to happen. Nothing in that movie said that shooting was
good. Standing up for oneself and others when being harassed or worse
was all he did.

I sure hope that it will be a long time before we all need to carry
concealed guns in order to feel safe.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

I sure hope that it will be a long time before we all need to carry
concealed guns in order to feel safe.

I don't carry a concealed handgun to feel safe; I carry a concealed handgun
so the goblins don't.

In the thirteen years I've carried a concealed handgun, I've felt it
necessary to expose it three times.

Two of those were in Home Depot parking lots!

karmstrn wrote:

The above quote says "spring- and release-assisted opening
mechanisms..." How does that apply to a pocketknife that you have to
pull open?

It doesn't. Read more. They're after knives that can be opened with one
hand.

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Morris Dovey
wrote:

Of course not, but please be wary of over-simplifying. As soon as you
make it impossible for ordinary citizens to have a weapon, you will have
created the social environment in which broken individuals blow
themselves up in crowded places.

Morris, that doesn't scan. Many broken individuals are blowing
themselves up in crowded social environments that are flooded with
weapons.

You're scanning backwards. It's not the guns or explosives that produce
the causes, it's the social environment that produces the behaviors.

At the risk of over-generalizing, when too much freedom is removed,
those who still have hope that something can be salvaged opt for the
wherewithal to resist, and those who see no light at the end of their
tunnel become willing make the "ultimate sacrifice"...

....not always explosively - one of the memories I'd most like to lose is
of a Buddhist monk soaking himself with gasoline in the middle of a
street and setting himself on fire.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Give it a friggin break... Jeessus. You want to use an automatic weapon
for hunting rabbits..go do it. My point being it is idiotic and you
seem to want to argue any point no matter what. No thanks.

Han wrote:
"Leon" wrote in
:

"Han" wrote in message
...
Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140620091728347964%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

Who, in your opinion, should be allowed to decide whether or not a
legally available item should be in the possession of any particular
individual?

As a further exercise, what legally available items should be in
that decision tree?
I never said it would be easy to decide where the dividing line
should be. To me it is common sense that should dictate it. Go see
Gran Torino, and decide who should or should not have had weapons.
To me it seems easy. I for one should not have dangerous stuff,
because I'm a hot head. And because the only experience with "fire
weapons" that I had was at a carnival when I was 16.

Just watched Grand Torino about 1 hour ago. If the police did not
have so many ridiculous protectionism laws to have to tip toe through
to keep from violating a murderers rights perhaps they could work on
the real problems more efficiently. Perhaps if we ere not becoming so
defenseless there would not be so much crime. Trying to protect the
public from itself results in more crime.

If you remember in the movie, Clint Eastwood was not killed until he
was defenseless, when he carried a gun he was on more equal ground.

He felt at the end that he was near the end of his life. To be able to
get the gang members in jail he sacrificed himself, in full knowledge of
what was going to happen. Nothing in that movie said that shooting was
good. Standing up for oneself and others when being harassed or worse
was all he did.

I sure hope that it will be a long time before we all need to carry
concealed guns in order to feel safe.


Never had anything bigger than a pump pellet rifle for varmit control,
but am considering a handgun because it may not be an option to legally
buy one in the not so distant future. Also, while traveling in the 5th
wheel and staying overnight in some [not] "protected" areas, it might be
a good insurance policy. Just have to make sure I and SWMBO are trained
so she doesn't confuse me with a bad guy...

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:

I sure hope that it will be a long time before we all need to carry
concealed guns in order to feel safe.

I don't carry a concealed handgun to feel safe; I carry a concealed
handgun so the goblins don't.

In the thirteen years I've carried a concealed handgun, I've felt it
necessary to expose it three times.

Two of those were in Home Depot parking lots!

I hope you live far away from 07410

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Morris, I think you are exposing the lack of common sense in today's
environment. I'd like to infuse everybody with a healthy dose of pride in
themselves and respect for others. Since nowadays everything has to be
done by force, any suggestions of how to accomplish that?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

Never had anything bigger than a pump pellet rifle for varmit
control,
but am considering a handgun because it may not be an option to
legally
buy one in the not so distant future.

Where is that coming from?

Maybe NRA propaganda?

Hand gun registration, background checks, yes.

Banning sale of hand guns, no.

The idea that if firearms are registered, the bad guys will know where
to find and confiscate them is shear lunacy and more NRA hype.

There are far easier ways, which for obvious reasons, I'll not post on
UseNet.

Lew

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
John Grossbohlin wrote:

Anyhow, back on the topic of the Customs proposals and things like
utility knives and box knives suddenly become illegal... so substitute a
fixed blade sheathed knife for work or crime and they've accomplished
nothing. First responders often have need for one hand operation as well
as those with disabilities. Thus they'd also be hurting "legitimate"
users even if they think people don't need the functionality.

http://www.bkcg.co.uk/guide/law.html

Trust me, we WILL see efforts at some time in the future to institute
something similar in this country ... guaranteed!

http://www.need2know.co.uk/law/crime...e.html/id=1324

See "Other Weapons" for the "Pointy Stick" clause. Yes, REALLY.

Han wrote:
Morris, I think you are exposing the lack of common sense in today's
environment. I'd like to infuse everybody with a healthy dose of pride in
themselves and respect for others. Since nowadays everything has to be
done by force, any suggestions of how to accomplish that?

"/Be/ the change you wish to see in the world."

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...
LD wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
...
John Grossbohlin wrote:
Make of this what you will... I thought it was interesting!

What's in your pocket? What's in your shop?

U.S. Customs has proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted
opening knives are not switchblades. The proposal would not only outlaw
assisted opening knives, its overly broad new definition of a
switchblade would also include all one-handed opening knives and most
other pocket knives... Seems that our utility knives and other knife
tools are covered under this too.

"It is now CBP's position that knives incorporating spring- and
release-assisted opening mechanisms are prohibited..." from
http://www.kniferights.org/U%20S%20C...g%20Knives.pdf I
found this stuff mentioned in a gun rights e-mail and followed the path
to http://www.kniferights.org/

Once again, you ONLY have to look at the UK to see where this country
will be in five to ten years.

It's that simple ... no crystal ball needed.

Precisely! Even the Pointy Stick is banned!

There was a movie about 40 years ago where the hero stated that he could
kill you 15 different ways using only his little finger. Maybe little
fingers should be baned.


Magazines. The kind you read. One of my uncles taught me how to use a
magazine as a weapon. Ironically, he got his training from the British Army!

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

Never had anything bigger than a pump pellet rifle for varmit
control,
but am considering a handgun because it may not be an option to
legally
buy one in the not so distant future.

Where is that coming from?

Maybe NRA propaganda?

Hand gun registration, background checks, yes.

Banning sale of hand guns, no.

The idea that if firearms are registered, the bad guys will know where
to find and confiscate them is shear lunacy and more NRA hype.

There are far easier ways, which for obvious reasons, I'll not post on
UseNet.

Lew




Easier ways such as for what?

I do know from several acquaintances that a common particular caliber of
ammo seems to be very difficult to purchase - the shelves of suppliers
being empty and no dates of when supplies might be available. No, not
assault rifle ammo.

Some are wondering if disarming the public will be done by restricting
ammunition purchases.

HeyBub wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
Bob S. wrote:

There are people out there that would insist that a fully
automatic weapon is a necessary hunting gun - right up until they
have been shot at by one.

Bob S.

Can you quote any of them? I've followed the arguments of the
gun-rights crowd somewhat, and I don't recall seeing anyone insist
that they need full-auto weapons for hunting. I'd be interested in
knowing where I could find statements from people that they need
machine guns for hunting, got any links handy?

Just today:

"[FREETOWN, Sierra Leone] 'We have forced water into the building
and some of the snakes trying to escape were shot by our men
carrying AK-47s...About 250 of the estimated 400 snakes who had
made the [police] station their home have been killed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090613/od_nm/us_snakes

Huh? Once again you have found no statement that people need machine
guns for hunting, all that you have found is that some cops in Sierra
Leone used their issue AK-47s to shoot snakes. What would you have
had them do, waste time and money going off and obtaining more
politically correct firearms for that one incident when the ones they
were issued would do the job just fine?

Your point is well-taken, but we don't know whether they tried
shotguns, nets, or most any other devices.

Are police in Sierra Leone issued shotguns, nets, or most other devices?

We do know they tried
snake-charmers with poor results. It could be, as you suggest, they
simply used what's at hand. Or maybe they tried tear gas or
pepper-spray, rock music, pictures of Madonna, prayer, fasting, and a
call to the White House, but the only thing that sort-of worked was a
machine gun.

I thought you were asking for a civilian use for a machine gun and,
since I happened to see this article today, thought it might satisfy
your requirements.

You have clearly misunderstood the whole conversation then, as the point
about machine guns was that someone asserted in a disparaging manner that
someone else had asserted that they were _needed_ for hunting.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

Never had anything bigger than a pump pellet rifle for varmit
control,
but am considering a handgun because it may not be an option to
legally
buy one in the not so distant future.

Where is that coming from?

Maybe NRA propaganda?

Hand gun registration, background checks, yes.

Banning sale of hand guns, no.

The idea that if firearms are registered, the bad guys will know
where to find and confiscate them is shear lunacy and more NRA hype.

There are far easier ways, which for obvious reasons, I'll not post
on UseNet.

Lew




Easier ways such as for what?

I do know from several acquaintances that a common particular caliber
of ammo seems to be very difficult to purchase - the shelves of
suppliers being empty and no dates of when supplies might be
available. No, not assault rifle ammo.

Some are wondering if disarming the public will be done by restricting
ammunition purchases.

Doug, at this point the only way the government is going to get away with a
handgun ban is with a Constitutional Amendment. They do not have the
authority to ban handguns. That ship sailed last June.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

Easier ways such as for what?

The idea that disarming the general populace will allow the "Bad Guys"
to take over the country.

Some are wondering if disarming the public will be done by
restricting
ammunition purchases.

Being a capitalist kind of guy, I've have tongue in cheek suggested
that the way to get a handle on hand guns is to tax the ammunition at
the rate of $10/cartridge.

It would certainly have an affect on ammunition availability as well
as the hand gun violence here in L/A where on an average week, there
will be 6-8 hand gun killings.

Lew

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Morris Dovey
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Morris Dovey
wrote:

Of course not, but please be wary of over-simplifying. As soon as you
make it impossible for ordinary citizens to have a weapon, you will have
created the social environment in which broken individuals blow
themselves up in crowded places.

Morris, that doesn't scan. Many broken individuals are blowing
themselves up in crowded social environments that are flooded with
weapons.

You're scanning backwards. It's not the guns or explosives that produce
the causes, it's the social environment that produces the behaviors.

That's not what you said.

It's what I meant to say, but I'm not much of a wordsmith. My apologies
for causing confusion.

At the risk of over-generalizing, when too much freedom is removed,
those who still have hope that something can be salvaged opt for the
wherewithal to resist, and those who see no light at the end of their
tunnel become willing make the "ultimate sacrifice"...

Yet many societies where it is trivial for citizens to be armed have
"broken individuals" blowing themselves up in crowded places almost
weekly.

Your statement above doesn't scan.

It does for me. Feel welcome to disregard if it doesn't make sense for you.

...not always explosively - one of the memories I'd most like to lose is
of a Buddhist monk soaking himself with gasoline in the middle of a
street and setting himself on fire.

Well, religion makes people insane...

Hmm. Religion generally involves accepting something objectively
unknowable as True. Insanity generally involves a significant individual
deviation from the norm in the context of the individual's
culture/society...

I think you'll need a /lot/ of bandwidth to convince me of an
across-the-board cause-and-effect relationship between the two.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Dave Balderstone wrote:


You're using a Fsking Hollywood Movie to guide you in this?

Hey! ... it's Hollywood "reality" doncha know!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140620092152569705%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

You're using a Fsking Hollywood Movie to guide you in this?

More believaable than NRA agitprop.

Good luck in the afterlife...

Another fable.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140620092152569705%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

You're using a Fsking Hollywood Movie to guide you in this?

More believaable than NRA agitprop.

OK, you're officially a loon of the same kind as the politician who said
"The only physics I ever took was ex-lax" and the one who said "Everything I
know about firearms i learned watching 'Miami Vice'.".

plonk

On Jun 13, 2:02*pm, Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in news:AaKdnX4ygp-
:



Han wrote:
Swingman wrote in
om:

Once again, you ONLY have to look at the UK to see where this country
will be in five to ten years.

It's that simple ... no crystal ball needed.

All well and true (maybe). *But what to do to prevent another Timothy
McVeigh or James von Brunn from murdering innocent people.

What does that have to do with it? Anyone who thinks that morality can
be legislated is part of the problem.

Exactly. *But that is not my question. *Why did an innocent guard at a
museum have to die? *Why did all those people in the Murrah building in
Oklahoma City have to die? *Or is that the risk of living?

--

Han,

The guard was killed with a rifle, IIRC. I don't recall reading the
caliber or type. McVeigh used a massive bomb. Neither will fit in a
pocket.

I believe that living risks dying from some random event, and madmen
and other psycopaths are about as random as it gets. Note in GB, with
very tight gun control laws, not too long ago an MD was convicted of
killing some 200+ patients with poison. McVeigh used a very
inefficient bomb type, mostly made from diesel fuel and fertilizer.
None of this can be legislated out of existence because the fertilizer
is needed for food production, and diesel fuel gets it from the farm
to the market. There was an immense hoorah about tracking anyone who
bought large amounts of both back around the time of the event, but
the problem there comes fro the simple fact that one helluva lot of
farmers uses that kind of fertilizer, and have diesel tractors, and
other machinery. Farmers don't buy fertilizer by the 100 pound sack,
but by the truckload, and even the small farms around here can have
two or three 500 gallon diesel tanks scattered around to feed the
tractors.

Over-broadening definitions of weaponry, or useful tools, is something
the government often does...any government, not just in the U.S. It is
not new. Bush's minions couldn't get the assault rifle definition
changed to sanity, but, then, AFAIK, they also didn't try hard.
Handguns are always going to be a hot spot, one that most politicians
fear to touch, while the NRA creates more problems by screaming about
bans, instead of working to get realistic controls when they KNOW that
controls are inevitable. The people at the top of NRA know that
allowing people who lack knowledge of guns to formulate the details of
control means there's more to holler about, keeping their membership
on the rise, and their salaries likewise.

Swing, take into consideration that GB took 65+ years to get to its
present state, not five or six or even a couple of decades. We don't
have quite the same background, and won't head that far that way as
easily, so five years is really way too pessimistic. Among other
things, there are far too many guns in this country to consider any
kind of efficient confiscation. While a lot of us have spent the past
eight years say, well, if I don't do anything wrong, what difference
does it make if the Feds check my mail and telephone and my library
reading habits and similar activities, even more realized that kind of
government activity is not a good thing in the long run, or even the
short run. Hell, even during WWII, censorship of mail was pretty much
confined to the Armed Forces mail from overseas. So, IMO, there will
be more and more resistance to gun control, and weapons control.

We do have a major problem, though, one that started during WWII,
really got rolling in the mid to late '60s, and that continues today:
too may alphabet soup government employees looking to make sure all
live lives as they feel we should. Christ, I can't even begin to
remember the names, but DEA, FBI, DEA and 50 different divisions in
HSA are sitting waiting to pounce, as is IRS, while Customs is now
taking it upon itself to write its own rules, something that should
NOT be allowed. I've met a few Customs agency types. I really don't
want them regulating my ability, or judging my need or lack of need,
to buy much of anything, whether it's a kitchen knife, a tablesaw, or
a jacknife.