On 2/8/2010 7:02 PM, Han wrote:

I too have learned from this exchange. Maybe I should be glad to have
stoked the fires some. So, recapping: I still won't run out to buy a gun
or go practicing any time soon. But I have gotten a deeper respect for the
postion that firearms correctly possessed and used can be good.

Han, my friend ... the fact that you are a thoughtful and considerate
individual leaps off the page of every post you make.

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

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 2/8/2010 7:02 PM, Han wrote:

I too have learned from this exchange. Maybe I should be glad to have
stoked the fires some. So, recapping: I still won't run out to buy a
gun
or go practicing any time soon. But I have gotten a deeper respect for
the
postion that firearms correctly possessed and used can be good.

Han, my friend ... the fact that you are a thoughtful and considerate
individual leaps off the page of every post you make.

Agreed.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 2/8/2010 7:02 PM, Han wrote:

I too have learned from this exchange. Maybe I should be glad to
have stoked the fires some. So, recapping: I still won't run out to
buy a gun or go practicing any time soon. But I have gotten a deeper
respect for the postion that firearms correctly possessed and used
can be good.

Han, my friend ... the fact that you are a thoughtful and considerate
individual leaps off the page of every post you make.

Thanks Karl, but you haven't seen me excited ... ask my boss NOT!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote:
On 2/8/2010 7:02 PM, Han wrote:

I too have learned from this exchange. Maybe I should be glad to
have stoked the fires some. So, recapping: I still won't run out
to buy a gun or go practicing any time soon. But I have gotten a
deeper respect for the postion that firearms correctly possessed and
used can be good.

Han, my friend ... the fact that you are a thoughtful and considerate
individual leaps off the page of every post you make.

We'll know he's with the program when he at least obtains the "Basic
Household Set" consisting of a pistol, a carbine, a short-barrel shotgun,
and a throw-down.

Here in Texas, those about to be married register at the gun store. To be
fair, they register other places too.

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:22:51 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:55:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Most gun advocates participating in this thread have claimed self defense as
one of multiple reasons for gun ownership. That is quite different from
your statement above.

Be honest Mike. The claim for gun ownership for self defence purposes
is almost universal. At least it has been by everyone here who states
they approve of gun ownership.

Nothing in the US mandates the need for self defense.

So now you're denying the need for guns? How do you explain then the
apparent proliferation of crime that HeyBub and others have claimed to
have experienced? It certainly doesn't happen near as much in Canada
where guns are the extreme exception, not the norm.

And before you say it, being in a wheelchair makes me more vulnerable
than most. For that reason I'm forced to be more aware than most. It
makes me rely on myself long before I might have to surrender my
protection to others. ~ Still doesn't make me uncomforable enough to
want every law abiding person to have the right to gun ownership.

Yet, everybody advocating gun ownership here keeps quoting examples of
having needed their gun or others with having needed a gun.

It is more of an independence within our citizens that does not chose to
surrender our own protection to others. We feel responsible for our own
lives in many different ways, and do not rely on others to provide for us.

And you expect everybody to believe that that pile of self delusion?
Of course you rely on others for protection. Initially, you might
defend yourself (as anyone would) in a given situation, but in most
cases where a crime happens, the police and the justice system is
there to back up your protection.

Suuuuure, an hour or two later. WAY too late for any real protection.


What I perceive is that gun ownership for the most part is a right in
the US and most of you are damned if *anybody* is going to take away
that right.

Bingo! And if you look into the stats, you'll see that gun owners are
a group who very seldom get into violence and seldom need to use those
guns. Arrest records are near nil.

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


We'll know he's with the program when he at least obtains the "Basic
Household Set" consisting of a pistol, a carbine, a short-barrel shotgun,
and a throw-down.


Dude - no skinnin' knife?????

--

-Mike-

Upscale wrote:

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:54:25 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Umm, that story WAS reality, that woman saved her life through the
defensive use of a firearm. Your world would have denied her that ability
and she would have wound up dead whether by firearm or by blunt force
trauma (as the counter-example provided in the same posting illustrated),
but dead none the less.

.... snip
You make your entire country sound like a dangerous one to live in.
Why would you want to live in such a place? Maybe you should move
somewhere else. Sounds like you prefer to live where there's constant
danger, looking for the opportunity to use your guns.


You didn't listen to the link, did you? The very point of that link to
the 911 call was to point out that the very last thing that woman wanted to
do was shoot the person breaking into her home. She repeated over and over,
"I don't want to have to shoot him, I don't want to hurt him ...." But, she
added the caveat, "I will if I have to " with the implied "to save my life".
Afterwards, she wasn't celebrating, but she also was alive. Whether she
would have been if she had been unarmed is very much in doubt.


You really are screwed up aren't you?

For wanting to be able to protect myself and my family if needed? Why
would anyone consider *that* to be screwed up? My family, my parents, my
grandparents, and great grandparents all owned guns. They used them for
hunting to put food on the table, they used them for butchering animals for
meat, they used them for target shooting fun, they used them as insurance
against violence against themselves and their families. In over 120+ years
of living in the US, not one of my relatives ever needed to use a firearm in
self defense -- but those arms were there had that been necessary. Those
arms were tools and insurance.

Thinking that I should be able to provide for self-defense in those
critical moments when the police are 30 to 45 minutes away is screwed up?
Thinking that the tools for my being able to do so should be denied me --
*that* is screwed up.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:08:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
Thinking that the tools for my being able to do so should be denied me --
*that* is screwed up.

No, what is screwed up is that this thread is ended and yet here you
are still arguing it. Like talking to yourself do you?

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

We'll know he's with the program when he at least obtains the "Basic
Household Set" consisting of a pistol, a carbine, a short-barrel
shotgun, and a throw-down.

What's a "throw-down"? I tried looking it up, but no logical explanation
on Google.

Trying to get permits for those in Bergen County NJ would likely be a waste
of time for someone with no existing threats to him or his family.

Here in Texas, those about to be married register at the gun store. To
be fair, they register other places too.

I my life's experience, people planning to be married register at Bloomie's
or Sears (examples of US custom). When I got married (Holland), we
distributed to those who asked little notebooks with tear-out pages listing
the things we'd like to get gifted. That prevented a lot (not all) of
knick-knacks, salt shakers and other useless stuff.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 09 Feb 2010 10:47:47 GMT, Han wrote:

What's a "throw-down"? I tried looking it up, but no logical explanation
on Google.

I'm guessing it's a gun with the serial number filed off or a gun that
in other words, can't be traced to the person who used it last.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On 09 Feb 2010 10:47:47 GMT, Han wrote:

What's a "throw-down"? I tried looking it up, but no logical explanation
on Google.

I'm guessing it's a gun with the serial number filed off or a gun that
in other words, can't be traced to the person who used it last.


A gun that the police can "throw down" after they have shot and killed
someone. The "throw down" is the weapon the deceased pulled on them.
Typically a weapon picked up from a criminal. I don't think they are used
much any more.

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On 09 Feb 2010 10:47:47 GMT, Han wrote:

What's a "throw-down"? I tried looking it up, but no logical explanation
on Google.

I'm guessing it's a gun with the serial number filed off or a gun that
in other words, can't be traced to the person who used it last.

Close. It's a gun carried by a police agent, or another individual
(typically not a legally registered gun), that is thrown down on the scene
of a shooting, near the victim. The intent is to provide "proof" of a
necessary shooting - the victim was armed and threatening. Not considered
the moral high ground, to say the least.

--

-Mike-

LDosser wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On 09 Feb 2010 10:47:47 GMT, Han wrote:

What's a "throw-down"? I tried looking it up, but no logical
explanation on Google.

I'm guessing it's a gun with the serial number filed off or a gun
that in other words, can't be traced to the person who used it last.


A gun that the police can "throw down" after they have shot and killed
someone. The "throw down" is the weapon the deceased pulled on them.
Typically a weapon picked up from a criminal. I don't think they are
used much any more.

Between DNA and fingerprints it's too likely to backfire these days.

On Feb 8, 8:30*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 2/8/2010 7:02 PM, Han wrote:

I too have learned from this exchange. *Maybe I should be glad to
have stoked the fires some. *So, recapping: *I still won't run out
to buy a gun or go practicing any time soon. *But I have gotten a
deeper respect for the postion that firearms correctly possessed and
used can be good.

Han, my friend ... the fact that you are a thoughtful and considerate
individual leaps off the page of every post you make.

We'll know he's with the program when he at least obtains the "Basic
Household Set" consisting of a pistol, a carbine, a short-barrel shotgun,
and a throw-down.

Here in Texas, those about to be married register at the gun store. To be
fair, they register other places too.

My son bought his bride a Glock for their first anniversary last year.

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 00:11:57 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...


We'll know he's with the program when he at least obtains the "Basic
Household Set" consisting of a pistol, a carbine, a short-barrel shotgun,
and a throw-down.


Dude - no skinnin' knife?????

That's only for the purists, who eat what they shoot. (Yuck!)

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:44:09 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"Swingman" wrote in message
m...
On 2/8/2010 7:02 PM, Han wrote:

I too have learned from this exchange. Maybe I should be glad to have
stoked the fires some. So, recapping: I still won't run out to buy a
gun
or go practicing any time soon. But I have gotten a deeper respect for
the
postion that firearms correctly possessed and used can be good.

Han, my friend ... the fact that you are a thoughtful and considerate
individual leaps off the page of every post you make.

Agreed.

I'll 3rd that.

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

On Feb 8, 8:26*pm, Swingman wrote:
On 2/8/2010 7:02 PM, Han wrote:

I too have learned from this exchange. *Maybe I should be glad to have
stoked the fires some. *So, recapping: *I still won't run out to buy a gun
or go practicing any time soon. *But I have gotten a deeper respect for the
postion that firearms correctly possessed and used can be good.

Han, my friend ... the fact that you are a thoughtful and considerate
individual leaps off the page of every post you make.

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

That goes without saying. The guy's a mensch.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:56:40 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:


"Upscale" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 07:55:55 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Most gun advocates participating in this thread have claimed self defense
as
one of multiple reasons for gun ownership. That is quite different from
your statement above.

Be honest Mike. The claim for gun ownership for self defence purposes
is almost universal. At least it has been by everyone here who states
they approve of gun ownership.


To be sure. My point was not that this claim did not exist (even in a
universal way), but that it is part of a small list of reasons that are
voice equally. One will typically find advocates claim three common reasons
for gun ownership - self defense, hunting, and sport shooting (collecting
being a somewhat distant fourth reason). Of those three, across the world
of gun ownership, I believe self defense is the lesser quoted by advocates.
It may not seem so to those who favor gun control, but that would likely be
because of the focus of conversations that develop between those who are pro
and those who are anti.


Nothing in the US mandates the need for self defense.

So now you're denying the need for guns? How do you explain then the
apparent proliferation of crime that HeyBub and others have claimed to
have experienced? It certainly doesn't happen near as much in Canada
where guns are the extreme exception, not the norm.

No - you're taking my statement out of context. I was responding
specifically to your previous comment, which used the phrase "mandates the
need for self defense". I'm not seeing the comments from HeyBub or any
others as reflecting a proliferation of crime. I've seen them reference a
few things, but I've more seen them simply state the realities of crime.
I've not seen them suggest it is any greater here in the US than other
places, just a difference in who should be responsible for their own
protection against any level of crime.


And before you say it, being in a wheelchair makes me more vulnerable
than most. For that reason I'm forced to be more aware than most. It
makes me rely on myself long before I might have to surrender my
protection to others. ~ Still doesn't make me uncomforable enough to
want every law abiding person to have the right to gun ownership.


I understand that. I do not see boogy-men lurking around every corner
either, despite that I have guns as well as a CCW. I could carry a hand gun
any time I wish (with some limited exceptions), but just don't feel the need
to do so in my day to day life. That said - there is a diffrerence between
me feeling that way, and the potential at some level, where my ability to
protect myself and family remains on my list of must haves in this world. I
may never have to exercise that ability, but I'm sure not going to surrender
it. More importantly, I'm not going to surrender that ability because
someone else (and this certainly does not single you out), feels I don't
need that capability, or should not have it, simply because they chose to
put their faith other places.


Yet, everybody advocating gun ownership here keeps quoting examples of
having needed their gun or others with having needed a gun.

Only because the conversation took that twist. The anti's kept driving
their points against self defense, so the pro's drove their points in favor.
There have though, been several mentions of sporting and hunting uses as
well. I know there have, because I have voiced them myself.


It is more of an independence within our citizens that does not chose to
surrender our own protection to others. We feel responsible for our own
lives in many different ways, and do not rely on others to provide for us.

And you expect everybody to believe that that pile of self delusion?
Of course you rely on others for protection. Initially, you might
defend yourself (as anyone would) in a given situation, but in most
cases where a crime happens, the police and the justice system is
there to back up your protection.

Delusion? Why would you suggest such a thing? I don't deny the backup
capability of police agencies, but that completely misses the point. That
initial self protection you reference above, is specifically the capability
that gun advocates (those who advocate self defense as part of their
reasoning), are speaking of. It's that initial self defense that is often
the most critical. Self defense is very much a part of the justice system -
it is provided for under our laws, and our court systems. Why would you
call that a delusion?



What I perceive is that gun ownership for the most part is a right in
the US and most of you are damned if *anybody* is going to take away
that right.


You can perceive what you wish - that's one of the beauties of perception...
you can hold it any way you wish. Why though, would you consider that
position to be anything less than proper? Whether you like it or not, it is
indeed written into the very foundation stones of this country. It has not
been proven to be problematic in over 200 years of history in this country.

If you take the position that there are social ills that are proving to be
problematic, I would certainly agree, and have stated so from the outset of
this thread. I would further contend that there are even bigger problems
with the management of those social ills - that criminal element aspect I
have spoken of in this thread. Those are areas where I believe the root of
the problem can better be addressed. As I have stated before - treating the
symptom never resolves the problem. Treating the symptom affords us an
opportunity to say "well, at least we did this...", but that is nothing more
than a conscience pleaser. It in fact, is an admission of failure in
addressing the problem - it still exists. Blinders, wishful thinking and
all that stuff.

With respect to the social ills, crime and all that stuff - the negative end
of the spectrum in gun ownership discussions, this boils down to the point
that we already have a plethora of gun related laws that provide for the
security of law abiding citizens. The criminal element is present, as it
has been throughout time, and by definition, they don't abide by laws. In
fact, so much so that they don't abide by the laws of supply and demand.
They find the way to get what they want. They do so today, and the number
of guns found within the criminal element that have come from legitimate gun
owners (break ins, etc.), is far dwarfed by the number of guns smuggled in
via other illegal channels. Further curtailing the rights of legal gun
owners will do nothing to address the criminal element.

The biggest hurdle to the argument for further restrictions on private gun
ownership is that for over 200 years, legitimate gun ownership has not
proven to be a problem. The fears often expressed by those in favor of more
control, or even the outright outlawing of private gun ownership, have
simply not been demonstrated in that entire 200 year history, or even within
a more recent timeslice. Therefore, any new legislation, registrations, or
administration of legal firearm ownership hold no promise of bringing relief
to the problems that do exist.

That was extremely well put, Mike. Kudos for that.

(Let's see, would anyone object to a 144 line sig file?

--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust

Mike Marlow wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


We'll know he's with the program when he at least obtains the "Basic
Household Set" consisting of a pistol, a carbine, a short-barrel
shotgun, and a throw-down.


Dude - no skinnin' knife?????

Oh, we get those as bar mitzvah (or equivalent) gifts, sometimes called an
"Arkansas Toothpick" (I suspect they're called that because the remaining
teeth in our neighbors are suitably far apart).

Nevertheless, here's a tip that may save your life:

This wooden stake in the heart of a vampire business is pure Hollywood
bull****. If you read Bram Stoker's book, you'll find that vampires are
dispatched via a BOWIE KNIFE, not some ****ant tent peg.

We have a lot of Bowie Knives in Texas and very little problems with
vampires.

J. Clarke wrote:
LDosser wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message
...
On 09 Feb 2010 10:47:47 GMT, Han wrote:

What's a "throw-down"? I tried looking it up, but no logical
explanation on Google.

I'm guessing it's a gun with the serial number filed off or a gun
that in other words, can't be traced to the person who used it last.


A gun that the police can "throw down" after they have shot and
killed someone. The "throw down" is the weapon the deceased pulled
on them. Typically a weapon picked up from a criminal. I don't think
they are used much any more.

Between DNA and fingerprints it's too likely to backfire these days.

Nah. When the police arrive, you hand them the throw-down. You tell them you
picked it up because the squint, in his dying twitches, was reaching for it.

You certainly don't put it in the mope's hand, like somebody did with Vince
Foster.

My personal throw-down is a pot-metal revolver with no serial number that
was designed to fire .22 shorts. The knuckle-dragger I took it from had
taken .22 Long Rifle cartridges and cut the tips off the bullet so they
would FIT in the cylinder.

Now I am going to hide ...


Thanks, guys.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Feb 9, 8:44*pm, Han wrote:
Now I am going to hide ...

Thanks, guys.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

GROUP HUG!!

Upscale wrote:

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:08:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
Thinking that the tools for my being able to do so should be denied me --
*that* is screwed up.

No, what is screwed up is that this thread is ended and yet here you
are still arguing it. Like talking to yourself do you?

My sincere apologies, I hadn't checked the leader board to see that you
had been handed the keys to the rec.ww control room and had declared this
thread to be dead. I'll be sure to check the board next time before
replying.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

LJ [whose \/ address is still screwing up Knode] wrote:

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:56:40 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:
.... snip

The biggest hurdle to the argument for further restrictions on private gun
ownership is that for over 200 years, legitimate gun ownership has not
proven to be a problem. The fears often expressed by those in favor of
more control, or even the outright outlawing of private gun ownership,
have simply not been demonstrated in that entire 200 year history, or even
within
a more recent timeslice. Therefore, any new legislation, registrations,
or administration of legal firearm ownership hold no promise of bringing
relief to the problems that do exist.

That was extremely well put, Mike. Kudos for that.

(Let's see, would anyone object to a 144 line sig file?


You could probably distill it down to that last 9 lines. Dittos on the
kudos.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:43:38 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

My sincere apologies, I hadn't checked the leader board to see that you
had been handed the keys to the rec.ww control room and had declared this
thread to be dead. I'll be sure to check the board next time before
replying.

Good idea since you don't have enough common sense to realize it.

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:09:26 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

If the thread is "ended" WTF are you doing posting to it?

The thread about guns, twit.

What a maroon...

Go **** yourself.

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:38:21 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

But you can't help yourself., so I forgive you.
Nincowpoop...

I really appreciate that Dave. Now go **** yourself anyway.

Upscale wrote:
On 09 Feb 2010 10:47:47 GMT, Han wrote:

What's a "throw-down"? I tried looking it up, but no logical
explanation on Google.

I'm guessing it's a gun with the serial number filed off or a gun that
in other words, can't be traced to the person who used it last.

As an aside, filing or grinding a serial number to make it illegible won't
work.

Serial numbers are stamped on a weapon and deform the metal all the way
through.

Here's an experiement you can do:

Take a bit of steel and stamp a design on it with a chisel. Then grind out
all traces of the mark.

Now polish the ground area until it's smooth as you can make it. Rub the
shiny surface with a lemon. Viola! The design, or the serial number,
appears.

You CAN obliterate a serial number by drilling it out if you drill all the
way through the metal.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:28:41 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

I'll let you have the last word... You're so good at it.

Thanks. There's really no enjoyment to be had in life unless one can
have the last word.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:30:14 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Thanks. There's really no enjoyment to be had in life unless one can
have the last word.

So true.

Unfortunately, it looks like today is going to be a bad day. Some guy
keeps taking away my last word enjoyment.

On Feb 10, 9:39*pm, Upscale wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:30:14 -0600, Dave Balderstone

Thanks. There's really no enjoyment to be had in life unless one can
have the last word.
So true.

Unfortunately, it looks like today is going to be a bad day. Some guy
keeps taking away my last word enjoyment.

Wasn't me!

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:16:17 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

Unfortunately, it looks like today is going to be a bad day. Some guy
keeps taking away my last word enjoyment.

Wasn't me!

pita!

Robatoy wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:39Â*pm, Upscale wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:30:14 -0600, Dave Balderstone

Thanks. There's really no enjoyment to be had in life unless one can
have the last word.
So true.

Unfortunately, it looks like today is going to be a bad day. Some guy
keeps taking away my last word enjoyment.

Wasn't me!

Yet

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"Upscale" wrote:

Unfortunately, it looks like today is going to be a bad day. Some
guy
keeps taking away my last word enjoyment.

I'll let you know.

Lew

On Feb 10, 10:18*pm, Upscale wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:16:17 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

wrote:
Unfortunately, it looks like today is going to be a bad day. Some guy
keeps taking away my last word enjoyment.
Wasn't me!

pita!

Fine then.... YOU have it!

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:56:51 -0500, the infamous Upscale
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:43:38 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

My sincere apologies, I hadn't checked the leader board to see that you
had been handed the keys to the rec.ww control room and had declared this
thread to be dead. I'll be sure to check the board next time before
replying.

Good idea since you don't have enough common sense to realize it.

C'mon, Uppity. Don't be dissin' Mark.

--
In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are
needed: They must be fit for it. They must not do too much of it. And
they must have a sense of success in it.
-- John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, 1850

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:47:41 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

LJ [whose \/ address is still screwing up Knode] wrote:

Check it now. I won't, however, fix all 160-something sigs.


On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:56:40 -0500, the infamous "Mike Marlow"
scrawled the following:
... snip

The biggest hurdle to the argument for further restrictions on private gun
ownership is that for over 200 years, legitimate gun ownership has not
proven to be a problem. The fears often expressed by those in favor of
more control, or even the outright outlawing of private gun ownership,
have simply not been demonstrated in that entire 200 year history, or even
within
a more recent timeslice. Therefore, any new legislation, registrations,
or administration of legal firearm ownership hold no promise of bringing
relief to the problems that do exist.

That was extremely well put, Mike. Kudos for that.

(Let's see, would anyone object to a 144 line sig file?


You could probably distill it down to that last 9 lines. Dittos on the
kudos.

Perhaps.

--
In order that people may be happy in their work, these three things are
needed: They must be fit for it. They must not do too much of it. And
they must have a sense of success in it.
-- John Ruskin, Pre-Raphaelitism, 1850

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:47:41 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
scrawled the following:

LJ [whose \/ address is still screwing up Knode] wrote:

Check it now. I won't, however, fix all 160-something sigs.


Yep, that got it. Your sigs come through fine, it was only your address
that was giving fits. Thanks.





.... snip
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham