On Jun 13, 6:44*pm, Stuart wrote:
In article ,
* *Bob S. wrote:

John,
That's a 63 page document that I don't have time to read thoroughly
right now but a quick brief shows that you left out the word "imported"
in your haste to spread the news. *After looking at some of the imported
knives being denied entry into the US, I would agree that those I did
read about are not general utility knives and certainly do fall into the
category of a weapon.. *

Hmmm, we're all woodworkers here, right?

Next time you go into your shop take a look at your 1/8" mortice chisel.
Feel how comfortably it fits in your hand, look at that blade, it's realy
sharp on the end isn't it - you honed it to perfection. It's a good strong
straight blade, about 4" long, much more suited to being driven into
something than a knife........

Look at that little pruning saw you bought a few days ago, you know, the
one with the fold out 8" blade. It's a pull saw. Think what those teeth
could do to human flesh. A knife might cut to the bone - that thing? -
well I'll leave that to your own imagination.....

Who needs a knife ;-|

Here's one that always amuses me: TSA will confiscate a Stanley pocket
knife, or a small screwdriver, while allowing hundreds of people onto
aircraft while those people have pockets, or briefcases, full of
nicely sharpened pencils. Many of today's cheap ball point pens can
also serve as effective stabbing implements. If you want to slow
someone up, rip your house or car keys across his face at eye level,
the poke an eye with one of the keys. If you're on an aircraft, odds
are about 99 to 1 that the seat in front of you will contain both a
glossy magazine and a catalog. Roll either tightly and ram the result
into someone's solar plexus.

There's simply too much nonsense about weaponry.

When I saw the original post, I knew it was going to light some
fires. I never thought it would go on this long.

Good Grief!

Doesn't anyone have time for woodworking any more?


RonB

On Jun 14, 9:07*am, PHT wrote:
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

It costs $150 one way to NYC from Lynchburg, VA. It costs about $450
round trip by plane.

The train drops you off in the middle of the city. The plane drops you
off a $40 cab or limo ride into Manhattan. With the train, you get
there in time to buy a ticket, climb on, after checking your bag, sit
back and relax. If the damned things late, you can buy soft drinks and
sandwiches on board. The airline requires that you show up at least
one hour before flight time to go through checks and check baggage.
Coming back, through a New York airport, allow two hours for TSA
bull****. When you get back to L'burg by train, you collect your
luggage, usually within 10 minutes or less, and walk out to the
parking lot. With the plane, you maybe get off and get your luggage
within 20-30 minutes, then go pay a parking fee dependent on length of
stay.

No TSA on the train.

My next royalty check is probably going to buy us a weekend in the
city, but you can damned well bet I won't be going by air. Cost and
convenience are much better with Amtrak even if I have to leave the
station at 10 p.m. instead of 7 a.m.

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.


Video: Obama supports D.C. handgun ban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE

"Do you support state legislation to: a) Ban manufacture, sale, and
possession of handguns? 'Yes' "
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43...re_091096.html

The president may have changed his mind or now realizes his goals are
unobtainable and will not press for their implementation.

But, to answer your question, that's where the concern is coming from.

On Jun 14, 9:31*pm, "LD" wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in . com...



LD wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in message
om...
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...ng%20-%20....I
found this stuff mentioned in a gun rights e-mail and followed the path
tohttp://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!

Not surprising. Military services exist for the defense (presumably)
of their respective countries. The membersof the most successful
military units learn one primary skill: how to kill, preferably
without dying themselves; disabling an enemy is usually considered
more effective, it isn't always possible in the heat of battle. All
else is delivery systems and support.

On Jun 14, 11:02*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"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

Reloading.

Han wrote:
"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

I am far from Fair Lawn, NJ (I'm in Houston). The stats on your area make it
seem like a nice, friendly place to live. In many ways I envy you (except
for the taxes and your governor of course).

We, however, had to absorb 200,000 Katrina refugees. Fortunately, they've
been killing each other off at a prodigious rate.

In the two HD cases I mentioned, both involved a man approaching me, after
dark. In one case, the mope had a tire iron in his hand. In both cases, the
individuals did NOT honor my command: "STOP! Come no closer!" (until, well,
you know...).

The goblin with the tire iron said: "Hey, I just wanted a cigarette!" (yeah,
right). The other squint just turned and walked away.

In both cases, I reported the incident to the store manager and suggested
the cops be called. One cop did show up, wrote down the facts, nodded, and
went on his way.

The third incident happened in my own driveway! I pulled in (it's a circular
driveway) to find a strange car there and a strange person - with a big
screwdriver in his hand - standing next to a car I am restoring (a 1986
BMW). I get out of my car and the scrot starts walking towards me (with the
aforementioned screwdriver) and he, too, fails to stop when so ordered.

He says he's just looking at the car with a view towards making an offer
should I wish to sell it.

I guess I queered a potential sale.

Oh well...

At least I still have the car.

Anyway, we live in different environments; yours had advantages - mine has
opportunities.

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. 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...

I see you're posting from Arizona, a gun-friendly state (soon you'll be able
to open-carry a pistol at the Grand Canyon!).

I invite you to visit the "tx.guns" newsgroup. By just lurking, you'll pick
up a great deal of info about (mostly) handguns and the laws affecting them.

Don't ask "Which handgun is best for me?" The answers are like cures for
hiccups! Your best bet is to visit an indoor range, rent several pistols,
and try them out.

While carrying a pistol in a vehicle is legal in Texas, that might not be
the case in other states. A better bet is to get an Arizona Concealed
Handgun Permit. Here's a link to other states that honor AZ permits:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/arizona.pdf

Lew Hodgett wrote:

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.

Being a Socialist kind of guy, Senator Patrick Monyhan suggested much the
same thing years ago. He said "We have a 200-year supply of guns on the
street, but only a ten-year supply of ammunitition."

Your last statement kind of begs the question - the six to eight handgun
killings per week in your town leaves out the criterium of whether the
deceased needed killing.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

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.


IIRC it was a friggin .22 rifle. I wonder here he was actually hit.

"Leon" wrote:

IIRC it was a friggin .22 rifle. I wonder here he was actually hit.


Ever see the damage a .22 long rifle hollow point can do?

Lew

Bob S. wrote:

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.

Awhile back your point was that there are people out there who insist that
fully-automatic weapons are needed for hunting. While you are free to
believe that it doesn't appear to be a position where you can point to
supporting references. If merely asking you to support your claim amounts
to arguing about any point no matter what, okay, I guess we know now that
you never meant to be taken seriously.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote:

IIRC it was a friggin .22 rifle. I wonder here he was actually hit.


Ever see the damage a .22 long rifle hollow point can do?


I have actually felt a .22 long. They glance off bones pretty easily,
thank goodness.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
IIRC it was a friggin .22 rifle. I wonder where he was actually hit.

Ever see the damage a .22 long rifle hollow point can do?

I suspect they like to bounce around compared to a more powerful calibre
that would go straight through.

"Leon" wrote:

I have actually felt a .22 long. They glance off bones pretty
easily, thank goodness.

Big difference between a .22 long and a .22 long rifle hollow point.

Glad you were not seriously hurt.

Doubt you would have been so lucky if it had been a .22 long rifle
hollow point.

Lew

SFWIW, I forgot how many thousand .22 long rifle hollow point rounds
I've squeezed off in my life.

"Upscale" wrote:

I suspect they like to bounce around compared to a more powerful
calibre
that would go straight through.

..22 long rifle hollow point, think dum-dum.

They simply tear everything to shreads.

Lew

DGDevin wrote:
Bob S. wrote:

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.

Awhile back your point was that there are people out there who insist
that fully-automatic weapons are needed for hunting. While you are
free to believe that it doesn't appear to be a position where you can
point to supporting references. If merely asking you to support your
claim amounts to arguing about any point no matter what, okay, I
guess we know now that you never meant to be taken seriously.

In the case of guns, "need" is seldom an issue. The thing that counts most
is "want."

If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon to mow down prarie dogs, why not?

If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon for sport, target shooting, investment,
historical artifiact, or simply for collecting, why not?

Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

And in the UK, where strict gun laws are in place, you'd be hard
pressed to count that many in a month throughout the entire country.


Don't credit the lack of guns. You probably don't have that many people that
need killing.

"Charlie Self" wrote:

There's simply too much nonsense about weaponry.

All this hocus pocus about hand guns makes me laugh.

I've never been bothered by anybody and I've spent some time alone
after dark in places where a honky like me shouldn't be seen alone.

I've often wondered why I'm not bothered.

Was given an answer that it is the way I carry myself.

It's a "Don't **** with me and I won't have to kill you" attitude.

Maybe it has something to do with my father.

He grew up tough on the streets and he always taught me there is no
such thing as a fair fight.

The only reason you get into a fight is to end it as quickly as
possible by killing the other SOB with anything you can use other than
your fists.

Still remember when I was maybe 9-10 years old coming home from the
store with some cans of soup.

Couple of guys decided to kick my rear end.

A swing with a bag full of soup cans to the head followed by some well
administered kicks to the face and the genitals, and I wasn't ever
bothered again.

As a 6', 215 lb, 21 year sitting in a car in a driveway with my
girlfriend at midnight, saw a guy sneak into the next door neighbor's
garage.

The only thing I had was a flash light and a 10" Crescent wrench in
the car, but that was enough.

Walked over to the garage, flashed the light on the window and
demanded, "Come out with your hands up."

Guy came out and I explained to him he was either going to lay spread
eagled on the ground or I would split his god damned skull open with
that Crescent wrench.

Must have taken the cops a half hour to get there, but the cops found
him on the ground when they did.

And yes, I would have split his skull open if he provoked me.


Lew

"HeyBub" wrote:

In the case of guns, "need" is seldom an issue. The thing that
counts most is "want."

If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon to mow down prarie dogs, why
not?

If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon for sport, target shooting,
investment, historical artifiact, or simply for collecting, why not?

If that's what it takes to give you a testosterone fix, so be it, but
just do the background and register them.

You will never understand "Why not?"

Lew

HeyBub wrote:

In the case of guns, "need" is seldom an issue. The thing that counts
most is "want."

If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon to mow down prarie dogs, why not?

If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon for sport, target shooting,
investment, historical artifiact, or simply for collecting, why not?

Paranoia about firearms means a great many voters assume only a certified
gang-banger would want to own an automatic weapon and that depriving you of
such a weapon makes them safer. If I were a prairie dog I'd be less
concerned about you having a machine gun than say a really accurate
bolt-action rifle, but that's another issue.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Here in Canada hand guns are very tightly controlled and legislated.
Doesn't stop the gang-bangers from having shootouts in downtone
Toronto and killing innocent bystanders.

The mayor of Toronto decided that banning shooting clubs within the
city limits would somehow stop this behaviour. What a putz.

That's typical, politicians who can't or won't take effective action instead
do something pointless just to appear to be accomplishing something. As the
bumper-sticker says, "Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage."

Han wrote:

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.

He was a convicted felon, therefore just his possession of a firearm was
illegal even before he shot that security guard. But as you might have
noticed criminals don't worry much about breaking the law which is why
passing more laws making guns more illegal has little if any effect on them.

You might also note that it was airport-type security that prevented this
particular criminal from entering the museum, that's the reason the only
person he shot was a security guard at the entrance.

As for the presence of firearms permitting crazies to go around killing
people, you need to explain why a state like Vermont with extremely liberal
firearms laws (e.g. you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed
weapon) is at the bottom of the list for violent crime in the U.S.
Shouldn't all those armed folks in Vermont packing guns result in lots of
criminal use of firearms? Hey, maybe there are factors other than the
existence of firearms at work here, perhaps dealing with those other factors
is worth a try rather than looking at disarming sane, sober, law-abiding
citizens who aren't causing anyone any problems, hmmmmm?

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?

It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to finally stop Washington DC from
banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens, and apparently DC
is interested in ways to get around that ruling if they can. So far as I've
heard Chicago hasn't done away with their equally ineffective handgun ban
either, ineffective in the sense that criminals happily ignore it. If you
can point out how fear of handgun bans amounts to "NRA propaganda" despite
laws such as these existing for decades, that might be interesting.

Hand gun registration, background checks, yes.

What will registration accomplish? Do you think any criminal will choose to
register a firearm? Felons aren't supposed to possess guns in the first
place, that's why they don't stand in line at a gun shop and undergo a
background check.

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.

Really, is that how it worked in Britain, Australia and Canada, registration
didn't precede bans and confiscations?

Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

And in the UK, where strict gun laws are in place, you'd be hard
pressed to count that many in a month throughout the entire country.

I read something years ago about a former head of Scotland Yard testifying
before a Parliamentary committee. When asked what effect Britain's strict
gun laws had on criminals getting their hands on guns, he said the law had
little or no impact, that any serious criminal in the country could get any
kind of gun he wanted within 24 hours, he even mentioned the prices paid for
weapons. Britain's gun laws might prevent shootings by outraged husbands or
drunks or whoever simply by making firearms hard to come by for the average
person. But anyone who thinks criminal gangs will have trouble getting guns
should note that drug trafficers are able to bring narcotics into the
country by the ton. Since the War on Drugs has been a trillion-dollar
failure, one has to suspect that banning handguns would be just as effective
as banning recreational drugs has been.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:26:49 -0700 (PDT), Charlie Self
wrote:

On Jun 14, 9:07*am, PHT wrote:
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

It costs $150 one way to NYC from Lynchburg, VA. It costs about $450
round trip by plane.

Just to check your numbers, I punched in a couple of dates (about two
weeks out) into Expedia. It's no problem to get round-trip airfares
from NYC to Lynchburg for $160-$175.

The train drops you off in the middle of the city. The plane drops you
off a $40 cab or limo ride into Manhattan. With the train, you get
there in time to buy a ticket, climb on, after checking your bag, sit
back and relax. If the damned things late, you can buy soft drinks and
sandwiches on board. The airline requires that you show up at least
one hour before flight time to go through checks and check baggage.
Coming back, through a New York airport, allow two hours for TSA
bull****. When you get back to L'burg by train, you collect your
luggage, usually within 10 minutes or less, and walk out to the
parking lot. With the plane, you maybe get off and get your luggage
within 20-30 minutes, then go pay a parking fee dependent on length of
stay.

Now try it between say, NYC and Lexington Kentucky.

No TSA on the train.

My next royalty check is probably going to buy us a weekend in the
city, but you can damned well bet I won't be going by air. Cost and
convenience are much better with Amtrak even if I have to leave the
station at 10 p.m. instead of 7 a.m.

And have a miserable overnight trip, arriving beat to a pulp. I'd
rather drive that one.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

And in the UK, where strict gun laws are in place, you'd be hard
pressed to count that many in a month throughout the entire country.

I read something years ago about a former head of Scotland Yard testifying
before a Parliamentary committee. When asked what effect Britain's strict
gun laws had on criminals getting their hands on guns, he said the law had
little or no impact, that any serious criminal in the country could get
any kind of gun he wanted within 24 hours, he even mentioned the prices
paid for weapons. Britain's gun laws might prevent shootings by outraged
husbands or drunks or whoever simply by making firearms hard to come by
for the average person. But anyone who thinks criminal gangs will have
trouble getting guns should note that drug trafficers are able to bring
narcotics into the country by the ton. Since the War on Drugs has been a
trillion-dollar failure, one has to suspect that banning handguns would be
just as effective as banning recreational drugs has been.

The incidence of home invasions sky rocketed too... victim disarmament at
it's finest. It's also a social experiment that no researcher would be
allowed to conduct on ethical grounds.

"DGDevin" wrote:

It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to finally stop Washington
DC from banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens,
and apparently DC is interested in ways to get around that ruling if
they can.

That's only temporary.

So far as I've heard Chicago hasn't done away with their equally
ineffective handgun ban either, ineffective in the sense that
criminals happily ignore it.

Interesting observation, just as Chicago is an interesting place.

If you can point out how fear of handgun bans amounts to "NRA
propaganda" despite laws such as these existing for decades, that
might be interesting.

Huh!

What will registration accomplish? Do you think any criminal will
choose to register a firearm?

Not hardly; however, when the registered firearm is found in the hands
of a felon, the possibility of legal recourse exists.

Really, is that how it worked in Britain, Australia and Canada,
registration didn't precede bans and confiscations?

Personally could care less, I don't live in those places.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

In the case of guns, "need" is seldom an issue. The thing that
counts most is "want."

If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon to mow down prarie dogs, why
not?

If I "want" a fully-automatic weapon for sport, target shooting,
investment, historical artifiact, or simply for collecting, why not?

If that's what it takes to give you a testosterone fix, so be it, but
just do the background and register them.


Inasmuch as there have been only two documented crimes since 1934 committed
by federally-registered automatic weapons (and one of those was by a police
officer using a department weapon), the interesting question is: Does the
registration itself prevent crimes or are the crimes themselves so rare as
to make registration an unnecessary burden?

Stuart wrote:

Your average burglar entering your home is extremely unlikely to be
carrying a gun and you still have the right to use reasonable force to
defend yourself and your property.

Not in the UK, you don't.

"Anthony Edward Martin (born 1944) is a farmer from Norfolk, England, who in
1999 killed one burglar, and wounded another, who had invaded his home. He
was subsequently convicted of murder. As a result, he became a cause célèbre
for some, and polarised opinions in the UK"

Nor in some states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, D.C.)

In other states, you may use reasonable force only if it impossible to
retreat.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

What will registration accomplish? Do you think any criminal will
choose to register a firearm?

Not hardly; however, when the registered firearm is found in the hands
of a felon, the possibility of legal recourse exists.


Right.

"The gun is registered to you, it was used in a crime, you have not reported
it stolen. Now come along with us to the station house. There are some
questions we'd like to ask you. Dress warmly, we'll be in the basement."

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote:

It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to finally stop Washington
DC from banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens,
and apparently DC is interested in ways to get around that ruling if
they can.

That's only temporary.

What, the Supreme Court ruling? You really think that you're going to get
the Second Amendment repealed?

So far as I've heard Chicago hasn't done away with their equally
ineffective handgun ban either, ineffective in the sense that
criminals happily ignore it.

Interesting observation, just as Chicago is an interesting place.

Chicago and other localities are asserting that the Supreme Court ruling
only restricts the Federal government, since it applied to DC, which was a
Federal preserve. There is another case in progress now that will, if the
Supreme Court decides to hear it, settle that matter.

If you can point out how fear of handgun bans amounts to "NRA
propaganda" despite laws such as these existing for decades, that
might be interesting.

Huh!

What will registration accomplish? Do you think any criminal will
choose to register a firearm?

Not hardly; however, when the registered firearm is found in the hands
of a felon, the possibility of legal recourse exists.

And when a nonregistered firearm is found in the hands of a felon then legal
recourse exists too. If you have a point to make you have obfuscated it
well.

Really, is that how it worked in Britain, Australia and Canada,
registration didn't precede bans and confiscations?

Personally could care less, I don't live in those places.

Perhaps if you think that gun bans are a good idea, you should.

RonB wrote:

When I saw the original post, I knew it was going to light some
fires. I never thought it would go on this long.

Good Grief!

Doesn't anyone have time for woodworking any more?


RonB

Does fixing up a Fender Presision Bass I found at a flea market for a
hundred bucks count?

Stuart wrote:

Street deaths and domestics are still down to the use of knives and
other weapons.

Yes, I've read news articles from the UK about efforts to treat knives the
same as firearms. If memory serves they've already gone that route in
Australia, get caught with a tiny keychain knife there and you have a
problem. I suppose it's only a matter of time until steel-toed work boots
require a permit.

Your average burglar entering your home is extremely unlikely to be
carrying a gun and you still have the right to use reasonable force to
defend yourself and your property.

With what, a cricket bat? A National Rail sandwich lashed to the end of a
stick might make an effective club....

In article ,
Lew Hodgett wrote:

...snipped...All this hocus pocus about hand guns makes me laugh.

I've never been bothered by anybody and I've spent some time alone
after dark in places where a honky like me shouldn't be seen alone.


That is equivalent to "I've never used a table saw guard and I still
have all my fingers, so it must be safe."
--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

HeyBub wrote:

Stuart wrote:

Your average burglar entering your home is extremely unlikely to be
carrying a gun and you still have the right to use reasonable force
to defend yourself and your property.

Not in the UK, you don't.

"Anthony Edward Martin (born 1944) is a farmer from Norfolk, England,
who in 1999 killed one burglar, and wounded another, who had invaded
his home. He was subsequently convicted of murder. As a result, he
became a cause célèbre for some, and polarised opinions in the UK"

Bad example, back-shooting burglars who are attempting to flee doesn't
qualify as self-defense.

In article ,
Stuart wrote:
In article ,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

And in the UK, where strict gun laws are in place, you'd be hard pressed
to count that many in a month throughout the entire country.


True enough, but firearm related homicides were at the same low level
in Great Britain even _before_ their strict gun control laws were
enacted; by some measures, they have gone up since then.

--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Lew Hodgett wrote:

"DGDevin" wrote:

It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to finally stop Washington
DC from banning the ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens,
and apparently DC is interested in ways to get around that ruling if
they can.

That's only temporary.

How so? Most of the rulings that have come down since the recent landmark
2nd Amendment case have upheld existing laws. What's to stop DC from
putting in regulations so onerous that they amount to a ban (which is what
they've already discussed doing)?

So far as I've heard Chicago hasn't done away with their equally
ineffective handgun ban either, ineffective in the sense that
criminals happily ignore it.

Interesting observation, just as Chicago is an interesting place.

If criminals being armed while law-abiding citizens are disarmed is
"interesting," I guess so.

If you can point out how fear of handgun bans amounts to "NRA
propaganda" despite laws such as these existing for decades, that
might be interesting.

Huh!

Ummm, what?

What will registration accomplish? Do you think any criminal will
choose to register a firearm?

Not hardly; however, when the registered firearm is found in the hands
of a felon, the possibility of legal recourse exists.

You don't need registration to accomplish that. A law requiring firearms
transfers to be done through dealers does the same thing. The last owner of
record has to explain why his gun was found at a crime scene, if it turns
out he sold it without going through a dealer then he can be prosecuted for
that.

Really, is that how it worked in Britain, Australia and Canada,
registration didn't precede bans and confiscations?

Personally could care less, I don't live in those places.

Lew

Hmmm, interesting that some folks would like to see U.S. law become more
like the law in those places however. Naw, no way it could happen here....

Doug Winterburn wrote:
Han wrote:

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?

Because there are bad people in the world.

Obviously, we need to ban bad people.

Stalin banned 43,000,000 bad people, Hitler banned 20,000,000 bad
people, Khmer Rouge banned 2 Million (1/3 of his population), Chiang
Kai-shek has banned 10,000,000 as well. Mao.... well, there sure are a
LOT of bad people around...

A little more of this and will can all live in peaceful utopia. But
first, we must disarm all the bad guys....

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com

RicodJour wrote:

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 mean like OSHA requiring construction vehicles to have an ear
piercing beep when backing up, then requiring ear muffs so the beeps
don't hurt your ears:-)

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
http://jbstein.com