Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in the
constitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn't
even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?
HAHA


http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sen25.html

Keyes: Constitution protects machine gun ownership

August 25, 2004

BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter Advertisement

Declaring "the front line of the war against terror once again
involves the citizens," Republican Alan Keyes said Tuesday he believes
the U.S. Constitution grants properly trained private individuals the
right to own and carry machine guns.

"You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs and
other things," the former presidential candidate said. "That's
ridiculous."

But the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate argued the founding fathers
intended the Second Amendment to allow people to carry the types of
weapons "customarily carried in those days by ordinary infantry
soldiers."

"And, yes, does that mean that in this day and age people would have
the right to have access to the kind of the weapons our ordinary
infantry people have access to? With proper training and so forth to
make sure that they could handle them successfully, that's exactly
what was meant." (snip)

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in the constitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn't even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun? HAHA

I've seen drawings and descriptions that date back to the 1600's.
The Germans had multibarreled flintlocks that were built to take
multiple loadings in each barrel. When it was fired, staggered
flashports caused sequential firing of each powder charge until
the gun was empty.

Ben Franklin is supposed to have written a letter urging the purchase
of more organ guns (18th century equivalent of a tripod mounted
heavy machinegun) for harbor defense.

Check 'The Lore of Arms: A Concise History of Weaponry' by William
Reid. The German muzzleloading machinegun is shown on page 165 of
my 1984 printing.


--
Paul Stevens

Bill 'n' Opus in 2004

On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote:
Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn'teven exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?HAHA

A machinegun is an "arm".

Keyes got it right.



http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sen25.htmlKeyes: Constitution protects machine gun ownershipAugust 25, 2004BY SCOTT FORNEK Political Reporter AdvertisementDeclaring "the front line of the war against terror once againinvolves the citizens," Republican Alan Keyes said Tuesday he believesthe U.S. Constitution grants properly trained private individuals theright to own and carry machine guns."You're not talking about giving citizens access to atom bombs andother things," the former presidential candidate said. "That'sridiculous."But the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate argued the founding fathersintended the Second Amendment to allow people to carry the types ofweapons "customarily carried in those days by ordinary infantrysoldiers.""And, yes, does that mean that in this day and age people would havethe right to have access to the kind of the weapons our ordinaryinfantry people have access to? With proper training and so forth tomake sure that they could handle them successfully, that's exactlywhat was meant." (snip)

Sorry, Keyes is wrong on this one. First, the courts have almost universally
interpreted the "right to bear arms" as controlled by the preceding
"well-regulated militia" clause in the second amendment, and that there is
no constitutional right for individuals to own and use firearms in the USA.
Furthermore (in response to other posts commenting that machine guns aren't
covered by that clause), arms are arms and the fact that the "machine gun"
(at least in its modern form) hadn't been invented yet is irrelevant. My
state militia has a constitutional right to bear machine guns, F-16
fighters, Apache helicopter gunships, and tactical nuclear weapons. Well, we
haven't got any of the latter, yet, but we might someday. Save your
Confederate money - the South WILL rise again!

newsgroups snipped to misc.legal
IANAL

--
John Goulden

On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush
murdered her boy friend) wrote:
Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn'teven exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?HAHA

Find where it says bolt-action rifles, then.

_____
"I do not want to take care of societies problems, I just want
society to respect, even fear, us. I want the fear and respect
that the police have."

Greg Dean posing as R. David Steele
begging for the respect he'll never ever know

"John D. Goulden"> wrote Sorry, Keyes is wrong on this one. First, the courts have almost universally interpreted the "right to bear arms" as controlled by the preceding "well-regulated militia" clause in the second amendment, and that there is no constitutional right for individuals to own and use firearms in the USA.

You're right.
But not in the way you imagined.
The constitution does NOT grant rights.
It limits the power of the gov't.
The *natural* right to self protection *preceeds* the writing of the
constitution.

Even a cursory review of the constitution, a very simplistic writing in and
of itself, clearly shows this.
So I must as, "Have you ever even read the constitution?"

Finally, no one alive today is a signor to that *parchment under glass* and
therefore are not committed to its bounds.
In other words, the constituion fails in its very first word....*We*.
Why?
Because nobody get to speak for me.
Thank you very much.

One more thing, it is presently legal to own a machine gun in the US.

Paul Stevens <pauls1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<412D6950.2010205@bellsouth.net>... Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in the constitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn't even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun? HAHA I've seen drawings and descriptions that date back to the 1600's. The Germans had multibarreled flintlocks that were built to take multiple loadings in each barrel. When it was fired, staggered flashports caused sequential firing of each powder charge until the gun was empty. Ben Franklin is supposed to have written a letter urging the purchase of more organ guns (18th century equivalent of a tripod mounted heavy machinegun) for harbor defense. Check 'The Lore of Arms: A Concise History of Weaponry' by William Reid. The German muzzleloading machinegun is shown on page 165 of my 1984 printing.

Hey stupid. That's not a machine gun. EAch round has to be manually loaded.

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: Paul Stevens <pauls1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<412D6950.2010205@bellsouth.net>... Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in the constitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn't even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun? HAHA I've seen drawings and descriptions that date back to the 1600's. The Germans had multibarreled flintlocks that were built to take multiple loadings in each barrel. When it was fired, staggered flashports caused sequential firing of each powder charge until the gun was empty. Ben Franklin is supposed to have written a letter urging the purchase of more organ guns (18th century equivalent of a tripod mounted heavy machinegun) for harbor defense. Check 'The Lore of Arms: A Concise History of Weaponry' by William Reid. The German muzzleloading machinegun is shown on page 165 of my 1984 printing. Hey stupid. That's not a machine gun. EAch round has to be manually loaded.

You lost the argument by "name calling", you drunken lush.

And in ANY modern "machine gun", the ammo still has to be "Manually"
placed into the....ready for it?.... MACHINE! (aka firearm)

On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn'teven exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?HAHA

Yes they did. A patent was granted to a Brit for his 'machinegun' in
1713. As for muzzleloading machineguns, the 'organ gun,' which consisted of
lots of muzzleloading barrels mounted side by side on a wagon often served
to give the effect of massed fire.

--
jimbo@sonic.net

"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."

"John D. Goulden" wrote: Sorry, Keyes is wrong on this one. First, the courts have almost universally interpreted the "right to bear arms" as controlled by the preceding "well-regulated militia" clause in the second amendment,

False. No court above the district court level has so found.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:23:49 -0500, "John D. Goulden"
<jgoulden_news@goulden.org> wrote:
Sorry, Keyes is wrong on this one.

Umm, no, he's not.

First, the courts have almost universallyinterpreted the "right to bear arms" as controlled by the preceding"well-regulated militia" clause in the second amendment, and that there isno constitutional right for individuals to own and use firearms in the USA.

Only district courts and some state courts. However, the Fifth
Circuit (and numerous other state courts) have found that it does,
indeed, guarantee an individual right.

The Supreme Court has not yet explicitly weighed in on the issue. One
could argue, however, that the Supreme Court has implicitly recognized
the individual nature of the right to bear arms, in that cases such as
Miller were actually heard before the court and not denied cert re:
lack of standing....

Furthermore (in response to other posts commenting that machine guns aren'tcovered by that clause), arms are arms and the fact that the "machine gun"(at least in its modern form) hadn't been invented yet is irrelevant.

The only sane thing you've said yet.

Mystate militia has a constitutional right to bear machine guns, F-16fighters, Apache helicopter gunships, and tactical nuclear weapons.

As does everyone else who can afford one....

Well, wehaven't got any of the latter, yet, but we might someday. Save yourConfederate money - the South WILL rise again!

Not too bloody likely.

Tarkus

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:780ea958.0408260710.4f4d661c@posting.google.c om... Paul Stevens <pauls1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<412D6950.2010205@bellsouth.net>... Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in the constitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn't even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun? HAHA I've seen drawings and descriptions that date back to the 1600's. The Germans had multibarreled flintlocks that were built to take multiple loadings in each barrel. When it was fired, staggered flashports caused sequential firing of each powder charge until the gun was empty. Ben Franklin is supposed to have written a letter urging the purchase of more organ guns (18th century equivalent of a tripod mounted heavy machinegun) for harbor defense. Check 'The Lore of Arms: A Concise History of Weaponry' by William Reid. The German muzzleloading machinegun is shown on page 165 of my 1984 printing. Hey stupid. That's not a machine gun. EAch round has to be manually
loaded.

No more so than any other machinegun. This is a perfect example of "things
you are clueless about."

"Jim Bianchi" <jimbo@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:slrncis128.rn4.jimbo@bolt.sonic.net... On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn'teven exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?HAHA Yes they did. A patent was granted to a Brit for his 'machinegun' in 1713. As for muzzleloading machineguns, the 'organ gun,' which consisted
of lots of muzzleloading barrels mounted side by side on a wagon often served to give the effect of massed fire.

Ya know, by LBMHBF's standard, the Metalstorm system is not a machinegun.
Hmm.

"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:780ea958.0408251915.45015bed@posting.google.c om... Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in the constitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn't even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun? HAHA

Just goes to show your ignorance. Machine guns preexisted the formation of
the USA. In fact in 1783, Congress authorized the funds to convert 100
muskets to an early form of full automatic fire. The method was similar to
that used by roman candles and since the trigger was pull only once while up
to 10 rounds were fired it qualifies under the definition of full automatic.

I will also note that the meaning of arms isn't tied to any particular
technology or weapon, but rather reflects weapons in general whether old,
new, or futuristic.

In article <0oednSAGFZM97LPcRVn-tw@adelphia.com>,
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
I will also note that the meaning of arms isn't tied to any particular technology or weapon, but rather reflects weapons in general whether old, new, or futuristic.

As private individuals or as part of a well-regulated militia?

--
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
-- Albert Einstein

Hugh Sedditt <hughseddit@seddit.com> wrote in
news:hughseddit-4799C1.20012826082004@news.isp.giganews.com:
In article <0oednSAGFZM97LPcRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote: I will also note that the meaning of arms isn't tied to any particular technology or weapon, but rather reflects weapons in general whether old, new, or futuristic. As private individuals or as part of a well-regulated militia?

Well regulated private individuals are the base components
of the militia.
And just so its abundantly clear, "well regulated" has nothing
to do with how many linear feet of shelf space the rule books
occupy nor is it an excuse to prohibit civilian firearms owner-
ship.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

In article <f6lri0dga30blunqp258mtahcur9ccfj63@4ax.com>,
an00nie@hotmail.com wrote:
On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote:Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn'teven exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?HAHA A machinegun is an "arm".

So is a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. So is a tank. So is a
nuclear ICBM. I want to exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear nuclear
ICBMs and nerve gas bombs.

--
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
-- Albert Einstein

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:05:07 -0500, Hugh Sedditt
<hughseddit@seddit.com> wrote:
In article <f6lri0dga30blunqp258mtahcur9ccfj63@4ax.com>, an00nie@hotmail.com wrote: On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote:Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn'teven exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?HAHA A machinegun is an "arm".So is a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. So is a tank. So is anuclear ICBM. I want to exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear nuclearICBMs and nerve gas bombs.

AND bear. If you can't keep it AND bear it it doesn't count.



_____
"I do not want to take care of societies problems, I just want
society to respect, even fear, us. I want the fear and respect
that the police have."

Greg Dean posing as R. David Steele
begging for the respect he'll never ever know

"Hugh Sedditt" <hughseddit@seddit.com> wrote in message
news:hughseddit-545F2D.20050726082004@news.isp.giganews.com... In article <f6lri0dga30blunqp258mtahcur9ccfj63@4ax.com>, an00nie@hotmail.com wrote: On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote:Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn'teven exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?HAHA A machinegun is an "arm". So is a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. So is a tank. So is a nuclear ICBM. I want to exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear nuclear ICBMs and nerve gas bombs.

Sure, get up off the green and have what you may.
Some of the most untrustworthy people in the US already have access to
nukes, so why not you?

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote: Paul Stevens <pauls1@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<412D6950.2010205@bellsouth.net>...Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn'teven exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?HAHAI've seen drawings and descriptions that date back to the 1600's.The Germans had multibarreled flintlocks that were built to takemultiple loadings in each barrel. When it was fired, staggeredflashports caused sequential firing of each powder charge untilthe gun was empty.Ben Franklin is supposed to have written a letter urging the purchaseof more organ guns (18th century equivalent of a tripod mountedheavy machinegun) for harbor defense.Check 'The Lore of Arms: A Concise History of Weaponry' by WilliamReid. The German muzzleloading machinegun is shown on page 165 ofmy 1984 printing. Hey stupid. That's not a machine gun. EAch round has to be manually loaded.

And each round has to be manually loaded with any modern firearm.

--
Paul Stevens

Bill 'n' Opus in 2004

Hugh Sedditt <hughseddit@seddit.com> wrote in
news:hughseddit-545F2D.20050726082004@news.isp.giganews.com:
In article <f6lri0dga30blunqp258mtahcur9ccfj63@4ax.com>, an00nie@hotmail.com wrote: On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote:Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in theconstitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machineguns didn't even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see amuzzleloading machine gun? HAHA A machinegun is an "arm". So is a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. So is a tank. So is a nuclear ICBM. I want to exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear nuclear ICBMs and nerve gas bombs.

Can you afford to buy that hardware? I sure as hell don't
have enough money to buy, much less maintain, an ICBM, tank,
etc. The cost would keep those sorts of arms out of the hands
of the vast majority of people.

If you want to make some poison gas (but not nerve gas), just
mix chlorine bleach and household ammonia (both readily
available at your local supermarket). Why don't you go into
an enclosed room, mix those two liquids, and then breathe
deeply. If you will do that, I'll be happy to put you in for
a Darwin Award.

What is there about the idea of law-abiding people owning guns
that drives the lefties and assorted other would-be
authoritarians crazy? I guess that an armed populace would
make life too dangerous for thought commisars or gestapo-
types.

In article <1q2ti0lm416avlc7nuakv7vgvrjen7phok@4ax.com>,
You Know Who <uno@who.gov> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:05:07 -0500, Hugh Sedditt <hughseddit@seddit.com> wrote:In article <f6lri0dga30blunqp258mtahcur9ccfj63@4ax.com>, an00nie@hotmail.com wrote: On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush murdered her boy friend) wrote: >Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in the >constitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn't >even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun? >HAHA A machinegun is an "arm".So is a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. So is a tank. So is anuclear ICBM. I want to exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear nuclearICBMs and nerve gas bombs. AND bear. If you can't keep it AND bear it it doesn't count.
What do you think this big truck is for?

--
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
-- Albert Einstein

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:24:49 -0500, Hugh Sedditt
<hughseddit@seddit.com> wrote:
In article <1q2ti0lm416avlc7nuakv7vgvrjen7phok@4ax.com>, You Know Who <uno@who.gov> wrote: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:05:07 -0500, Hugh Sedditt <hughseddit@seddit.com> wrote:In article <f6lri0dga30blunqp258mtahcur9ccfj63@4ax.com>, an00nie@hotmail.com wrote:> On 25 Aug 2004 20:15:35 -0700, xeton2001@yahoo.com (Laura Bush> murdered her boy friend) wrote:>> >Says the right to keep and bear machine guns is in the> >constitution.!!! Well - i can't find it. Hell, machine guns didn't> >even exist in 1789. Anybody ever see a muzzleloading machine gun?> >HAHA>> A machinegun is an "arm".So is a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile. So is a tank. So is anuclear ICBM. I want to exercise my RIGHT to keep and bear nuclearICBMs and nerve gas bombs. AND bear. If you can't keep it AND bear it it doesn't count.What do you think this big truck is for?

Trucks don't have RKBA

_____
"I do not want to take care of societies problems, I just want
society to respect, even fear, us. I want the fear and respect
that the police have."

Greg Dean posing as R. David Steele
begging for the respect he'll never ever know

>Can you afford to buy that hardware? I sure as hell don'thave enough money to buy, much less maintain, an ICBM, tank,etc. The cost would keep those sorts of arms out of the handsof the vast majority of people.

Bill Gates could afford it. Do you really want him (and Microsoft)
to have such weapons? Think about it before you answer -- especially
if you use a MAC or Linux.

Just think what Directv could do to solve their hacking problem if
they were allowed to equip a small army. General Motors and Rupert
Murdoch could easily do that. But should they be allowed to have
their own militia?

Is it really a good idea to allow people to own weapons of mass
destruction? Aren't the weapons they have NOW destructive enough?

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:9eefddad4516c3854acf410e296f4e35@dizum.com... Can you afford to buy that hardware? I sure as hell don'thave enough money to buy, much less maintain, an ICBM, tank,etc. The cost would keep those sorts of arms out of the handsof the vast majority of people. Bill Gates could afford it. Do you really want him (and Microsoft) to have such weapons? Think about it before you answer -- especially if you use a MAC or Linux. Just think what Directv could do to solve their hacking problem if they were allowed to equip a small army. General Motors and Rupert Murdoch could easily do that. But should they be allowed to have their own militia? Is it really a good idea to allow people to own weapons of mass destruction? Aren't the weapons they have NOW destructive enough?


I can't hear what you're saying, the haunted house music coming from your
head is too loud.



Regards, PLMerite

"PLMerite" <stockade@smokebombhill.com> wrote in message
news:c7dZc.113$A63.100@trnddc09... "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:9eefddad4516c3854acf410e296f4e35@dizum.com... Can you afford to buy that hardware? I sure as hell don'thave enough money to buy, much less maintain, an ICBM, tank,etc. The cost would keep those sorts of arms out of the handsof the vast majority of people. Bill Gates could afford it. Do you really want him (and Microsoft) to have such weapons? Think about it before you answer -- especially if you use a MAC or Linux. Just think what Directv could do to solve their hacking problem if they were allowed to equip a small army. General Motors and Rupert Murdoch could easily do that. But should they be allowed to have their own militia? Is it really a good idea to allow people to own weapons of mass destruction? Aren't the weapons they have NOW destructive enough? I can't hear what you're saying, the haunted house music coming from your head is too loud.
Just for Nomen:
http://www.kimmershow.com/SupportFiles/Scripts/FileTamer.asp?FileID=1375

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:9eefddad4516c3854acf410e296f4e35@dizum.com... Can you afford to buy that hardware? I sure as hell don'thave enough money to buy, much less maintain, an ICBM, tank,etc. The cost would keep those sorts of arms out of the handsof the vast majority of people. Bill Gates could afford it. Do you really want him (and Microsoft) to have such weapons?

Sure, why not? Besides, some of the worst people on the planet *already*
have nukes.

Think about it before you answer -- especially if you use a MAC or Linux. Just think what Directv could do to solve their hacking problem if they were allowed to equip a small army. General Motors and Rupert Murdoch could easily do that. But should they be allowed to have their own militia?

Sure, why not? Some of the worst people on the planet *already* have their
own militias.
Is it really a good idea to allow people to own weapons of mass destruction?

<sigh>
Sure, why not?
Again, some of the worst people on the planet *already* have weapons of mass
destruction, so where is your outrage about it?
Aren't the weapons they have NOW destructive enough?

You're problem stems from 2 sources, 1) your overt paranoia about what
others *might* do, based in your knowledge of what *you* might do.
2) The fact that it's none of your business at all what other people choose
to own.
Advice: Mind your own business and leave other people alone.

Cool!

"Morton Davis"> wrote Just for Nomen: http://www.kimmershow.com/SupportFiles/Scripts/FileTamer.asp?FileID=1375

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:LAlZc.162$Vl5.27@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink .net... "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message news:9eefddad4516c3854acf410e296f4e35@dizum.com... Can you afford to buy that hardware? I sure as hell don'thave enough money to buy, much less maintain, an ICBM, tank,etc. The cost would keep those sorts of arms out of the handsof the vast majority of people. Bill Gates could afford it. Do you really want him (and Microsoft) to have such weapons? Sure, why not? Besides, some of the worst people on the planet *already* have nukes. Think about it before you answer -- especially if you use a MAC or Linux. Just think what Directv could do to solve their hacking problem if they were allowed to equip a small army. General Motors and Rupert Murdoch could easily do that. But should they be allowed to have their own militia? Sure, why not? Some of the worst people on the planet *already* have their own militias. Is it really a good idea to allow people to own weapons of mass destruction? <sigh> Sure, why not? Again, some of the worst people on the planet *already* have weapons of
mass destruction, so where is your outrage about it? Aren't the weapons they have NOW destructive enough? You're problem stems from 2 sources, 1) your overt paranoia about what others *might* do, based in your knowledge of what *you* might do. 2) The fact that it's none of your business at all what other people
choose to own. Advice: Mind your own business and leave other people alone.
Poor Nomen. Please, no one tell him what people like Clive Cussler own. Not
to mention his leftist buddies like John Travolta. Nomen, thee are people in
this country who oqwn enough weapons, planes and armor to take on a small
country and win.

-*MORT*-

-*MORT*-

In article <aMlZc.96954$Fg5.12581@attbi_s53>,
"Morton Davis" <antikerry@go.com> wrote:

Poor Nomen. Please, no one tell him what people like Clive Cussler own. Not to mention his leftist buddies like John Travolta. Nomen, thee are people in this country who oqwn enough weapons, planes and armor to take on a small country and win. -*MORT*-

Nomen, and apparently many other people, seems incapable of that. He
apparently can't fathom that some people just like to collect and/or
shoot guns.

Of the people you mentioned and whoever their friends might be, none
seem to have ever hurt anyone. Imagine that, people who own weapons and
don't hurt anyone else with them! Amazing!

Oddly enough, I thought the essence of America's freedoms was doing
pretty much what one pleases as long as it doesn't infringe on someone
else's rights. There being no freedom not to be offended or frightened,
gun ownership offending or frightening some people is irrelevant.

The problem is many gun owners feel it is their obligation to shoot
their guns at whatever frightens offends them. And the NRA
'education' rhetoric blocks any attemp to hold the perpatrators
responsible.

Couple that with the fact that some people insist on acting like
idiots, I'll feel a lot safer if fewer people had guns, thank you very
much.

A few examples.

Locally, a proposed ordinance which would allow patrons to carry a
conceled weapon into a bar was voted down. Virtually all bar owners
were opposed to it - wonder why? Many patrons were in favor of it,
even writing letters explaining how they looked forward to using their
gun to end any fight that broke out in their favorite bar.

One of my friends is a gun collector, has a Federal gun dealers
permit, and had a table at most of the local gun shows. One Monday he
called me to chat and told me he had decided to stop selling at the
shows. The previous weekend two firearms had discharged accidentally
at a show in separate incidents. A total of three dealers had made
mistakes, one of them was shot in the groin in one of the incidents.

A few months later the same person told me he was probably going to
stop going to the shows. Seems a guy walks up to the entrance
carrying a shotgun. One of the cops working security points it at the
floor and pulls the trigger BEFORE checking if the chamber was empty -
it wasn't. Only half a dozen people were hit by ricochets - none
received more than a scratch.

About a decade ago a 727 was coming in for a landing at the local
airport. A passenger was nearly hit by a bullet fired from the
ground. Some time earlier a coworker was describing his experience
target shooting in an area 10 miles west of another large airport. It
was not unusual for someone to fire at airliners as the were in their
approach to the airport.

PlainBill


On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:50:10 GMT, John Husvar <jhusvar@neo.rr.com>
wrote:
In article <aMlZc.96954$Fg5.12581@attbi_s53>, "Morton Davis" <antikerry@go.com> wrote: Poor Nomen. Please, no one tell him what people like Clive Cussler own. Not to mention his leftist buddies like John Travolta. Nomen, thee are people in this country who oqwn enough weapons, planes and armor to take on a small country and win. -*MORT*-Nomen, and apparently many other people, seems incapable of that. Heapparently can't fathom that some people just like to collect and/orshoot guns.Of the people you mentioned and whoever their friends might be, noneseem to have ever hurt anyone. Imagine that, people who own weapons anddon't hurt anyone else with them! Amazing!Oddly enough, I thought the essence of America's freedoms was doingpretty much what one pleases as long as it doesn't infringe on someoneelse's rights. There being no freedom not to be offended or frightened,gun ownership offending or frightening some people is irrelevant.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:16:08 -0700, PlainBill <PlainBill47@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The problem is many gun owners feel it is their obligation to shoottheir guns at whatever frightens offends them. And the NRA'education' rhetoric blocks any attemp to hold the perpatratorsresponsible.Couple that with the fact that some people insist on acting likeidiots, I'll feel a lot safer if fewer people had guns, thank you verymuch.A few examples. Locally, a proposed ordinance which would allow patrons to carry aconceled weapon into a bar was voted down. Virtually all bar ownerswere opposed to it - wonder why? Many patrons were in favor of it,even writing letters explaining how they looked forward to using theirgun to end any fight that broke out in their favorite bar. One of my friends is a gun collector, has a Federal gun dealerspermit, and had a table at most of the local gun shows. One Monday hecalled me to chat and told me he had decided to stop selling at theshows. The previous weekend two firearms had discharged accidentallyat a show in separate incidents. A total of three dealers had mademistakes, one of them was shot in the groin in one of the incidents.A few months later the same person told me he was probably going tostop going to the shows. Seems a guy walks up to the entrancecarrying a shotgun. One of the cops working security points it at thefloor and pulls the trigger BEFORE checking if the chamber was empty -it wasn't. Only half a dozen people were hit by ricochets - nonereceived more than a scratch.About a decade ago a 727 was coming in for a landing at the localairport. A passenger was nearly hit by a bullet fired from theground. Some time earlier a coworker was describing his experiencetarget shooting in an area 10 miles west of another large airport. Itwas not unusual for someone to fire at airliners as the were in theirapproach to the airport.

Care to provide some cites or can we assume these are just your basic
lies?


*******************************************

".......................I believe in my tusks.
Long live freedom and damn the the ideologies,"
Said the gamey black-maned wild boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
"Stars Go Over The Lonely Ocean"
Robinson Jeffers

"PlainBill" <PlainBill47@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7dgej0te0tum6rc8l210knehvtr1o7f71q@4ax.com... The problem is many gun owners feel it is their obligation to shoot their guns at whatever frightens offends them. And the NRA 'education' rhetoric blocks any attemp to hold the perpatrators responsible.

That's crap, fella.

"PlainBill"> wrote One of my friends is a gun collector, has a Federal gun dealers permit, and had a table at most of the local gun shows. One Monday he called me to chat and told me he had decided to stop selling at the shows. The previous weekend two firearms had discharged accidentally at a show in separate incidents. A total of three dealers had made mistakes, one of them was shot in the groin in one of the incidents.

This one is difficult to believe. I have been to hundreds of gun shows and
everyone of them requires ALL firearms to be banded at the front door. This
means they install a zip tie through the chamber, slide or barrel to prevent
the gun from being fired.

Just about all of the people that complain about guns are nosy folks, more
intent in minding other peoples business rather than their own.
According to John Lott private gun owners are magnitudes more safe than the
cops.

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:31:42 -0500, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:16:08 -0700, PlainBill <PlainBill47@yahoo.com>wrote:The problem is many gun owners feel it is their obligation to shoottheir guns at whatever frightens offends them. And the NRA'education' rhetoric blocks any attemp to hold the perpatratorsresponsible.Couple that with the fact that some people insist on acting likeidiots, I'll feel a lot safer if fewer people had guns, thank you verymuch.A few examples. Locally, a proposed ordinance which would allow patrons to carry aconceled weapon into a bar was voted down. Virtually all bar ownerswere opposed to it - wonder why? Many patrons were in favor of it,even writing letters explaining how they looked forward to using theirgun to end any fight that broke out in their favorite bar. One of my friends is a gun collector, has a Federal gun dealerspermit, and had a table at most of the local gun shows. One Monday hecalled me to chat and told me he had decided to stop selling at theshows. The previous weekend two firearms had discharged accidentallyat a show in separate incidents. A total of three dealers had mademistakes, one of them was shot in the groin in one of the incidents.A few months later the same person told me he was probably going tostop going to the shows. Seems a guy walks up to the entrancecarrying a shotgun. One of the cops working security points it at thefloor and pulls the trigger BEFORE checking if the chamber was empty -it wasn't. Only half a dozen people were hit by ricochets - nonereceived more than a scratch.About a decade ago a 727 was coming in for a landing at the localairport. A passenger was nearly hit by a bullet fired from theground. Some time earlier a coworker was describing his experiencetarget shooting in an area 10 miles west of another large airport. Itwas not unusual for someone to fire at airliners as the were in theirapproach to the airport.Care to provide some cites or can we assume these are just your basiclies?**************************************** ***".......................I believe in my tusks.Long live freedom and damn the the ideologies,"Said the gamey black-maned wild boarTusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain. "Stars Go Over The Lonely Ocean" Robinson Jeffers

The ordinance was in Phoenix, AZ in 2004

The first gun show incidents occured at a gun show in Tampa, Florida
in 2001 or 02

The shotgun incident occured in Fort Lauderdale, FL in 2003

The bullet through the airplane incident was Fort Lauderdale, I'm not
sure about the date, say 1990 - 1992

The target shooting was described to me in the mid 1980's

PlainBill
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:48:48 -0700, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"PlainBill" <PlainBill47@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:7dgej0te0tum6rc8l210knehvtr1o7f71q@4ax .com... The problem is many gun owners feel it is their obligation to shoot their guns at whatever frightens offends them. And the NRA 'education' rhetoric blocks any attemp to hold the perpatrators responsible.That's crap, fella.
What CRAP is the NRAs opposition to supporting any kind of competency
requirement for the purchase of a gun.

PlainBill
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:hj0_c.3505$Wv5.2691@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net... "PlainBill"> wrote One of my friends is a gun collector, has a Federal gun dealers permit, and had a table at most of the local gun shows. One Monday he called me to chat and told me he had decided to stop selling at the shows. The previous weekend two firearms had discharged accidentally at a show in separate incidents. A total of three dealers had made mistakes, one of them was shot in the groin in one of the incidents. This one is difficult to believe. I have been to hundreds of gun shows and everyone of them requires ALL firearms to be banded at the front door.
This means they install a zip tie through the chamber, slide or barrel to
prevent the gun from being fired. Just about all of the people that complain about guns are nosy folks, more intent in minding other peoples business rather than their own. According to John Lott private gun owners are magnitudes more safe than
the cops.
These guys wander in with outlandish tales, but never anf PROOF.

-*MORT*-

"PlainBill" <PlainBill47@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hu4hj0hv1268nn9i899fs4f7vdk1sgb4v4@4ax.com... On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:48:48 -0700, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:"PlainBill" <PlainBill47@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:7dgej0te0tum6rc8l210knehvtr1o7f71q@4ax .com... The problem is many gun owners feel it is their obligation to shoot their guns at whatever frightens offends them. And the NRA 'education' rhetoric blocks any attemp to hold the perpatrators responsible.That's crap, fella. What CRAP is the NRAs opposition to supporting any kind of competency requirement for the purchase of a gun.

First, such idiotic crap is unnecessary. Second, that wasn't the claim made.
FOCUS! The claim was "NRA
'education' rhetoric blocks any attempt to hold the perpetrators
responsible." Try to follow.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

My friend described the two incidents (names have obviously been
changed).

"Two dealers 'Joe' and 'Bob' have tables next to one another. At one
point Bob asks Joe to hand him one of the handguns Joe has for sale.
Bob examines the handgun, then passes it back to Joe, barrel first.
Joe grabs the barrel and pulls. Bob had his finger on the trigger and
the gun discharges, striking Joe in the groin". You can total the
number of mistakes made by each dealer.

"Another dealer, 'Steve' has a rifle which features a 'fixed' firing
pin. (With this design, the bolt is open until the trigger is pulled.
The bolt closing fires the round. Some gun expert can explain the
advantages of this design.) A customer examines the rifle, and asks
if it will fire a certain type of ammunition. The dealer assures him
it will, picks up a round, drops it into the chamber, then closes the
bolt - sending the bullet through the ceiling."

If you don't believe my friend, send me your name, address, and phone
number. I'll pass the information on to him - I'm sure you'll enjoy
his visit.

PlainBill

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:44:13 GMT, "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com>
wrote:
"PlainBill"> wrote One of my friends is a gun collector, has a Federal gun dealers permit, and had a table at most of the local gun shows. One Monday he called me to chat and told me he had decided to stop selling at the shows. The previous weekend two firearms had discharged accidentally at a show in separate incidents. A total of three dealers had made mistakes, one of them was shot in the groin in one of the incidents.This one is difficult to believe. I have been to hundreds of gun shows andeveryone of them requires ALL firearms to be banded at the front door. Thismeans they install a zip tie through the chamber, slide or barrel to preventthe gun from being fired.Just about all of the people that complain about guns are nosy folks, moreintent in minding other peoples business rather than their own.According to John Lott private gun owners are magnitudes more safe than thecops.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:35:32 GMT, "Morton Davis" <antikerry@go.com>
wrote:
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in messagenews:hj0_c.3505$Wv5.2691@newsread3.news.atl .earthlink.net... "PlainBill"> wrote One of my friends is a gun collector, has a Federal gun dealers permit, and had a table at most of the local gun shows. One Monday he called me to chat and told me he had decided to stop selling at the shows. The previous weekend two firearms had discharged accidentally at a show in separate incidents. A total of three dealers had made mistakes, one of them was shot in the groin in one of the incidents. This one is difficult to believe. I have been to hundreds of gun shows and everyone of them requires ALL firearms to be banded at the front door.This means they install a zip tie through the chamber, slide or barrel toprevent the gun from being fired. Just about all of the people that complain about guns are nosy folks, more intent in minding other peoples business rather than their own. According to John Lott private gun owners are magnitudes more safe thanthe cops.These guys wander in with outlandish tales, but never anf PROOF.-*MORT*-
I'll make the same offer to youI made to Don - send me your name,
address, and phone number. I'll tell my friend you think he's a liar,
and urge him to contact you.

PlainBill
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 08:24:41 -0700, PlainBill wrote:You would think so, wouldn't you?My friend described the two incidents (names have obviously beenchanged)."Two dealers 'Joe' and 'Bob' have tables next to one another. At onepoint Bob asks Joe to hand him one of the handguns Joe has for sale.Bob examines the handgun, then passes it back to Joe, barrel first.Joe grabs the barrel and pulls. Bob had his finger on the trigger andthe gun discharges, striking Joe in the groin". You can total thenumber of mistakes made by each dealer.

Yes, I can. And precisely for this reason I find this story hard to
believe..
"Another dealer, 'Steve' has a rifle which features a 'fixed' firingpin. (With this design, the bolt is open until the trigger is pulled.The bolt closing fires the round. Some gun expert can explain theadvantages of this design.)

A 'rifle' with a fixed firing pin? Now THAT is definitely hard to
believe. Now a submachinegun, that I could have -- many smgs fire from an
open bolt (as this type of action is commonly referred to), as it is a lot
easier to design and construct (fewer parts), among other things.

It's difficult to imagine a single-shot-at-a-time rifle having this
type of firing mechanism however. Given the regulation of smgs, and the
infrequency with which they are seen at gunshows, I find the possibility
this was a smg only slightly more incredible than it being a rifle with a
fixed firing pin..
If you don't believe my friend, send me your name, address, and phonenumber. I'll pass the information on to him - I'm sure you'll enjoyhis visit.

Frankly, while I do not believe your friend, I will concede these
things are (remotely) possible. However, more verifiable proof is required
(from you or your friend). In the first case, a newspaper cite would be
nice. In the second, I'd need to have the name of this rifle with a fixed
firing pin. Offers to forward my name, etc. to your friend along with an
accusation that I think he's a liar won't get it. YOU posted this, YOU are
responsible for its veracity. I'm calling YOU.

--
jimbo@sonic.net

"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."

"PlainBill" <PlainBill47@yahoo.com> wrote What CRAP is the NRAs opposition to supporting any kind of competency requirement for the purchase of a gun.

Where is *competency* mentioned in the 2nd?

"PlainBill" <PlainBill47@yahoo.com> wrote If you don't believe my friend, send me your name, address, and phone number. I'll pass the information on to him - I'm sure you'll enjoy his visit.

Here's the deal.
I'll save both of you some time and trouble.
Send me YOU and YOUR friends addresses and I will come visit both of you.
And yes, I will enjoy the visit.
Your friend will be especially pleased that you cowardly tried to use him as
a shield.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:32:37 GMT, jimbo@sonic.net (Jim Bianchi) wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 08:24:41 -0700, PlainBill wrote:You would think so, wouldn't you?My friend described the two incidents (names have obviously beenchanged)."Two dealers 'Joe' and 'Bob' have tables next to one another. At onepoint Bob asks Joe to hand him one of the handguns Joe has for sale.Bob examines the handgun, then passes it back to Joe, barrel first.Joe grabs the barrel and pulls. Bob had his finger on the trigger andthe gun discharges, striking Joe in the groin". You can total thenumber of mistakes made by each dealer. Yes, I can. And precisely for this reason I find this story hard tobelieve.."Another dealer, 'Steve' has a rifle which features a 'fixed' firingpin. (With this design, the bolt is open until the trigger is pulled.The bolt closing fires the round. Some gun expert can explain theadvantages of this design.) A 'rifle' with a fixed firing pin? Now THAT is definitely hard tobelieve. Now a submachinegun, that I could have -- many smgs fire from anopen bolt (as this type of action is commonly referred to), as it is a loteasier to design and construct (fewer parts), among other things. It's difficult to imagine a single-shot-at-a-time rifle having thistype of firing mechanism however. Given the regulation of smgs, and theinfrequency with which they are seen at gunshows, I find the possibilitythis was a smg only slightly more incredible than it being a rifle with afixed firing pin..If you don't believe my friend, send me your name, address, and phonenumber. I'll pass the information on to him - I'm sure you'll enjoyhis visit. Frankly, while I do not believe your friend, I will concede thesethings are (remotely) possible. However, more verifiable proof is required(from you or your friend). In the first case, a newspaper cite would benice. In the second, I'd need to have the name of this rifle with a fixedfiring pin. Offers to forward my name, etc. to your friend along with anaccusation that I think he's a liar won't get it. YOU posted this, YOU areresponsible for its veracity. I'm calling YOU.

When my friend recounted the stories, I asked him why I had not seen
any newspaper stories about them. I remember his explanation of the
shotgun incident quite well. Neither the sponsor of the gun show, the
management of War Memorial Auditorium, nor the policemen involved saw
any positive benefit from details appearing in the media. The sponsor
met with each of the injuried parties and made immeadiate offers of
compensation for their injuries, medical treatment, and mental
distress. Presumably the policemen were required to report the
incident, but since no crime was committed, nothing would be entered
on the police 'blotter'. Since working security at functions like
this is an outside source of income for them, they also had a big
incentive to keep quiet about it.

PlainBill
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

Don wrote:
"PlainBill" <PlainBill47@yahoo.com> wroteWhat CRAP is the NRAs opposition to supporting any kind of competencyrequirement for the purchase of a gun. Where is *competency* mentioned in the 2nd?

Or to vote?

--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:48:29 -0700, PlainBill <PlainBill47@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:32:37 GMT, jimbo@sonic.net (Jim Bianchi) wrote:On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 08:24:41 -0700, PlainBill wrote:You would think so, wouldn't you?My friend described the two incidents (names have obviously beenchanged)."Two dealers 'Joe' and 'Bob' have tables next to one another. At onepoint Bob asks Joe to hand him one of the handguns Joe has for sale.Bob examines the handgun, then passes it back to Joe, barrel first.Joe grabs the barrel and pulls. Bob had his finger on the trigger andthe gun discharges, striking Joe in the groin". You can total thenumber of mistakes made by each dealer. Yes, I can. And precisely for this reason I find this story hard tobelieve.."Another dealer, 'Steve' has a rifle which features a 'fixed' firingpin. (With this design, the bolt is open until the trigger is pulled.The bolt closing fires the round. Some gun expert can explain theadvantages of this design.) A 'rifle' with a fixed firing pin? Now THAT is definitely hard tobelieve. Now a submachinegun, that I could have -- many smgs fire from anopen bolt (as this type of action is commonly referred to), as it is a loteasier to design and construct (fewer parts), among other things. It's difficult to imagine a single-shot-at-a-time rifle having thistype of firing mechanism however. Given the regulation of smgs, and theinfrequency with which they are seen at gunshows, I find the possibilitythis was a smg only slightly more incredible than it being a rifle with afixed firing pin..If you don't believe my friend, send me your name, address, and phonenumber. I'll pass the information on to him - I'm sure you'll enjoyhis visit. Frankly, while I do not believe your friend, I will concede thesethings are (remotely) possible. However, more verifiable proof is required(from you or your friend). In the first case, a newspaper cite would benice. In the second, I'd need to have the name of this rifle with a fixedfiring pin. Offers to forward my name, etc. to your friend along with anaccusation that I think he's a liar won't get it. YOU posted this, YOU areresponsible for its veracity. I'm calling YOU.When my friend recounted the stories, I asked him why I had not seenany newspaper stories about them. I remember his explanation of theshotgun incident quite well. Neither the sponsor of the gun show, themanagement of War Memorial Auditorium, nor the policemen involved sawany positive benefit from details appearing in the media. The sponsormet with each of the injuried parties and made immeadiate offers ofcompensation for their injuries, medical treatment, and mentaldistress. Presumably the policemen were required to report theincident, but since no crime was committed, nothing would be enteredon the police 'blotter'. Since working security at functions likethis is an outside source of income for them, they also had a bigincentive to keep quiet about it.

Feh. Utter bull****. Newspapers & other media have reporters at all
gun shows looking for crap like this. If it really happened, it would
have been reported.

Just another bunch of urban legend crap.

Go away, liar.

Falc.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:08:23 GMT, Falconnier <Falconnier@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 09:48:29 -0700, PlainBill <PlainBill47@yahoo.com>wrote:On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:32:37 GMT, jimbo@sonic.net (Jim Bianchi) wrote:On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 08:24:41 -0700, PlainBill wrote:>You would think so, wouldn't you?>>My friend described the two incidents (names have obviously been>changed).>>"Two dealers 'Joe' and 'Bob' have tables next to one another. At one>point Bob asks Joe to hand him one of the handguns Joe has for sale.>Bob examines the handgun, then passes it back to Joe, barrel first.>Joe grabs the barrel and pulls. Bob had his finger on the trigger and>the gun discharges, striking Joe in the groin". You can total the>number of mistakes made by each dealer. Yes, I can. And precisely for this reason I find this story hard tobelieve..>"Another dealer, 'Steve' has a rifle which features a 'fixed' firing>pin. (With this design, the bolt is open until the trigger is pulled.>The bolt closing fires the round. Some gun expert can explain the>advantages of this design.) A 'rifle' with a fixed firing pin? Now THAT is definitely hard tobelieve. Now a submachinegun, that I could have -- many smgs fire from anopen bolt (as this type of action is commonly referred to), as it is a loteasier to design and construct (fewer parts), among other things. It's difficult to imagine a single-shot-at-a-time rifle having thistype of firing mechanism however. Given the regulation of smgs, and theinfrequency with which they are seen at gunshows, I find the possibilitythis was a smg only slightly more incredible than it being a rifle with afixed firing pin..>If you don't believe my friend, send me your name, address, and phone>number. I'll pass the information on to him - I'm sure you'll enjoy>his visit. Frankly, while I do not believe your friend, I will concede thesethings are (remotely) possible. However, more verifiable proof is required(from you or your friend). In the first case, a newspaper cite would benice. In the second, I'd need to have the name of this rifle with a fixedfiring pin. Offers to forward my name, etc. to your friend along with anaccusation that I think he's a liar won't get it. YOU posted this, YOU areresponsible for its veracity. I'm calling YOU.When my friend recounted the stories, I asked him why I had not seenany newspaper stories about them. I remember his explanation of theshotgun incident quite well. Neither the sponsor of the gun show, themanagement of War Memorial Auditorium, nor the policemen involved sawany positive benefit from details appearing in the media. The sponsormet with each of the injuried parties and made immeadiate offers ofcompensation for their injuries, medical treatment, and mentaldistress. Presumably the policemen were required to report theincident, but since no crime was committed, nothing would be enteredon the police 'blotter'. Since working security at functions likethis is an outside source of income for them, they also had a bigincentive to keep quiet about it.Feh. Utter bull****. Newspapers & other media have reporters at allgun shows looking for crap like this. If it really happened, it wouldhave been reported.Just another bunch of urban legend crap.Go away, liar.Falc.

Yeah, SURE they do!!!!

PlainBill

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:18:13 -0700, PlainBill <PlainBill47@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Feh. Utter bull****. Newspapers & other media have reporters at allgun shows looking for crap like this. If it really happened, it wouldhave been reported.Just another bunch of urban legend crap.Go away, liar.Falc.Yeah, SURE they do!!!!PlainBill

You obviously have never been to a gun show, ****head.
I see reporters and media grunts there all the time, like vultures,
waiting for a disaster to strike so they can vilify guns some more.

Falc

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 21:06:40 GMT, Falconnier <Falconnier@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:18:13 -0700, PlainBill <PlainBill47@yahoo.com>wrote:Feh. Utter bull****. Newspapers & other media have reporters at allgun shows looking for crap like this. If it really happened, it wouldhave been reported.Just another bunch of urban legend crap.Go away, liar.Falc.Yeah, SURE they do!!!!PlainBillYou obviously have never been to a gun show, ****head.I see reporters and media grunts there all the time, like vultures,waiting for a disaster to strike so they can vilify guns some more.Falc

Well, you're half right. I went with my friend once as he set up the
evening before a show. However, since this wasn't the show itself.

BTW. I wan't impressed with what I saw. Nothig that I felt should be
stopped, just a pathetic bunch of rednecks showing off for one
another.

PlainBill
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 07:20:10 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
Can you afford to buy that hardware? I sure as hell don'thave enough money to buy, much less maintain, an ICBM, tank,etc. The cost would keep those sorts of arms out of the handsof the vast majority of people.Bill Gates could afford it. Do you really want him (and Microsoft)to have such weapons? Think about it before you answer -- especiallyif you use a MAC or Linux.Just think what Directv could do to solve their hacking problem ifthey were allowed to equip a small army. General Motors and RupertMurdoch could easily do that. But should they be allowed to havetheir own militia?Is it really a good idea to allow people to own weapons of massdestruction? Aren't the weapons they have NOW destructive enough?

Just adding a news article to the discussion.

PlainBill

AP headline: Coroner Discussing Gun Safety Shoots Self

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. - Monroe County Coroner David Toumey was
hospitalized with a leg wound after accidentally shooting himself
while trying to demonstrate gun safety.

Toumey told The Herald-Times for a story published Saturday that he
was demonstrating gun safety to some people at a Lake Monroe boat ramp
about 11 p.m. Wednesday when he accidentally shot himself.

He said that as he checked to make sure his weapon was unloaded, the
gun discharged, and a bullet struck him in his left leg.

"It's an unfortunate accident," Toumey said. "I've always been very,
very safe."

He was taken to Bloomington Hospital and later transferred to
Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis.

Toumey said he was scheduled to have surgery Saturday and expects to
be in the hospital from three to five days.

Monroe County Sheriff Steve Sharp said he was unable to release
details of the shooting because the report had yet to be filed by the
deputy assigned to the case.


He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
-Thomas Paine