How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

Liberal

How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?

"mp" wrote in message
...
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?

His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will do
everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
and demoCROOKS disagree with that.

Courtney Mainord wrote:
"mp" wrote in message
...

How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?

His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will do
everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
and demoCROOKS disagree with that.



There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
voting. I'm anti-cop killing bullets, anti-mentals/felons being able to
purchase guns at a gun show, and anti-assault weapons, and yet I own a
shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
common sense.

There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
voting. I'm anti-cop killing bullets, anti-mentals/felons being able to
purchase guns at a gun show, and anti-assault weapons, and yet I own a
shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
common sense.

This is still off topic, but since it's not directly related to who has (or
is) the bigger dick, I'll reply. As a gun owner, you should know this
about "cop-killer" bullets:

The bullet was invented by police officers in the 1960's to fire at suspects
hiding behind objects or wearing bullet-resistant vests. These specialty
bullets were only sold to police and were not available in stores anywhere
in the United States. While often labeled "Teflon bullets," teflon had
nothing to do with penetrating protective vests (the teflon simply helps
reduce the abrasion to the gun's barrel). The important feature instead was
their denser core, usually made out of tungsten.

Despite the phrase "cop-killer," only police used these bullets, and even
then extremely rarely. No officer has ever been shot at, let alone killed,
with such a bullet. Nor did the law even deal with bullets that might
actually be used to penetrate bullet-resistant vests. Most rifle ammunition
will do this, though to have banned these bullets would have essentially
outlawed most hunting.

As police know, there is still another irony attached to this discussion:
unless the intended victim has protection, these bullets have less stopping
power than hollow point bullets since they more easily pass through their
victim and they are more likely than other bullets to wound than kill.

This law changed nothing. Companies continued only selling these bullets to
police.

And this about "assault" rifles:

There is not a single published academic study showing that the ban has
reduced any type of violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice
Department under the Clinton administration concluded only that the ban's
effect on gun violence "has been uncertain." When those same authors
released their updated report in August looking at crime data up through
2000 - the first six full years of the law - they stated, "We cannot clearly
credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

The reason for these findings is simple: There is nothing unique about the
guns that are banned under the law. Though the phrase "assault weapon"
conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, in
fact the weapons covered by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic
hunting rifle; they fire the exact same bullets with the exact same rapidity
and produce the exact same damage as hunting rifles.

The firing mechanisms in semiautomatic and machine guns are completely
different. The entire firing mechanism of a semiautomatic gun has to be
gutted and replaced to turn it into a machine gun. This law had nothing to
do with machine guns.

Long guns are used in something like 2% of gun-related crime. Assault
weapons, something like .02%. It was feel-good legislation. I agree that
the gunshow loophole should be closed. Background checks should be
mandatory and thorough. But the assault rifle band was useless.

I'd just like to point out, there is no such thing as a gun show
loophole. Gun dealers must be licensed, period. And dealers at gun shows
must do the form 4473 and any applicable waiting periods too. So the
myth of a felon getting guns at a gun show is just that, a myth.

Only private individuals are exempt from this (except for californians),
just as if you were selling through a classified ad, word of mouth, or
to your buddy.

John

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

There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
voting. I'm anti-cop killing bullets, anti-mentals/felons being able to
purchase guns at a gun show, and anti-assault weapons, and yet I own a
shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
common sense.

ALL bullets can be cop killing bullets. All bullets can also armor
pierce given enough velocity. So what do you propose for ammo?

On 26 Oct 2004 08:19:52 -0700, (Larry Bud)
wrote:


ALL bullets can be cop killing bullets. All bullets can also armor
pierce given enough velocity. So what do you propose for ammo?

Spitballs ?

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:19:44 GMT, "Courtney Mainord"
wrote:


"mp" wrote in message
...
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?

His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will do
everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
and demoCROOKS disagree with that.

Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. 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.

You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. 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.

You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.

Let's see...there are between 60-65 million gun owners in the US. Using
your example of a second revolution, unless someone is just going to nuke
the whole place, they're going to have a problem when every fourth person is
armed. Strength is in numbers. And the NRA is just like any other interest
group. They don't want the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.

todd

"Prometheus" wrote in message

You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.

Apache helicopters don't seem to be having much impact on the Islamic
fundamentalist of the world. The point is "registration" ... if you know
where something, it is easier to confiscate it.

Interesting to both sides of the issue are statistics on Australia's
experience with gun control:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

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

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:49:40 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message

You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.

Apache helicopters don't seem to be having much impact on the Islamic
fundamentalist of the world. The point is "registration" ... if you know
where something, it is easier to confiscate it.

Who is trying to confiscate your guns? I've been hearing these dire
warnings since I was a tot, and none of it has ever happened- nor does
it even really seem to be in the works.

Interesting to both sides of the issue are statistics on Australia's
experience with gun control:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:19:44 GMT, "Courtney Mainord"
wrote:


"mp" wrote in message
...
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?

His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will
do
everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
and demoCROOKS disagree with that.

Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. 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.

You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.

An Apache is totally worthless when the pilot and ground crew all got shot
coming out of a bar one night or refuse to fly because their wives and kids
are being held hostage and may be in the target zone. And if the workers
in the factory where the spare parts are made all decide to join the
rebellion it is going to quit flying due to lack of spares after a while.
Of course they destroyed the factory before they left, and being the
experts on using the tools, they did a right job of it. Assuming of course
that some F-15 jockey from the part of the Air Force that joined the
rebellion doesn't just blow the crap out of it. People who use this
argument simply do not understand the difference between a war and a
rebellion.

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

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:38:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:19:44 GMT, "Courtney Mainord"
wrote:


"mp" wrote in message
...
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?

His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will
do
everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
and demoCROOKS disagree with that.

Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. 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.

You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.

An Apache is totally worthless when the pilot and ground crew all got shot
coming out of a bar one night or refuse to fly because their wives and kids
are being held hostage and may be in the target zone. And if the workers
in the factory where the spare parts are made all decide to join the
rebellion it is going to quit flying due to lack of spares after a while.
Of course they destroyed the factory before they left, and being the
experts on using the tools, they did a right job of it. Assuming of course
that some F-15 jockey from the part of the Air Force that joined the
rebellion doesn't just blow the crap out of it. People who use this
argument simply do not understand the difference between a war and a
rebellion.

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.

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

They're coming sooner than you think.

Of course, you'd be loony enough to think that the only danger would
come from the left, even though totalitarian thinking comes much more
easily from neocons.

After all, who is it that is equating criticism to being disloyal
citizens?

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 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.

Kerry has voted against every pro-gun bill, and for every gun control
bill that ever came up in his terms. He has also voted against various
legislation that is pro-sportsman (read pro-hunter).

That photo op of him coming back from a goose hunt is nothing but a
publicity stunt, whether he hunted or not. Its just a feeble attempt to
get the hunter vote in spite of his voting record on hunting issues.

I'm surprised the Ducks unlimited president (I think it was?) was even
involved.

John

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:38:23 -0500, JohnT. wrote:
Kerry has voted against every pro-gun bill, and for every gun control
bill that ever came up in his terms. He has also voted against various
legislation that is pro-sportsman (read pro-hunter).

Yes; it seems that on this issue, he actually shows up for work.

That photo op of him coming back from a goose hunt is nothing but a
publicity stunt, whether he hunted or not. Its just a feeble attempt to
get the hunter vote in spite of his voting record on hunting issues.
I'm surprised the Ducks unlimited president (I think it was?) was even
involved.

As am I. Oddly enough, the ducks unlimited site had nothing about
it the day of, or the day following. I've been donating to them for
more than a few years, and want some explaination of what exactly
they are up to before I give them any more money.

Dave Hinz

"mp" wrote in message
...

And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?

There's this thing called the United States Senate where Kerry has been for
the last couple of decades or so and has cast hundreds of votes on a variety
of topics. This is a pretty good indication of what his belief system is.
It's odd that his campaign will talk about ANY subject before his voting
record.

Frank

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:31:02 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
wrote:

|
|"mp" wrote in message
...
|
| And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
|
|There's this thing called the United States Senate where Kerry has been for
|the last couple of decades or so and has cast hundreds of votes on a variety
|of topics. This is a pretty good indication of what his belief system is.
|It's odd that his campaign will talk about ANY subject before his voting
|record.

First let me say that I am a life-long registered Republican and cast
my first vote for president for Barry Goldwater (who must be turning
over in his grave watching this campaign). I have (forgive me) voted
for every Republican candidate for president since then, including the
current one.

That said; in defense of Senator Kerry's voting record let me point
out that if any senator's record were examined under a microscope
there would appear to be gross inconsistencies. Unrelated riders are
attached to bills all of the time, most of them as attempts to get
something passed that would fail to pass on its own merits. A yes
vote today and a nay vote tomorrow may not be inconsistent at all.

Furthermore, remember that we live in a country with a
"representative" form of government. Senator Kerry is supposed to
"represent" his constituents and they are the citizens of the
ultra-liberal Massachusetts. How else would you expect him to vote if
he wanted to be reelected?

My senator, John McCain, is about the only one I know of who can speak
his mind and still get reelected, although it pains me to see him
campaigning for GWB, after what Bush said about him in the past. I
thought McCain had more integrity than that, but it just further
proves my point, these guys will do and say anything to get elected.

Wes Stewart

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:31:03 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:

[snip]

My senator, John McCain, is about the only one I know of who can speak his
mind and still get reelected, although it pains me to see him campaigning
for GWB, after what Bush said about him in the past. I thought McCain had
more integrity than that, but it just further proves my point, these guys
will do and say anything to get elected.

McCain and Kyle are also my senators, but I prefer Kyle over McCain.
Perhaps McCain remembers what Kerry said about him as a Viet Nam Vet and
considers those statements overwhelm anything Bush may have said? Had
McCain truly believed in Kerry, he would have accepted the VP nomination
as Kerry's running mate. That probably would have assured a Kerry victory.

-Doug

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...

That said; in defense of Senator Kerry's voting record let me point
out that if any senator's record were examined under a microscope
there would appear to be gross inconsistencies. Unrelated riders are
attached to bills all of the time, most of them as attempts to get
something passed that would fail to pass on its own merits. A yes
vote today and a nay vote tomorrow may not be inconsistent at all.

Very true indeed which is one good reason why most presidents do not come
from the Senate.


Furthermore, remember that we live in a country with a
"representative" form of government. Senator Kerry is supposed to
"represent" his constituents and they are the citizens of the
ultra-liberal Massachusetts. How else would you expect him to vote if
he wanted to be reelected?

True also, however the rest of the country is not ultra liberal like
Massachusetts which is why I don't think he can represent the enitre
country.


My senator, John McCain, is about the only one I know of who can speak
his mind and still get reelected, although it pains me to see him
campaigning for GWB, after what Bush said about him in the past. I
thought McCain had more integrity than that, but it just further
proves my point, these guys will do and say anything to get elected.

The funniest moment in this campaign IMO was after the Kerry ticket carped
for weeks about McCain running for veep with Kerry, and then McCain comes
out at the Republican Convention and lambastes Kerry. A truly embarrasing
moment for all Democrats. But what would you have McCain do? He is a
Democrat who has found his party moving away from him, hijacked by the far
left. He is in the same boat as Zell Miller. The thing is that these two
guys who speak the truth about their party, that there are some serious
internal problems, they are castigated for it.

The funniest moment in this campaign IMO was after the Kerry ticket carped
for weeks about McCain running for veep with Kerry, and then McCain comes
out at the Republican Convention and lambastes Kerry. A truly embarrasing
moment for all Democrats. But what would you have McCain do? He is a
Democrat who has found his party moving away from him, hijacked by the far
left.

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.

I thought those photos were hilarious. The ones I saw never showed
Kerry actually TOUCHING the dead goose. Now if he actually gutted it
and cut off its head then ate it with Theresa over an open fire, I
might vote for him. Naw...don't think that would do it either.

Brings a tear to my eye as I conjure up growing up in central PA with a
22 by age 12 "right of passage" and the 16 ga Ithaca by the time you're
16. First day of hunting season - nobody in school except the girls.
Shootin' rats at the dump after school. Can't believe there going
Kerry there.

Of course, there is the 110% registration in Phila & Pittsburg - and
dead Dems are out-registering dead Republicans 10:1. Never forget mayor
John Street after the 2000 election proudly proclaiming that every
single registered voter in Philadelphia cast a ballot. Now that's
democracy (or something) in action!

I'm not going to get into a political debate tho. I had Bush & Kerry
filtered, but here I am ...damn!

Can't wait till the f*ckin' election is over.

Lou

In article , Kerry
wrote:

How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

Liberal

Pahleez...

I am a member of the NRA and I am very mindful of the INTENT of our
Founding Fathers. The Constitution was written with the concept of
single shot fowling rifles (which had an accuracy of less than 200 yards).

I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
incomprehensible.

Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
or your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.

Peace,

Dy
Kerry wrote:
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns.

Liberal

I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
incomprehensible.

These weapons are illegal for the general public to purchase. (yes, there
are exceptions, as I recently found out about Arizona -- but you still need
to pay lots of money, have an in-depth background check, and get the
approval of some governmental agency I can't remember the name of right
now...)

Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.

That isn't true. You do not have the right to NOT be offended by what I say.
You have the right to NOT be shut down by the government for what you say.
That's it.


My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family, or
your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.

Agreed.

Peace,

Dy
Kerry wrote:
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns. Liberal

mark notes:

purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

There you go. And the extra rounds tear the **** out of someone else in the
house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
buck.

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

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
mark notes:

purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

There you go. And the extra rounds tear the **** out of someone else in
the
house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
buck.

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

Who says a semi-automatic has to be an M16? I know you know this, but some
people hear "semi-automatic" and think "Uzi". My 12-gauge (Browning Auto-5
lightweight) is semi-automatic.

todd

Charlie Self wrote:

mark notes:

purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

There you go. And the extra rounds tear the **** out of someone else in
the house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge
with 0 buck.

And the pellets that don't hit the assailant tear the **** out of someone
else in the house or in the neighborhood.

By the way, what "extra rounds"? Are you saying that he's so innacurate
that he has to empty a magazine to put one round on target? And yet you're
so accurate with your shotgun that you hit the guy first time? And if you
think that a shotgun automatically hits everything downrange, you might
want to pattern it at the distances common in indoor combat. You'll get a
big surprise.

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

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke notes:

And the pellets that don't hit the assailant tear the **** out of someone
else in the house or in the neighborhood.

Ah, mine own house but a pitiful thing? WTF are your walls made of?

By the way, what "extra rounds"? Are you saying that he's so innacurate
that he has to empty a magazine to put one round on target? And yet you're
so accurate with your shotgun that you hit the guy first time? And if you
think that a shotgun automatically hits everything downrange, you might
want to pattern it at the distances common in indoor combat. You'll get a
big surprise.

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

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.
Probably a sporting arm isn't the best, but a 19" or 20" barrel helps a lot.
Also reduces muzzle velocity, decreases swing time for any second shot, if
needed.

At short range, there is, and always will be, one helluva lot of difference
between shotguns and rifles and ease of hitting a target 20 feet away.

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

There you go. And the extra rounds tear the **** out of someone else in
the
house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
buck.

Charlie Self


I was really just using that as an example. If you have neighbors, kids,
multiple people in the house, etc., that's different. If I lived in a
neighborhood, I'd use my 20ga mossberg with some birdshot or something. I
live in the sticks. I have no neighbors. It's me, and my wife. It takes
cops 30 minutes to get here.

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message ...
mark notes:

purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

There you go. And the extra rounds tear the **** out of someone else in the
house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
buck.


At indoor ranges #8 will get the job done but won't overpenetrate
the target, walls, doors and so on.

--

FF

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:17:38 GMT, "mark" wrote:

I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
incomprehensible.

These weapons are illegal for the general public to purchase. (yes, there
are exceptions, as I recently found out about Arizona -- but you still need
to pay lots of money, have an in-depth background check, and get the
approval of some governmental agency I can't remember the name of right
now...)

There's a shop about 10 miles from me with a sign that just says "Guns
Guns Guns" They sell any kind of firearm you could imagine, from the
old thompson sub-machine guns to big anti-aircraft guns mounted on
huge tripods. There you pay $200 for a full-auto permit (fee may've
changed by now) wait a week, and get your insanely useless machine
gun. I say insanely useless because you can't shoot it anywhere but a
licensed range, it chews up ammunition and there's no one around that
you have any right to shoot.

Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.

That isn't true. You do not have the right to NOT be offended by what I say.
You have the right to NOT be shut down by the government for what you say.
That's it.


My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family, or
your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.

Agreed.

Peace,

Dy
Kerry wrote:
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns. Liberal

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.

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

John

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.

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

John

Good point. Most of them start at about 8 grand.

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 13:20:29 -0500, Prometheus wrote:

There's a shop about 10 miles from me with a sign that just says "Guns
Guns Guns" They sell any kind of firearm you could imagine, from the
old thompson sub-machine guns to big anti-aircraft guns mounted on
huge tripods. There you pay $200 for a full-auto permit (fee may've
changed by now) wait a week, and get your insanely useless machine
gun.

You skipped "get permission from your county sheriff", and "pass a very
stringent Federal background check".

Prometheus wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:17:38 GMT, "mark" wrote:

I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
incomprehensible.

These weapons are illegal for the general public to purchase. (yes, there
are exceptions, as I recently found out about Arizona -- but you still
need to pay lots of money, have an in-depth background check, and get the
approval of some governmental agency I can't remember the name of right
now...)

There's a shop about 10 miles from me with a sign that just says "Guns
Guns Guns" They sell any kind of firearm you could imagine, from the
old thompson sub-machine guns to big anti-aircraft guns mounted on
huge tripods. There you pay $200 for a full-auto permit (fee may've
changed by now) wait a week, and get your insanely useless machine
gun. I say insanely useless because you can't shoot it anywhere but a
licensed range, it chews up ammunition and there's no one around that
you have any right to shoot.

In what nation is this? In the US you can shoot a machine gun anywhere that
you can shoot any other kind of gun that uses the same ammunition, however
to obtain one you have to pay a $500 Federal transfer tax and wait several
months for the background check. The requirements have not changed since
1934.

Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.

That isn't true. You do not have the right to NOT be offended by what I
say. You have the right to NOT be shut down by the government for what you
say. That's it.


My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
or
your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.

Agreed.

Peace,

Dy
Kerry wrote:
How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
your guns. Liberal


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)