"Charlie Self" wrote in message

If you think a shotgun won't take out a target across a room without
precise
aim, you need to redefine your thinking and get a little more experience.

You betcha. IMO, the shotgun is the only weapon in close quarters. Its big
cousin, an M79 with buckshot round, was my weapon of choice for 13 long
months. Whichever way I was looking, it was too.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04

I find it amusing that anyone would consider the Democrats to be far left.
By world standards there's not that much of a difference in political
ideology between Democrats and Republicans.


You are right...and by even relatively recent historical standards they are
both far left. Just because other "civilized" countries want to be socialist
doesn't mean we should feel any need to go that way.

Dave Hall

umm...

you have an odd definition of gun owner.
if they aren't gun owners, what are those criminals shooting?

He meant LEGAL gun owners. Not criminals with stolen and unlicensed
handguns.

Swingman wrote:

IMO, the shotgun is the only weapon in close quarters.

I dunno. I had a "grease gun" for about a year; and decided that
hosing (600 rounds/minute) a room with .45's could be a fairly
effective method of ending disputes over who gets to stay and who
doesn't.

Rough on the woodwork, though.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:31:49 -0500, "JohnT."
wrote:

I seriously doubt that anyone waits a week before taking legal
possession of a machine gun. The feds need to do a background check on
you first (which takes months), then you need a OK from your county
sherrif (at his discretion), and of course, fingerprinting.

That's what they claim there, I never bought one.

Not to mention how insanely expensive NFA (machine guns, cannons, etc) are.

I can do nothing but agree with that one. They're awfully expensive.

John

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:15:50 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .
Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have
some
validity, but it does not right now.

All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.

Wow, you're really ratcheting up the hyperbole. If I wanted to cause
property damage or shoot some folks, I wouldn't need an automatic weapon.
Most people don't want and can't afford automatic weapons anyway. If you're
gonna argue for gun control, you'd better come up with something other than
this lame argument.

Nah, I'm not for gun control. I just get tired of the same old
"They're going to take away my guns" line. It sounds way to close to
paranoid schizophrenia to make me comfortable with those people as gun
owners. I'm all for home defense and sporting arms, just not for
nutcases getting military-style firearms. That being said- I am fully
aware that the "assult weapons ban" applied to semi-automatic weapons
that were not any more dangerous than your average 30-06. They just
looked mean, so dopes went after them. I own guns, I keep them in my
home, and I use them when I hunt or shoot trap. If someone were to
break in to my home, I'd use one on the intruder with no hesitation.

The only reason I chimed in at all is because even though I consider
myself a conservative [conservative, not "republican"], I really do
not want to see the damn GWB get another four years over some
hysterical non-issue. The NRA does quite a few very good things, and
I feel that the hysteria that some of these folks try to evoke is not
only irritating, but damaging to an otherwise useful group. If
gun-control were one of the major issues in this election, I could
understand pushing the second-amendment's case, but it really is not.

As far as hyperbole goes, what exactly is it when people come up with
the ol' "they're gonna round up all our guns and enslave us in a
police state" arguement? Should the response to this be a mild *tut
tut*?
todd

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:43:50 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:29:38 -0500, Prometheus
calmly ranted:

All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.

Gun owners aren't the ones shooting up the neighborhood. Look
at any stat sheet by any group who has looked into it and you'll
see that. Criminals are the ones doing it. And they do it more
often with handguns than they do with assault rifles by a ratio
of nearly 100:1.

Again, I've seen all the stats. I'm not disagreeing with the
principle, but with the overblown rhetoric. The "they're gonna take
away mah gunz" folks are not always looking at the sane aspect of gun
ownership- they're often pushing for a personal right to fill up their
lawns with claymore mines and mount an anit-aircraft battery on the
roof. Call it hyperbole if you like, but I was raised by militia
supporters, and they and all their friends used the same damn
arguments. They were dangerous people with a high level of mental
illness, and I'm not going to defend that kind of loonyness.

The odds are MUCH greater for death by doctor/hospital than
death by machine gun fire.

The old San Francisco Madame herself shows that assault weapon
use is way down there, near the 1:100 rate.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releas...twepsrate1.htm

I used to be anti-handgun until a friend had me look into it.
I did a 180 degree spin [joining Gary Kleck (a Florida criminology
professor) and Hans Toch (Professor at the School of Criminology,
NY State University Albany)] after reading stats from all sorts of
places, reading a good half-dozen books on the subject, and asking
the right questions. I dare you to do the same research.

I own a handgun. And a shotgun. And a rifle. Even some knives, too.
Your dare is a little weak- sometimes it takes a little courage to
look at the reasonable side of things, rather than just assuming that
"they're" out to get you.

Some good books:

"ARMED" by Gary Kleck & Don Yates
"More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott


Some stats:

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20...in%20Crime.htm

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/index1.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

http://www.guncite.com/ spend some time here

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1010111/posts

The 10% of people who are against guns are all misled but are
keeping the lies alive. For your (our) own good, DO look into
it yourselves.

"Howard" wrote in message
...
"mark" wrote:

I agree that
the gunshow loophole should be closed.

And just which gunshow loophole is that?

The one where I go to a gun show and meet someone there and they say, "Hey,
I have something you might be interested in over in my van."

I realize that if you have a table, you also are supposed to have an FFL.
But it wasn't until a few years ago that you even needed a storefront in my
state. Used to be, all you had to do to sell guns out of the trunk of your
car was apply for the license.

just to clarify, in a previous occupation i was an armorer for SIG, and have
worked on and collected firearms for 40 years. NFA weapons of modern
manufacture require a $200 stamp and normally take 3-6 months to clear
paperwork, and some are as classic works of craftsmanship as any woodworking
piece. on the comment of the 30-06 the greatest combat rifle in history is the
M-1 Garand and fires this round "semi-automatically" and is more accurate than
most hunting rifles after sustained fire. the founding fathers had both a
disdain and dislike for any government and intended for us to be able to
protect ourselves from said government, and some need to check the definition
of militia at the time that line was wrote. btw charlie you should change to #
4 buck for that defensive load, has a much better pattern for dissuading
invaders whatever they may be. and just to keep on topic some of the finest
woodworking i have ever seen was on double rifles and shotguns, and some even
on war issue mausers and springfields

Madeuce responds:

on the comment of the 30-06 the greatest combat rifle in history is the
M-1 Garand and fires this round "semi-automatically" and is more accurate
than
most hunting rifles after sustained fire. the founding fathers had both a
disdain and dislike for any government and intended for us to be able to
protect ourselves from said government, and some need to check the definition
of militia at the time that line was wrote. btw charlie you should change to
#
4 buck for that defensive load, has a much better pattern for dissuading
invaders whatever they may be. and just to keep on topic some of the finest
woodworking i have ever seen was on double rifles and shotguns, and some even
on war issue mausers and springfields

I agree with the M1. It was what I got through Parris Island and four years of
the USMC with.

I think you're also right about the load. A lighter load might do a *safer*
job, maybe keep me from blowing my little mutt away by accident.

At 10 miles from the nearest town, I am not particularly worried about
encroachment, shall we call it, in my home, but should it happen, I have no
intention of waiting 15-20 minutes for a deputy to arrive.

Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:08 -0500, Prometheus
calmly ranted:

Again, I've seen all the stats. I'm not disagreeing with the
principle, but with the overblown rhetoric. The "they're gonna take
away mah gunz" folks are not always looking at the sane aspect of gun
ownership- they're often pushing for a personal right to fill up their
lawns with claymore mines and mount an anit-aircraft battery on the
roof. Call it hyperbole if you like, but I was raised by militia
supporters, and they and all their friends used the same damn
arguments. They were dangerous people with a high level of mental
illness, and I'm not going to defend that kind of loonyness.

There are certainly a few loonies out there, but sanity prevails
for the vast majority of the US population. A handful of loonies
and the rabid anti-gun critters really are few in number. How many
people have your militia friends killed so far? (My guess would be
zero, as most loonies just look that way and don't follow through.)


the right questions. I dare you to do the same research.

I own a handgun. And a shotgun. And a rifle. Even some knives, too.
Your dare is a little weak- sometimes it takes a little courage to
look at the reasonable side of things, rather than just assuming that
"they're" out to get you.

? Who just brought up paranoia? If you want that, the assault gun
ban was that kind of trash, pure and simple. I looked at the issue
and then jumped to the reasonable side of the fence, P.


--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik

VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

Larry Jaques posts:

"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik

Flat statement. Facts to back it up?



Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" wrote:

I find it amusing that anyone would consider the Democrats to be far left.
By world standards there's not that much of a difference in political
ideology between Democrats and Republicans.

... except that a significant percentage of the Republican
leadership is fascist in beliefs. And almost none of them
served in the military, while they're more than happy to send
our kids (not theres) to die on ther behalf.

On 24 Oct 2004 18:38:02 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:


Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.


Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
a few family members and the Joneses next door.

In article , GregP wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" wrote:

I find it amusing that anyone would consider the Democrats to be far left.
By world standards there's not that much of a difference in political
ideology between Democrats and Republicans.

... except that a significant percentage of the Republican
leadership is fascist in beliefs. And almost none of them
served in the military, while they're more than happy to send
our kids (not theres) to die on ther behalf.

Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really means.

Almost none of the Democrat leadership served in the military either, by the
way. This is apparently an unfamiliar concept to you, but the leaders of
*both* parties come, by and large, from backgrounds of wealth and privilege,
not just the Republicans.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:49:13 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really means.

I have, but it sounds like you haven't. And dictionaries aren't
exactly the be-all end-all of human knowledge.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" wrote:

... except that a significant percentage of the Republican
leadership is fascist in beliefs.

Pop quiz for Greg---
Identify the party that has a senator who was an active member of the KKK.
Show your work.
a) Republican party
b) Democrat party

GregP responds:



Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.


Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
a few family members and the Joneses next door.

I don't know many people who want to own an Uzi or any of its full auto
counterparts, but I do know a few. About half of them are combat vets who are
unlikely to spray fire unintentionally. The other half, though---

Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:38:21 -0500, Richard A. wrote:

There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
voting.

Maybe. Let's read on and see.

I'm anti-cop killing bullets,

That's jingoism from the anti's right there. Any rifle bullet will
penetrate a ballistic vest, so by trying to label ammo as "cop-killer",
the can then try to leverage that to ban all rifles.

anti-mentals/felons being able to
purchase guns at a gun show,

The laws apply at gun shows just like they apply everywhere else, it is
illegal for a felon to touch, let alone own, a firearm or ammunition.
Same for certain psychological disorders. There is no "gun show loophole"
that magically makes this legal at one location and not another, that's
another myth.

and anti-assault weapons,

Do you know that the "assault weapons ban" which recently expired had
nothing to do with machine guns? It also wasn't a ban, it was a
manufacturing stop order - you can own 'em, you just can't build any
more. Oh, and the definition of "assault weapon"? If a semi-automatic
rifle had a flash hider and a bayonet lug, it was an "assault weapon" as
defined by the ban. Now, I don't know how many bayonetings you have in
_your_ part of the country, but as I see it, it was a ban for superficial,
cosmetic differences. The only way they got it passed was by confusing the
people because they _look like_ machine guns.

and yet I own a
shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
common sense.

Yes, there is. Please go educate yourself on the issues, and you'll
see that Kerry's "moderate" stance on guns is there only during the
election. His anti-gun voting record is 100%. Your shotgun and two
handguns aren't safe either.

Dave Hinz

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:00:02 -0500, Prometheus wrote:

I didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.

My several thousand dollar Springfield Armory M1-A Match Rifle is
"Junk anyways"?

On 25 Oct 2004 15:01:36 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:

Larry Jaques posts:

"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik

Flat statement. Facts to back it up?

Ask Michael. www.badnarik.org


It was in one of his speeches.
http://badnarik.org/plans_economy.php


--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik

VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

On 25 Oct 2004 17:27:31 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:

GregP responds:

Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.

Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
a few family members and the Joneses next door.

I don't know many people who want to own an Uzi or any of its full auto
counterparts, but I do know a few. About half of them are combat vets who are
unlikely to spray fire unintentionally. The other half, though---

Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.

Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.


--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik

VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

Larry Jaques asks:

Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.

Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.

I'm sure there's a cite somewhere, but it may also prove zilch. The only local
gun incident involving homeowners that I recall around here involved a woman
and a shotgun. Some guy kicked down her door and she blew him back outside with
a shotgun. I don't recall the exact disposition, but suffice to say she did NOT
need a lawyer.

Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On 25 Oct 2004 17:27:31 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:

GregP responds:

Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're
nervous.

Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
a few family members and the Joneses next door.

I don't know many people who want to own an Uzi or any of its full auto
counterparts, but I do know a few. About half of them are combat vets who
are
unlikely to spray fire unintentionally. The other half, though---

Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.

Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.



On the whole, gun owners are much more responsible, upstanding
citizens."

Than what?

Jay

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:49:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.

Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.

There *is* the periodic employee-gone-crazy shooting up his
plant, there was Columbine, the Wash DC snipers, etc. So it's
not as tho these things don't happen. But overall you are right:
most gun owners are not crazy. The ones that worry me are
some of the guys I've seen at the local gun shows, where Nazi
"memorabilia" is very prominent, along with quite a bit of other
ugly stuff.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:06:35 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
wrote:


Pop quiz for Greg---
Identify the party that has a senator who was an active member of the KKK.
Show your work.
a) Republican party
b) Democrat party

Well, there's Byrd. And then there are sympathizers
such as Trent Lott. Byrd is past in that regard, Trent
showed that he's quite current.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:06:35 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
wrote:


"GregP" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" wrote:

... except that a significant percentage of the Republican
leadership is fascist in beliefs.

Pop quiz for Greg---
Identify the party that has a senator who was an active member of the KKK.
Show your work.
a) Republican party
b) Democrat party



- and if you were really up on all this, you'd know that KKK
were closer to populist (nasty, but still populist) than
anything else.

"Howard" wrote in message
...
"mark" wrote:

The one where I go to a gun show and meet someone there and they say,
"Hey,
I have something you might be interested in over in my van."

Every state in the union already has a law prohibiting the sale of
weapons to people not entitled to own one.

So, I repeat, which gunshow 'loophole' are you referring to?

--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com

Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com

OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are correct.
I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws, which I think is
the main problem anyway.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:24:26 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:08 -0500, Prometheus
calmly ranted:

Again, I've seen all the stats. I'm not disagreeing with the
principle, but with the overblown rhetoric. The "they're gonna take
away mah gunz" folks are not always looking at the sane aspect of gun
ownership- they're often pushing for a personal right to fill up their
lawns with claymore mines and mount an anit-aircraft battery on the
roof. Call it hyperbole if you like, but I was raised by militia
supporters, and they and all their friends used the same damn
arguments. They were dangerous people with a high level of mental
illness, and I'm not going to defend that kind of loonyness.

There are certainly a few loonies out there, but sanity prevails
for the vast majority of the US population. A handful of loonies
and the rabid anti-gun critters really are few in number. How many
people have your militia friends killed so far? (My guess would be
zero, as most loonies just look that way and don't follow through.)

A couple, but not gun-related. A few have been jailed for shooting
*at* people, but not hitting them.

the right questions. I dare you to do the same research.

I own a handgun. And a shotgun. And a rifle. Even some knives, too.
Your dare is a little weak- sometimes it takes a little courage to
look at the reasonable side of things, rather than just assuming that
"they're" out to get you.

? Who just brought up paranoia? If you want that, the assault gun
ban was that kind of trash, pure and simple. I looked at the issue
and then jumped to the reasonable side of the fence, P.

Agreed. It was trash. I'm really in a quandry here, because I'm
really not on the opposite side of the gun-control issue here- I just
don't want to see Bush re-elected over such a relatively small
issue... the original post was smashing Kerry and declaring that he
was going to the race is close enough that the NRA vote could push it
over, and then we might *need* our guns if he keeps up his jingoistic
cowboy antics. I don't support Kerry either, but I believe that if he
is elected by a slim margin he won't treat it as a mandate- while Bush
will accept any lead as a message straight from God that he is
supposed to ram his agenda down everyone's throats. I've voted
straight-ticket Republican since I was 18 years old, and I've worked
for several political campaigns as a sign-stapler, neighborhood
canvasser, etc. and I've very dissapointed with the way the
ultra-religious right wing has hijacked an otherwise decent party and
turned it into an engine of social oppression.

The whole damn thing sickens me.

On 25 Oct 2004 17:36:28 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:00:02 -0500, Prometheus wrote:

I didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.

My several thousand dollar Springfield Armory M1-A Match Rifle is
"Junk anyways"?

I don't know. I live in a poor area, and people were worked up about
the SKS and Ruger 10-23 modifications that were *banned*. Didn't have
access to expensive "assault" rifles, so I couldn't determine their
relative quality- all of the ones I personally encountered from that
list were worthless junk.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:31:17 -0400, GregP
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:49:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.

Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.

There *is* the periodic employee-gone-crazy shooting up his
plant, there was Columbine, the Wash DC snipers, etc. So it's
not as tho these things don't happen. But overall you are right:
most gun owners are not crazy. The ones that worry me are
some of the guys I've seen at the local gun shows, where Nazi
"memorabilia" is very prominent, along with quite a bit of other
ugly stuff.

And religious zealots who want to bring about the end of days. There
are an awful damn lot of them, and they're not going away as I hoped
they might after the millenium turned.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:27:58 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
calmly ranted:

Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.

On the whole, gun owners are much more responsible, upstanding
citizens."

Than what?

Than people asking silly questions, Jay. Pay attention, eh?

Gun owners aren't out shooting up the neighborhood. Got it?


--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik

VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:57:27 GMT, "mark" calmly
ranted:

"Howard" wrote in message
So, I repeat, which gunshow 'loophole' are you referring to?

OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are correct.
I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws, which I think is
the main problem anyway.

It's really too bad that -more- of the anti-gun folks haven't
come to that awareness. Gun owners don't like criminal antics
and Saturday Night Specials, either.


--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik

VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

Oh. Then you were trying to say that gun owners are more responsible and
upstanding than non-gun owners.

That's not that really that hard to say. Ultimately embarrassing, but not
difficult.

Jay


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:27:58 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
calmly ranted:

Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.

On the whole, gun owners are much more responsible, upstanding
citizens."

Than what?

Than people asking silly questions, Jay. Pay attention, eh?

Gun owners aren't out shooting up the neighborhood. Got it?


--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik

VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

In article ,
(Madeuce50bmg) wrote:

the founding fathers had both a
disdain and dislike for any government and intended for us to be able to
protect ourselves from said government,

So why not sell bazookas, grenades, rocket launchers, mortars,
howitzers, fully combat-ready Humvees, etc.? There's no way in hell that
your piddly little gun is going to protect you for long from the
weaponry of modern military when they come for you in their Apaches or
with laser-guided bombs.

I personally don't own a gun but have no concerns if others choose to as
long as they display intelligence and diligence in their use and
storage. The greatest lapse in responsible ownership is when gun owners
don't secure and make inoperable their weapons for storage - far too
many kids and teens get their hands on them with heart wrenching tragic
consequences.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:31:17 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:27:58 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
calmly ranted:

Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.

On the whole, gun owners are much more responsible, upstanding
citizens."

Than what?

Than people asking silly questions, Jay. Pay attention, eh?

Gun owners aren't out shooting up the neighborhood. Got it?


depends on the neighborhood.

wherever you are, you can be sure that those gunshots you hear in the
night aren't from _knife_ owners....

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:57:27 GMT, "mark" calmly
ranted:

"Howard" wrote in message
So, I repeat, which gunshow 'loophole' are you referring to?

OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are correct.
I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws, which I think is
the main problem anyway.

It's really too bad that -more- of the anti-gun folks haven't
come to that awareness. Gun owners don't like criminal antics
and Saturday Night Specials, either.


how about the gun owning criminals and SNS owners?

In article , GregP wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:49:13 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really means.

I have, but it sounds like you haven't. And dictionaries aren't
exactly the be-all end-all of human knowledge.

Of course they're not -- but they do give accurate descriptions of the
meanings of words. And it does indeed appear that you have not, in fact,
consulted your dictionary on that particular point. Here's what mine says:

"fascism: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing
an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
the system described above.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , "mark" wrote:

OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are correct.
I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws, which I think is
the main problem anyway.

Bingo. Use a gun to commit a crime -- go to jail. That's the way it oughta be.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , wrote:

how about the gun owning criminals and SNS owners?

The problem isn't people *owning* guns, the problem is people *misusing* them.
I personally wouldn't care if every felon in the country owned an M-16 as long
as they never *used* them to commit crimes.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.