 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / April 2007guns on campus
Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back when I went to college and students openly carried guns. One physics class the project was to calculate the speed of a bullet. To do this a wood 6x6 was hung by two strings from the ceiling and a line with a piece of paper was strung along the 6x6. By measuring the distance the paper was moved one could calculate how much the 6x6 was raised, etc. In the previous class the professor asked if anyone would bring in a gun along with extra ammo so we could weigh the projectiles for the experiment. One student ageed and we fired the gun into the 6x6, a 38 I believe, inside the class room! It made one hell of a noise but I can't remember anyone even coming to the door to see what was going on. My point is back when it was easy to pack sh.t like what happened today just didn't happen. Flame away. beekeep > Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back when I > went to college and students openly carried guns. One physics class the project [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > beekeep Greg, I think this will bring to the forefront (again) the fact that lives can be saved from a "mad man" if some one of a responsible nature is carrying. Had some one in the area that the first shooting occurred had a gun, I seriously doubt the second would have happen. That being said, from what I have heard on the news and read in it, I think the school needs to be held seriously accountable for the second shooting as they felt an f.cking EMAIL was sufficient enough to get the notice out, some 2 hours later. Again, this type of sh.t is why I carry and have a CCW. In some places I carry open but most of the time, it is concealed. I just don't look like the type that would carry, so why show it off and make myself an instant target should anything ever happen. >> Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back >> when I [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > don't look like the type that would carry, so why show it off and make > myself an instant target should anything ever happen. I agree with you 100%. This sad incident in VA is an illustration of the efficacy of gun control laws. Ken NRA Endowment Member MCRGO Member www.mcrgo.org > >> Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back > >> when I [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > NRA Endowment Member > MCRGO Member www.mcrgo.org Ain't that part of Virginia the kinda place yinz guys love? Ain't that part of Virginia the buckle of the gun totin belt? JAM Former member of the NRA (I quit them when they lost their focus) > This sad incident in VA is an illustration of the efficacy of gun control > laws. the entire thing couldnt have happened. this was afterall a "gun-free zone".  SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com > this type of sh.t is why I carry and have a CCW. get over to http://ConcealedCarryForum.com SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com <snip> > Again, this type of sh.t is why I carry and have a CCW. <snip> As do I. For my son's 21st birthday present I paid the fee for his class and will also pay his permit fees. > Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back > when I went to college and students openly carried guns. One physics [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > beekeep another testament to what i was saying in the other thread... Signature____________________________________________ Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD > My point is back when it was easy to pack sh.t like what happened today > just > didn't happen. > > Flame away. No flame at all from here. It's legal in the state of Virginia to carry a concealed weapon at VT (as long as you have a concealed carry permit, of course). It's VT policy, however, that anyone found doing so will be expelled. "You don't need a gun on campus - you're safe here", they said. "If anyone ever needs the police, just use the call boxes around campus". Had even a few students been allowed to protect themselves, and by extension others around them, this tragedy would have been minimized. VT's staff and policies are the reason over 30 people were killed.... first, they prohibit their student body from having the ability to defend themselves, stating that they can protect them better, then they fail to follow through on that protection. > they prohibit their student body from having the ability to defend > themselves, stating that they can protect them better, then they fail to > follow through on that protection. indeed tom. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> they prohibit their student body from having the ability to defend >> themselves, stating that they can protect them better, then they fail to >> follow through on that protection. > > indeed tom. I love this picture: http://police.unlv.edu/ Yup, society really is safer when law abinding citizens can carry concealed weapons and the criminals don't know who is carrying. > Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back > when I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > beekeep > Yup, society really is safer when law abinding citizens can carry concealed > weapons and the criminals don't know who is carrying. The shooter at VT may have been a "law abiding citizen" until yesterday. JAM He was clearly a criminal because he was in possession of 2 handguns with the serial numbers removed. If members of the student body or faculty had been armed and trained in the proper use of firearms and when it's appropriate to use one then the death toll could have been much lower. >> Yup, society really is safer when law abinding citizens can carry >> concealed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > JAM > If members of the student body or faculty had been armed and trained in > the proper use of firearms and when it's appropriate to use one then the > death toll could have been much lower. its VERY encouraging to find this repeated over and over every place i read. its encouraging to see that the importance of carry is brought into the open....although its a shame it took a tragedy such as this to put it in the forefront. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com ===== ===== > Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back when I > went to college and students openly carried guns. One physics class the project [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > beekeep ======== ======== God, we ask that you be with these families, come into their hearts tonight, be with them, let them feel your presence. We pray God, that those who have fallen come unto you and your mercy be shown. in the name of our Lord,Jesus Christ. amen > ===== > ===== [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > amen Would that be the same god that stood by and allowed this to happen? JAM > Would that be the same god that stood by and allowed this to happen? > > JAM Yeah, that be the same God. Just because people believe in God, it does not exempt them from bad things or death. It just has to do with what happens to them after death. When men stand by and allow these things to happen because of liberal legislation, civil rights, constitutional nomenclature, gaping loopholes, and just plain permissive attitudes, where in the world does a God figure enter the picture who's supposed to keep everything fair and make everything right? BTW, I saw a lot of cops standing around for a lot of time yesterday, too. Steve >BTW, I saw a lot of cops standing around for a lot of time yesterday, too. > >Steve I saw a bunch of them running too. Must have been free doughnuts somewhere! beekeep > >BTW, I saw a lot of cops standing around for a lot of time yesterday, too. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > beekeep Ol' boy with that AR damn sure as hell needs to run! > God, > we ask that you be with these families, come into their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > amen Would that be the same god that stood by and allowed this to happen? JAM Most people do not understand why God permits wickedness and so blame him for all the bad things that take place. They do not realize that man's inclination toward badness is not because of God's will but because of the sin of Adam. (see Rom. 5:12) They may be unaware of the existence of Satan the Devil and of his influence on world affairs, so they ascribe to God the vile things perpetrated by Satan. (see 1 John 5:19; Rev. 12:12) If they are to some extent aware of these things, they may feel that God is slow about taking action, because they do not see clearly the issue of universal sovereignty and do not grasp the fact that God's patience down till this time affords them an undeserved opportunity for salvation. (see Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9) Also, they do not fully realize that God has a set time when he will destroy forever all who practice wickedness.-see Rev. 22:10-12; 11:18; Hab. 2:3. If someone else committed a crime, how would you feel if you were blamed for it? You would consider this very unjust. Justice requires that the guilty be punished and the innocent be freed from blame. If an automobile driver ignores a stop sign at a busy intersection and gets into a bad accident as a result, it is not the fault of the law. If a person becomes a glutton and gets sick from overeating, it is not the fault of the farmer who grew the food. Then why should the heavenly Father, God, be blamed when mankind commits wrongs? Should not the blame be put where it belongs-on the guilty party? Also, there is something else to consider. If we blame God for such things as starvation from food shortages, whom do we credit for the productive fields and orchards that produce such bountiful crops in many lands? If we blame God for sickness, whom do we credit for the body's marvelous healing systems? If we blame God for city slums, whom do we credit for majestic mountains, clear lakes, delightful flowers and beautiful trees? Clearly, if we blame God for the world's troubles and then credit him for the good things of the earth, it is a contradiction. A loving God would not promote both good and bad at the same time. Who, then, is to blame for the terrible things that have happened to the human family? Much of the blame must rest on people themselves. Human dishonesty and frustration cause crimes. Human pride and selfishness cause wrecked marriages, hatreds and racial prejudices. Human error and unconcern cause pollution and filth. Human arrogance and stupidity cause wars; and when entire nations blindly follow political leaders into those wars, then they must share the blame for the suffering. Hunger and poverty are primarily due to human neglect and greed. Consider: the world now spends well over $200 billion each year on armaments. If all of this were properly spent on growing and equally distributing food and eliminating poor housing, think what could be done! No, God is not to blame for the wrongs that humans themselves commit. And he is not to blame for the wrongs blessed by clergymen who claim to serve God but who do not speak the truth or practice it. Well, then, was there something wrong with the way God made mankind? Did he give the human race a bad start? Many people think that the answer to that question is yes. 'If God cared,' they reason, 'would not the world be a very different place?' We look around and see a world full of war, hatred, and misery. And as individuals, we get sick, we suffer, we lose loved ones in death. Thus, many say, 'If God cared about us and our problems, would he not prevent such things from happening?' Worse yet, religious teachers sometimes lead people to think that God is hardhearted. How so? When tragedy strikes, they say that it is God's will. In effect, such teachers blame God for the bad things that happen. Is that the truth about God? What does the Bible really teach? James 1:13 answers: "When under trial, let no one say: 'I am being tried by God.' For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone." So God is never the source of the wickedness you see in the world around you. (see Job 34:10-12) Granted, he does allow bad things to happen. But there is a big difference between allowing something to happen and causing it. For example, think about a wise and loving father with a grown son who is still living at home with his parents. When the son becomes rebellious and decides to leave home, his father does not stop him. The son pursues a bad way of life and gets into trouble. Is the father the cause of his son's problems? No. (see Luke 15:11-13) Similarly, God has not stopped humans when they have chosen to pursue a bad course, but he is not the cause of the problems that have resulted. Surely, then, it would be unfair to blame God for all the troubles of mankind. God has good reasons for allowing mankind to follow a bad course. As our wise and powerful Creator, he does not have to explain his reasons to us. Out of love, however, God does this. Rest assured that God is not responsible for the problems we face. On the contrary, he gives us the only hope for a solution!-see Isaiah 33:2. Furthermore, God is holy. (see Isaiah 6:3) This means that he is pure and clean. There is no trace of badness in him. So we can trust him completely. That is more than we can say for humans, who sometimes become corrupt. Even the most honest human in authority often does not have the power to undo the damage that bad people do. But God is all-powerful. He can and will undo all the effects that wickedness has had on mankind. When God acts, he will do so in a way that will end evil forever!-see Psalm 37:9-11. Klumze > > God, > > we ask that you be with these families, come into their [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Klumze Thanks Budd!!! > Would that be the same god that stood by and allowed this to happen? Yep. The same one that watches as children are run over by cars, tortured and starved to death by evil parents, and who allows all bad things to happen. God is no respecter of man, it says in the Bible. And if you believe in Him, you will have everlasting life. And if you don't, then you just go to Hell and listen to endless speeches by Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Steve On Apr 17, 3:21 pm, "klumze" <s...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > God, > > we ask that you be with these families, come into their [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > > Klumze Thanks Budd!!! Sorry I'm not Bud > On Apr 17, 3:21 pm, "klumze" <s...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > > - Show quoted text - WOW, from that biblical novel one sure would have thought other wise. Honest mistake. :) >> > Klumze >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >WOW, from that biblical novel one sure would have thought other wise. >Honest mistake. :) Couldn't have been Budd, he didn't claim to be a victim, persicuted, or ridiculed! beekeep >>On Apr 17, 3:21 pm, "klumze" <s...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >>>JAM (Religious sermon deleted) >>>so >>>in a way that will end evil forever!-see Psalm 37:9-11. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > WOW, from that biblical novel one sure would have thought other wise. > Honest mistake. :) Hey, I thought it was Budd too. You're not alone. Bob ========= ========== > > God, > > we ask that you be with these families, come into their [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Klumze ========= ========= Amen wudda sufficed......... yer knowledge can be no greater than that of what is known. but......if you have a need......carry on with yer rant. ~:~ mm ~:~ > > God, > > we ask that you be with these families, come into their [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Klumze I don't blame god for anything, he doesn't exist. JAM > I don't blame god for anything, he doesn't exist. > > JAM Maybe not in the small spaces of YOUR mind. Steve I am an atheist or more agnostic, but I would say that this post was in poor taste. I don't know your religious beliefs, but respect others. And, respect how other's grieve. the same god that stood by and allowed this to happen? > JAM The same could be said for you. You weren't required to read it. >I am an atheist or more agnostic, but I would say that this post was in >poor taste. I don't know your religious beliefs, but respect others. And, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> JAM > I am an atheist or more agnostic, but I would say that this post was in poor > taste. I don't know your religious beliefs, but respect others. And, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > JAM They do not respect my non belief in baseless superstitions. JAM > Would that be the same god that stood by and allowed this to happen? if a magical god does exist it still wouldnt be his fault. the fault here lies with the bad guy and the liberals who banned carry. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com No flaming, but respectful disagreement. You couldn't be much older than me, if at all. I went to University of Texas. I don't recall students openly carrying guns. As a matter of fact, students not carrying guns is a good thing. For one, Freshmen are 18 years old and wet behind the ears. Second, as much as we drank back then, and what the kids do now; the last I want is guns and alcohol. Now picture a scenario where a gunman comes into a class, and opens fire. Then if 1/4 of the class of sub 22 year olds are packing, take out there firearms, then chaos and bullets fly everywhere; and if the gunmen actually does get hit, so do alot of other unarmed bystanders. Also, the gunman would change his tactics with respect to everyone packing; and the bodycount is the same, if not higher. How about finding a way to keep people from popping a circuit, and recognizes signs of someone about to do something like this, instead of debating the gun issue? > Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back > when I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > beekeep > As a matter of fact, students not carrying guns is a good thing. I can think of at least 31 students who would probably disagree with that fact. > For one, Freshmen are 18 years old and wet behind the ears. I believe current US law requires one to be 21 to purchase a handgun, and therefore most states' CCW laws (for those states who believe in freedom) require the person to be 21. > Second, as much as we drank back then, and what the kids do now; the last > I want is guns and alcohol. I believe most states have severe punishments for those who consume alcohol while carrying a firearm. Since those who apply for and receive CCW permits/licenses tend to follow the law, it's not unreasonable to think that the firearm/alcohol problem wouldn't be a problem. > Now picture a scenario where a gunman comes into a class, and opens fire. > Then if 1/4 of the class of sub 22 year olds are packing, take out there > firearms, then chaos and bullets fly everywhere; and if the gunmen > actually does get hit, so do alot of other unarmed bystanders. Picture another scenario, where the gunman, knowing that he has the only firearm in the room, lines everyone up against the wall and kills them one after another. But hey - at least there weren't any "accidental" shootings. > Also, the gunman would change his tactics with respect to everyone > packing; You mean like not walking into a building, locking everyone in, and picking people off at will? > and the bodycount is the same, if not higher. Obviously, the current philosophy isn't working... so there's two other choices: A. Ban all firearms. Ask the Brits or Aussies how well that works... B. Allow people to defend themselves by carrying their own weapon. > How about finding a way to keep people from popping a circuit Okay - that's option C - mind control. I gotta admit, I missed that one. > recognizes signs of someone about to do something like this, instead of > debating the gun issue? Let's put you in a room with 100 random people. If you can pick out the one who's going to lose his mind tomorrow, I'll back your plan. Until then, option B still looks like the best plan to me. > Let's put you in a room with 100 random people. If you can pick out the > one > who's going to lose his mind tomorrow, I'll back your plan. Until then, > option B still looks like the best plan to me. Damn you! You ruined my plans for tomorrow! I was thinking about going postal! > Damn you! You ruined my plans for tomorrow! I was thinking about going > postal! I always worried about you, Larry :) Of course there is severe punishment for possesion under the influence. Do you think a 21 year old thinks of this? Do me a favor, and study possible scenarios if at least 1/4 of 50 people had a gun. First off, a percentage will panic, and unload anywhere. Another percentage will unload on anything that moves. A trained police officer at a range of 10 feet with a handgun in a firefight will hit the intended target an average of 2-3 times per 10 shots. Don't believe me? Ask a police officer or someone who knows what they are talking about. I am talking a trained police officer who has experience, extensive training and practice, and who has to requalify every year. I am also considering the gun man not wearing body armour, because that changes things as well. The problem is people either watch too much TV, or only shoot in a range under ideal conditions, and do not understand just how inaccurate a hand gun really is. I am not advocating taking everyone's guns away. I just think the whole thought process of advocating everyone to carry a firearm is ridiculous. Also, something that is never talked about is the mental affect of carrying a firearm. I'm talking about the superiority complex some get when carrying a firearm. This is something that is also studied, and I encourage others to do their own research for themselves on it. I call it the Deputy Dawg syndrome. If the gunman lines up everyone as you say, then at least this gives extra time for a trained individual to respond, as well as give the gunman a chance to think twice. I'll take my chances with this, over bullets flying wildly everyone, not giving a chance for the situation to be controlled. As I said, I'm not for banning all firearms, but if you want to ask the Brits or Aussies as you state; you will notice that these mass shootings do not happen as near as much as here in the United States. Do you think that no one in Great Britian or Australia has a firearm? Maybe, I recommend famialiarizing yourself with the gun laws of these countries. A private citizen can own a firearm in these countries. Your "mind control" argument is over reaching don't you think? I never said anything about mind control. With all due respect, This sounds like the Black Helicopter conspiracy theorists that are in militias. I'm talking about researching the root cause of what makes one malfunction like this. Whether you like it or not, science will find a way to recognize these individuals before something like this happens. >> As a matter of fact, students not carrying guns is a good thing. > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > one who's going to lose his mind tomorrow, I'll back your plan. Until > then, option B still looks like the best plan to me. To add further to this: Do you think we would have world peace if we gave every country a nuclear weapon? > Of course there is severe punishment for possesion under the influence. > Do you think a 21 year old thinks of this? [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >> one who's going to lose his mind tomorrow, I'll back your plan. Until >> then, option B still looks like the best plan to me. > To add further to this: Do you think we would have world peace if we gave > every country a nuclear weapon? Maybe. Nuclear weaponry forces a form of self-regulation that has never occurred before because everyone understands the weapon is a horrible one. Look at the US-USSR. For 60 years, two nations, intensely hostile towards one another, armed to the teeth, don't go to war [directly] against one another! Has anything like that ever happened before in human history? Not certain but it must be a very unlikely situation. Maybe there is something to be said for every nation having nuclear weapons, and every individual carrying a .45, in the name of world peace and social harmony of course! SMH > To add further to this: Do you think we would have world peace if we gave > every country a nuclear weapon? Let's see... when only one country had nukes, over 200,000 people were killed by them. Since the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the death total from nuclear weapon use has been.... ummm.... zero. Ya can't argue with numbers >> To add further to this: Do you think we would have world peace if we >> gave every country a nuclear weapon? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ya can't argue with numbers Sure you can, wanna see! <Where did I hide that K$N Filter thread> >To add further to this: Do you think we would have world peace if we gave >every country a nuclear weapon? Its kept us from going into Pakastan and gettin Bin Laden. beekeep > >To add further to this: Do you think we would have world peace if we gave > >every country a nuclear weapon? > > > Its kept us from going into Pakastan and gettin Bin Laden. > > beekeep Yes, I remember the speech by GWB that claimed we would not make a distinction between the terrorist and those who harbor them.* *except for nations that can defend themselves. JAM > Yes, I remember the speech by GWB that claimed we would not make a > distinction between the terrorist and those who harbor them.* > > *except for nations that can defend themselves. We have no evidence that the Pakistan Gov. is harboring and aiding Bin Ladin. Nice try with typical leftist hatred that does nothing towards presenting a solution. Do the Democrats have any plan for anything at all or is it all about what they don't like? > Of course there is severe punishment for possesion under the influence. Do > you think a 21 year old thinks of this? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > really is. I am not advocating taking everyone's guns away. I just think > the whole thought process of advocating everyone to carry a firearm is Whether others are actually hitting anything or not, the gunman surely is ducking a bit, being more cautious in what he's doing. Bullets don't need to be hitting someone in order to have effect. Most bullets in combat situations do not hit their marks. Doesn't mean your head isn't down in the dirt any less! > ridiculous. Also, something that is never talked about is the mental affect > of carrying a firearm. I'm talking about the superiority complex some get > when carrying a firearm. This is something that is also studied, and I > encourage others to do their own research for themselves on it. I call it > the Deputy Dawg syndrome. If the gunman lines up everyone as you say, then How does the "Deputy Dawg syndrome" fare when *everyone else* has a gun? I should think the air of superiority diminishes along with the sense of invulnerability. > at least this gives extra time for a trained individual to respond, as well > as give the gunman a chance to think twice. I'll take my chances with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > famialiarizing yourself with the gun laws of these countries. A private > citizen can own a firearm in these countries. The US is definitely a more violent nation than any European nation. Nonetheless, it's not like firearms were unavailable to the masses before the last 10-20 years. The US population has always had easy access to guns, and until recently, never had these sorts of incident occurring. The "wild west" was no where near as violent as our inner cities and now, apparently, our schools and colleges. Something else is at work in the US beyond mere access to weaponry. I'll maintain it is social isolation stemming from our "car culture" that indirectly creates social isolation. All this is enhanced by the breakdown of American families. No "Uncle John" or "Grandma Brown" for "therapy" when troubles occur. Even Mom and Dad, assuming they are even together, are busy earning cash for the Bimmer and Merc and 5000 sq ft home and summer house in Maine. And on and on it goes. We're a nation of social isolationists and when lifes challenges occur, individuals are on their own, without ever learning what disciplined behavior and solution of problems entails. > Your "mind control" argument is over reaching don't you think? I never said > anything about mind control. With all due respect, This sounds like the > Black Helicopter conspiracy theorists that are in militias. I'm talking > about researching the root cause of what makes one malfunction like this. > Whether you like it or not, science will find a way to recognize these > individuals before something like this happens. Science may be able to do so, but I wonder if we have the political will to act upon what Science tells us? When personal rights collide with "scientifically derived indicators of behavior", I suspect science will lose big time. SMH >Of course there is severe punishment for possesion under the influence. Do >you think a 21 year old thinks of this? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the whole thought process of advocating everyone to carry a firearm is >ridiculous. If you are going to look at it from a psycological point of view then you must consider that the people that do these types of things are generally cowards in the first place and would think twice before commiting such acts. >Also, something that is never talked about is the mental affect >of carrying a firearm. I'm talking about the superiority complex some get >when carrying a firearm. This is something that is also studied, and I >encourage others to do their own research for themselves on it. I call it >the Deputy Dawg syndrome. These are the people that end up going into law enforcement so they end up carrying a gun anyway. >If the gunman lines up everyone as you say, then >at least this gives extra time for a trained individual to respond, as well >as give the gunman a chance to think twice. I'll take my chances with >this, over bullets flying wildly everyone, not giving a chance for the >situation to be controlled. The perp's accuracy would be greatly reduced if he's seeking cover. The total number killed would likely be reduced. >As I said, I'm not for banning all firearms, but if you want to ask the >Brits or Aussies as you state; you will notice that these mass shootings do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Whether you like it or not, science will find a way to recognize these >individuals before something like this happens. It struck me a little wierd that the flags are at half mast. Aren't that many soldiers dying every week abroad? The news is all about the senseless deaths, yet they never mention the numbers that die in auto accidents every year. That number is equal to two full 747s going down every week! I see the "gun banners" are coming out of the wood work again. They just don't get it. beekeep > Do me a favor, and study possible scenarios if at least 1/4 of 50 people > had a gun. As soon as some of these schools wake up and start allowing their student body to protect and defend themselves (God knows the school can't do it), and another event like this is thwarted because of lawful concealed carry, then we'll have something to study. Until then, we only have your made-up "what-if" scenario prejudiced by your own beliefs that guns are bad, and they make people do bad things with them. > really is. I am not advocating taking everyone's guns away. I just think > the whole thought process of advocating everyone to carry a firearm is > ridiculous. I never said arm everyone. I'm saying allow those who have made the decision to carry, to do so. Not everyone's comfortable with a weapon hanging off their hip. That's fine - but don't deny the right of self-protection to those who want it for themselves. > Also, something that is never talked about is the mental affect of > carrying a firearm. You mean the added responsibility and the heightened awareness? Yeah, obviously both bad things... > the Deputy Dawg syndrome. If the gunman lines up everyone as you say, It's not as I say... it's what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. > at least this gives extra time for a trained individual to respond, as > well as give the gunman a chance to think twice. Or better his aim.... seems in this scenario, his mind was pretty-well made up. And at that point, ANYTHING is preferable to what occurred. > Your "mind control" argument is over reaching don't you think? I never > said anything about mind control. With all due respect, This sounds like > the Black Helicopter conspiracy theorists that are in militias. You said, "find a way to keep people from popping a circuit". How exactly would do you do that? (For the record, I don't believe in mind control, I don't think there are black helicopters hovering over my house, and I don't think tin foil make a particularly effective hat) > Whether you like it or not, science will find a way to recognize these > individuals before something like this happens. Yes, probably through DNA screening upon conception, followed by selective termination of those fetuses deemed "potential threats" to the State.... and so will emerge a master race. Gee, sounds like a wonderful society... count me out. > I never said arm everyone. I'm saying allow those who have made the > decision to carry, to do so. Not everyone's comfortable with a weapon > hanging off their hip. That's fine - but don't deny the right of > self-protection to those who want it for themselves. Raise the number of guns in society for those that feel they need to protect themselves and you will have a proportional increase in the number of idiots carrying a gun. Why? Because an idiot wants the gun for the same reason as anyone else. I haven't read any stats that prove that gun owners are less likely to be a victim of a gun crime. That said I don't have any desire to take guns away. I just don't want to make it easier to obtain one. It shouldn't be so easy. > That said I don't have any desire to take guns away. I just don't want > to make it easier to obtain one. It shouldn't be so easy. Okay - what about it is too easy for you? >> That said I don't have any desire to take guns away. I just don't >> want to make it easier to obtain one. It shouldn't be so easy. > > Okay - what about it is too easy for you? Depends on what state. Anyone without a felony conviction can go buy one almost as easy as buying a beer at the local 7-11. Sales at gun shows may need to be looked into to see what can be done. I really don't know what the best solution is but currently its too easy for any idiot to easily and quickly obtain a gun. It's more difficult to get a drivers license than it is a gun. > Depends on what state. Anyone without a felony conviction can go buy one > almost as easy as buying a beer at the local 7-11. Okay - so what more do you want done other than a background check? You claim it's too easy - what do you think will make things 'safer', without stepping on that pesky little annoyance that some of us like to refer to as the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution? > It's more difficult to get a drivers license than it is a gun. Bad analogy. Any idiot can go in and buy a car, as well. To use the driver's license comparison, you'd need to compare it to one obtaining a carry permit - which in the vast majority of the states that issue such a permit (imagine - not being allowed to operate a motor vehicle in a few states) a training course and competency test is required.... gee, just like is required for a driver's license. > Bad analogy. Not really. With a car one needs to register and license it. Technically the same as a gun right? Thats where the similarity ends. If you fail to register and license a car it's very likely you'll get caught. Not so with a gun. It's easier to get a gun without anyone knowing you have it. > > Bad analogy. > > Not really. With a car one needs to register and license it. No you don't. Only if you intend on driving legally around on public roads would you need to do any of that. If you are going to a crowded place to run people over who cares. Slap some stolen plates on, find a crowd, punch gas pedal. IT'S TO EASY! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar ----------------------------------- Snojob Follies: SBJ: Dumb brake question http://tinyurl.com/2ya3wo SBJ: Snoball Defense System v1.01 http://tinyurl.com/2hth74 ----------------------------------- > I haven't read any stats that prove that gun owners are less likely to be > a victim of a gun crime. Gun owners may be just as likely to be the intended victim of a crime, but according to the US dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, each year about 2 million crimes are prevented by an armed citizen. That's about 5 times more often than when guns are used in the commission of a crime. Of course, those numbers only reflect what is reported to law enforcement. > Do me a favor, and study possible scenarios if at least 1/4 of 50 people > had a gun. First off, a percentage will panic, and unload anywhere. > Another percentage will unload on anything that moves. What do you base that on? A few items of interest -Florida's Homicide rate dropped from 37% above the national average to 3% below the national average after the state changed it's concealed carry law in 1987. -A study conducted by Don B. Kates Jr., at the St. Louis University School of Law found that while police were successful in shooting or driving off criminals 68% of the time private citizens succeeded 83% of the time. And, while 11% of the individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocent people who were misidentified as criminals, only 2% of those in civilian shootings were misidentified. Finally private citizens in urban areas encounter and kill up to 3 times as many criminals as do law enforcement personnel. -Another, goverment funded survey of 1,874 felons conducted by Peter Rossi and James Wright found that 40% of the felons said they decided not to commit a crime because the feared the citizen was carring a firearm. 34% had been scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed citizen. I can't find the supporting evidence, but I remember reading a study several years ago that if 10% of the population has a concealed firearm the crime rate drops dramatically. I don't think your scenario has much basis in fact. >>Do me a favor, and study possible scenarios if at least 1/4 of 50 people >>had a gun. First off, a percentage will panic, and unload anywhere. >>Another percentage will unload on anything that moves. > > What do you base that on? <snip> > I don't think your scenario has much basis in fact. Why don't we base the scenario on what gun-totin' AZpunkinhead just wrote in the _other_ gun thread? "You're DAMN right if someone breaks into my house I am going to shoot them!! Why the f.ck would you feel other wise? You're right, it is not up to me to prove "he" was armed and that my life or that of my family was in danger. It is up to the "state pros" to prove that my life and/or that of my families WASN"T." Let see, a thug breaks a window or door to get into my house, weapon in hand. I am in bed, pistol very near by (with in arms reach from laying in bed) and loaded as it always is, you HONESTLY think that I can not reach my pistol and be at ready to protect me and my family? You honestly think that I would not be awoken by noises and such around my house that are out of the norm? Damn man, are you that dense? BTW, unlike a gun toting "thug" I am tried to engage a target and shoot for a kill. I am trained to do so under pressure, under extreme circumstances, and do it calmly and effectively. A feening dope head and/or your "common" thug most likely will not be able to do the same, so who do you think will come out alive if it came to it?" Punkin is exactly the sort who will bolt out of bed firing at that shadowy "thug", then turn on the light and discover that he's just shot his own kid. I've read it before. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni <BIG SNIP> How about you come break into my house you trolling piece of sh.t, you would be well worth a .357 being spent. You know how about you stay the f.ck out of my dealings a.shole. > <BIG SNIP> > > How about you come break into my house you trolling piece of sh.t, you > would be well worth a .357 being spent. You know how about you stay > the f.ck out of my dealings a.shole. If a .357 Magnum would be your choice of weapons, then I think you are a clueless short dicked egghead. Clueless short dicked eggheads prefer large caliber pistols and lift kits on their trucks. You could kill someone a mile away with one of those rounds. They will definitely go through several layers of home construction. There is nothing like a shotgun for home defense. And a pump, at that. Very reliable. Don't have to be very accurate. Just cocking it in the dark is enough to make a grown man wet themselves. The projectiles don't travel nearly as far as a regular bullet. But you knew that, right, Mr. Gun Expert? Firing a .357 Magnum wildly, with other people in the house in unknown locations. Well, at least the chances are VERY GOOD that you will kill SOMEONE. And don't forget to get the extra capacity clip for the revolver. I have the five shot S&W Stainless model with 2" barrel as a carry weapon. If you find the big clips, please let me know where, so I can buy one. And where can I get a REALLY big holster for that combo? Steve ......... ;-) >> <BIG SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > someone a mile away with one of those rounds. They will definitely go > through several layers of home construction. Gee, that's funny! No where did I ever mention, use or imply the word Magnum, all I said was .357. I gather you have NEVER heard of a .357 Sig have you clueless one? Vastly different the a .357 Magnum. Educate yourself, with this link about them maybe you will learn something http://www.sigarms.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=8&prod uctid=63 So, you waste of f.cking O2, assclown, before you jump into comversations you are totally clueless and ignorant about maybe you might read other posts, ask a question or simply shut the f.ck up. > There is nothing like a shotgun for home defense. And a pump, at that. > Very reliable. Don't have to be very accurate. Just cocking it in the > dark is enough to make a grown man wet themselves. The projectiles don't > travel nearly as far as a regular bullet. But you knew that, right, Mr. > Gun Expert? Again, read other posts by poeple before stick your dick in your mouth any further. I stated in plain text some where else in this very thread (IIRC) that I have a shot gun, I even gave the make and model. Learn to read, or STFU and get back on your knees with Berly. Now I'll sit here and wait for you to admit that you stepped on it. > Now I'll sit here and wait for you to admit that you stepped on it. No, I believe you made my point much more eloquently than I ever could have. Your knowledge of ballistics, safety, and anger management speak volumes about yourself. Are you the next headline nut case in waiting? I'll bet you got your a.s kicked a lot as a kid, didn't you? Is that still happening a lot? I don't wonder why. Steve >> Now I'll sit here and wait for you to admit that you stepped on it. > > No, I believe you made my point much more eloquently than I ever could > have. Hmm? Care to explain how it is that I made any point for you, other then maybe pointing out that you are a retard? I made a statement about .357, I did not specify Magnum or otherwise, as the people in here that know me, which I have discussed firearms with would know what I meant. You though, blindly jump to an incorrect conclusion about something with out know all the facts, why, you're ingnorant, you're a retard, you wanted to start sh.t for no reason? Who knows, who cares. > Your knowledge of ballistics, safety, and anger management speak volumes > about yourself. I do not have a degree nor as much knowledge in ballistics as some in here, but I would wage a bet that I do know more then you. Hell, I went so far as to post a link to you, for you education that took you to the EXACT hand gun I own. It comes in three calibers, 9mm, 40 S&W and geee, .357 Sig. I also do not have an anger management issue, what I do have an issue with is a.sholes who want to interject themselves into conversations about something, specifically taking the time to try and play "expert" about something when they honestly have no damn clue what they are talking about, and make statements loaded with personal insults and attacks. > Are you the next headline nut case in waiting? Come to my home with Beryl and find out. I made a statement about .357, I > did not specify Magnum or otherwise, as the people in here that know me, > which I have discussed firearms with would know what I meant. Never assume. Damn, that's scary. You claim to own a handgun, yet don't know or can't state its exact caliber. You though, > blindly jump to an incorrect conclusion about something with out know all > the facts, why, you're ingnorant, you're a retard, you wanted to start > sh.t for no reason? Who knows, who cares. Is English your second language? It must be difficult for you, not being able to write sentences, spell correctly and to communicate clearly. Are you sure you went through the proper channels to buy and register your firearms? >> Your knowledge of ballistics, safety, and anger management speak volumes >> about yourself. Hell, I went so far as > to post a link to you, for you education that took you to the EXACT hand > gun I own. And STILL failed to describe the shell correctly. Did the big words confuse you? How in the world did you get it right on the paperwork? You DID do paperwork on it, didn't you? Didn't you? >> Are you the next headline nut case in waiting? > > Come to my home with Beryl and find out. Sorry, I'm not gay. Steve PS: Who's Beryl? > I made a statement about .357, I >> did not specify Magnum or otherwise, as the people in here that know me, >> which I have discussed firearms with would know what I meant. > > Never assume. Damn, that's scary. You claim to own a handgun, yet don't > know or can't state its exact caliber. Do a search in Google Steve, Roy, the_guy, Tbone, miles and I have had numerous conversations about hang guns, where I stated numerous times, what I own. Sorry you are too stupid to understand that the regulars in here knew what I was refering too and that you needed very specific crayon drawn details. I know exactly what I own, I even posted you a link for it. Read it yet? Doubtful. > You though, >> blindly jump to an incorrect conclusion about something with out know all [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you sure you went through the proper channels to buy and register your > firearms? Are you sure you are done sucking Beryls dick? >> Your knowledge of ballistics, safety, and anger management speak volumes >>> about yourself. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > confuse you? How in the world did you get it right on the paperwork? You > DID do paperwork on it, didn't you? Didn't you? Really, care to point out how and where I described it incorrectly? > Do a search in Google Steve, Roy, the_guy, Tbone, miles and I have had > numerous conversations about hang guns, where I stated numerous times, > what I own. Sorry you are too stupid to understand that the regulars in > here knew what I was refering too and that you needed very specific crayon > drawn details. HANG GUN? What's a hang gun? I understand crayon, but don't understand that term. How are those English classes coming? Do you now see how utterly foolish you can be by trying to converse and not being able to spell and use proper grammar? And you say I'm too stupid. That's rich. >>> Your knowledge of ballistics, safety, and anger management speak volumes >>>> about yourself. >> >> Hell, I went so far as >>> to post a link to you, for you education that took you to the EXACT hand >>> gun I own. And I WAS impressed. Ooooooooo. Such a gun! Too bad you sent a picture of a gun instead of answering the topic of conversation. >> And STILL failed to describe the shell correctly. Did the big words >> confuse you? How in the world did you get it right on the paperwork? >> You DID do paperwork on it, didn't you? Didn't you? > > Really, care to point out how and where I described it incorrectly? Good God, You ARE as dumb as you project. There is no .357 round. There's a .357 SIG, a .357 Magnum. Go into a gun store and ask for a box of .357's. After they stop laughing, have THEM explain the difference to you. When you buy ammo for your SIG (remember the SIG you claim to own - the one in the pretty picture?), how do you specifically ask for those rounds? Do you say, "I want a box of .357 SIG", or "I want a box of .357's"? In case you haven't noticed, or don't really own a SIG, there is a difference in the two rounds. Now, get back on those English books. You either need to study more so you'll graduate with your class, or go back to school so you can spell correctly and learn the difference between too, to, and two. (as in "refering too") And "refering" is misspelled, too. Sheesh. Compound stupid. You're stupid and you don't know you're stupid. Steve >> Do a search in Google Steve, Roy, the_guy, Tbone, miles and I have had >> numerous conversations about hang guns, where I stated numerous times, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > utterly foolish you can be by trying to converse and not being able to > spell and use proper grammar? And you say I'm too stupid. That's rich. OOOooooooo, so I miss type one letter. You obviously knew EXACTLY what I was talking about. >>>> Your knowledge of ballistics, safety, and anger management speak >>>> volumes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And I WAS impressed. Ooooooooo. Such a gun! Too bad you sent a > picture of a gun instead of answering the topic of conversation. I did answer the topic of conversation, ironically enough, you never asked a question. So, please explain to me what it is that I failed to answer? I did not just send you a "pretty picture" I don't have any of your wife having sex with some one else. :) I sent you a link that was to Sig Arms website, that not only contained a photo of my fire arm but also contained the tech data you are ignorant too. >>> And STILL failed to describe the shell correctly. Did the big words >>> confuse you? How in the world did you get it right on the paperwork? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of .357's. After they stop laughing, have THEM explain the difference to > you. I'm sorry, but once again, those that know me and who I have been conversing with for many years knew exactly what I was refering too. I did not know that I was required to spell out in the smallest of detail everything I post for the assclowns who come in to just stir sh.t. I do go into the local gun stores and ask for a "box of .357" Why, because they know me and they know what I want, because they are the ones that sold me the fire arm. > When you buy ammo for your SIG (remember the SIG you claim to own - the > one in the pretty picture?), how do you specifically ask for those rounds? > Do you say, "I want a box of .357 SIG", or "I want a box of .357's"? In > case you haven't noticed, or don't really own a SIG, there is a difference > in the two rounds. I know there is a HUGE difference betweeen the two assclown. I never, ever said otherwise, hell I have made that very statement in just about every reply I have made to you. Whatever, you know it all, just like Sno* and are just plain stupid about somethings and will NEVER admit to being wrong when you are. Since you seem to believe you know more about what I own then I do, be man enough to post a real email or reply to me directly and I will be happy to send you a picture of what you are ignorant to, as it sit right here on my desk. If not, STFU and crawl back under your rock. <snip> Just keep up with those English classes, and concentrate on the spelling part. I hear the new "Hooked On Phonics" are better than the old course, too. Keep at it. You have nowhere to go but up. I mean, it's not like you could do any worse than you are doing right now, is it? Steve <SNIP> Let me understand this. You jumped into a conversation out of the blue, with personal attacks and insults, to some one you have never conversed with. You made brash assumptions about a subject to which you were not educated on and little knowledge about. You had no knowledge of the poster you attacked for no foreseen reason. You were responded to in the same manner as which you initiated things. You were provided information to disprove your assumptions that you did not read and now The absolute best you can do is come after some ones spelling and or language? Damn Beryl, you didn't need to change your screen name to prove you are a horses a.s, we all knew that already. Bye Bye Troll <SNIP> >> <BIG SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Steve ......... ;-) steve don't mean this personally but if you wanna go off and sound like a big tough guy, at least chose a subject that you have some clue about what the f.ck you are talking about. just saying man. >>> <BIG SNIP> >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > just saying man. And you're talking about what, in particular? Please notice the smiley face at the end. Anyone who would consider a .357 pistol as a home defense weapon obviously doesn't know a lot about ballistics. Hint: the part about the clip for the revolver and the part about the holster for said combination was a joke, son. Steve > And you're talking about what, in particular? > > Please notice the smiley face at the end. > > Anyone who would consider a .357 pistol as a home defense weapon obviously > doesn't know a lot about ballistics. Again assclown Steve, you are making and made an incorrect ASSUMPTION. I NEVER SAID .357 MAGNUM, YOU DID. Read the f.cking link I sent. > Hint: the part about the clip for the revolver and the part about the > holster for said combination was a joke, son. Hint, a Sig Sauer P229 is a magazine feed, semi-automatic pistol. It is either a 9mm, a 40 S7W or a .357 SIG. If you knew so much about ballistics you would know what a .357 SIG was and you would also know that it is NO WHERE near the round of a .357 MAGNUM. Read the damn link, search it on Google, what ever, but be EDUCATED before you open your mouth about something. > a .357 SIG was and you would also know that it is NO WHERE near the round > of a .357 MAGNUM. ? i own many .357 "sigs" and enjoy the caliber thoroughly. however, up to 125 grains the .357 sig is directly comparable and in some cases actually SUPERIOR ballistically to the .357 magnum. perfect example is from http://www.dakotaammo.net/products/corbon/convjhp.htm 125 gr. .357 magnum 1400fps 544# energy 125 gr. .357 "sig" 1425fps 564# energy when you get into the heavier rounds the .357 magnum does "out-perform" the .357 "sig" but by how much? i dont see how having 6 shots in a revolver can compare with have 16+ shots in a perfectly reliable automatic. i do however, disagree with steve about the .357 magnum being a poor choice for home defense. i think its a _great_ choice for home defense. most _any_ modern defensive caliber is capable of penetrating several layers of home construction. just dont miss the bad guy. :-) while the .45 acp remains as my favorite carry caliber, i dont feel undergunned ONE BIT when i carry my g31. if its good enough to protect the president of the united states, its good enough for me. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com > i own many .357 "sigs" and enjoy the caliber thoroughly. however, up to > 125 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 125 gr. .357 magnum 1400fps 544# energy > 125 gr. .357 "sig" 1425fps 564# energy Thank you for the info Nate. I will admit that I was unaware of just how "powerful" the SIG was rated. > Thank you for the info Nate. I will admit that I was unaware of just how > "powerful" the SIG was rated. when it first came out i thought of it as just another vanity round. after the secret service adopted it however, i started to look into it. when my pre-ordered TRP arrived at the gun store i went to pick it up and purely on impulse i picked up a glock 31 as well. since then ive developed one heck of a respect for the round and have since purchased several additional .357 sigs. its a GREAT round and i actually prefer it to anything other than .45 or 10mm. i even like it more than my .40s. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com > while the .45 acp remains as my favorite carry caliber, i dont feel > undergunned ONE BIT when i carry my g31. if its good enough to protect > the president of the united states, its good enough for me. The teacher at my last CCF class (formerly called CCW) screwed up my thinking. He is a weapons training officer with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and is in on all of the reviews of officers discharging their weapon FOR ANY REASON. I used to like the .45 ACP, although not for body carry. It stays in the truck. I also have a 17 shot Ruger 93DC that I alternate in the truck. Because of his course (my third now with Metro) I only carry a .380 KelTec or a 649 Smith & Wesson. The KelTec is an inside the pants holster, and the .357 MAGNUM is in a Safariland Paddle holster that is almost invisible on my hip when worn with a long shirt, vest, or jacket. Because of the changing environment in our city, and all the 413 "man with a gun" calls, the local sheriff has changed the rules slightly. If a person has a CCF, and they get a call because someone has seen their gun, they get a letter from the sheriff explaining that there will be no second time. The second time, the permit is cancelled. Breaking concealment is grounds for losing the permit. This does not apply to situations where the gun was drawn for protection, but only applies when you are reaching for something on the top shelf at K Mart, or it falls on the floor when you are reaching for your cell phone. Other cities and other states are better/worse depending on where you are. I personally carry pepper spray most of the time. I asked my SIL PO about it, and he said that the police have no problem with it, and wished more people would carry it. He said just to tell any officer at the get go you got it on you. I use it because my fun job takes me to some rather seedy parts of town. I have special markings on my license plate rings that identify me to police officers, so I also have not had a call in of my license plate in nine years now. As with slingshots previously discussed in this thread, one should find out about the law in their area first. This last training drilled home that the absolute last thing you want to do is draw your gun and fire. It also drilled home that you probably have to allow someone to pound on you so it leaves marks so that when you do shoot, you don't get sued by the family of the perp. It also drilled home the use of flight or pepper spray. Many a person has been killed with one round from a simple .22 firearm. Discretion, situational awareness, judgement, and common sense can many times get you out of or keep you from getting into deep holes that you need to shoot your way out of. And after that, proficiency with your weapon plays a big part in the outcome. Steve > I used to like the .45 ACP, although not for body carry. It stays in the > truck. unless you happen to be in the truck when you need it, what good will it do you in the truck? > I only carry a .380 KelTec or a 649 Smith & Wesson. The KelTec is an > inside the pants holster, and the .357 MAGNUM is in a Safariland Paddle > holster that is almost invisible on my hip when worn with a long shirt, > vest, or jacket. im with you on the .357 magnum, but not the .380. i recommend that folks find the largest caliber they can handle effectively and then dress around it without exception. the smallest caliber ill ever carry or recommend is 9mm +P. with the industry focus trend heading towards concealed carry, 9mm firearms are not really much larger than your .380 and not difficult to conceal with proper dress. were i facing an armed attacker with a 9mm +P, .357 "sig", .40, .45, or 10mm i wouldnt hesitate to react appropriately. were i armed only with a .380 i would be reluctant to draw his fire. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> I used to like the .45 ACP, although not for body carry. It stays in the >> truck. > > unless you happen to be in the truck when you need it, what good will it > do you in the truck? It stays in the truck because it is too large to carry secretively. I carry one of the smaller pistols when walking about. In defensive scenarios, there are different zones. Why do police officers leave their shotguns in their cars? Steve > It stays in the truck because it is too large to carry secretively. having the right holster is as important as having the right gun. what holsters have you tried for it? i have a literal box full of holsters that SUCK. i had all but given up on finding an IWB rig that i could tolerate, and then i found the VM2. its the only IWB rig ive found comfortable. its so dang comfortable in fact, that i literally forget that its there. ive fallen asleep wearing it many times. http://miltsparks.com/VM-2.htm makes a full size 1911 disappear, even under shorts/t-shirt.. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com I carry > one of the smaller pistols when walking about. In defensive scenarios, > there are different zones. Why do police officers leave their shotguns in > their cars? > > Steve >> It stays in the truck because it is too large to carry secretively. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > makes a full size 1911 disappear, even under shorts/t-shirt.. Holsters are my biggest nemesis. I have a Galco for my 9mm, and it is a $65 piece of sh.t. The gun is impossible to draw. With exception of the Safariland paddle, most I have tried are very restrictive on drawing the weapon. I hate to say it, but nylon and velcro work better. My favorite are those supported by a belt, and having strips that wrap around the leg, but there are not a lot of situations where one can wear that setup. The new baggy pants with the cargo pockets are somewhat helpful in pocketing smaller firearms. There's a huge difference between being in a completely concealed carry situation and one where exposure is allowed. I live in Las Vegas, and it is hard here to cover up in the summer because of the heat. But concealed carry is a huge responsibility, and if one chooses to do it, they must make the preparations to do so. Fanny packs become an option, but every instructor I have had will tell you they're not a good idea. It's all relative to body size and shape. But finding a good holster is like finding a comfortable pair of shoes. You hardly notice it's there. Steve > Holsters are my biggest nemesis. I have a Galco for my 9mm, and it is a > $65 piece of sh.t. i was there too for a long time. galcos always served me "well" because i didnt know any better. get ahold of a true custom like the VM2. youll never go back. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com The gun is impossible to draw. With exception of the > Safariland paddle, most I have tried are very restrictive on drawing the > weapon. I hate to say it, but nylon and velcro work better. My favorite [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Steve >> Holsters are my biggest nemesis. I have a Galco for my 9mm, and it is a >> $65 piece of sh.t. > > i was there too for a long time. galcos always served me "well" because i > didnt know any better. get ahold of a true custom like the VM2. youll > never go back. Galcos are a stiff enough piece of cow hide. Then you put a big belt through there, and it makes it curve even more and hold the pistol tighter. About the only thing you can do is put a plastic replica in there, and steam the sh.t out of it. I'm just not in the market for any more handguns. I do have a Ruger Red Label, and a Savage Model 12 BVSS 22-250 on my shopping list for purchase soon. I'm partial to the pistols I use regularly, and can hit what I shoot at. Qualified 288/300 and 348/360 with revolver and semi-auto respectively. I hardly shoot most of the guns I own, and many haven't been out of the safe in years. Guess it's time to sell some and clean house and buy that retirement fishing boat. Steve > http://miltsparks.com/VM-2.htm No left-handed models? <pfft> Facists... :^) >> http://miltsparks.com/VM-2.htm > > No left-handed models? > > <pfft> Facists... heh. you can get it in left handed models. im pretty dang sure you specify right/left hand when you place your oder. be aware its a true custom however, and you can wait up to 20 weeks for its arrival. ....worth every day though. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> It stays in the truck because it is too large to carry secretively. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://miltsparks.com/VM-2.htm Thanks for the link. I've been looking for a good IWB holster for a couple of years and not found a one that I like. Denny >>> It stays in the truck because it is too large to carry secretively. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Thanks for the link. I've been looking for a good IWB holster for a couple > of years and not found a one that I like. They are a very good holster. I have one for the Sig 239.But then again whatever works for you is a good holster. But while thinking about your situation, wouldn't a shoulder rig be better for ya? I figure you having to reach under that stomach for a gun has to be a bitch. I'm surprised your arms are long enough. <GBMFG> Roy > Denny > Thanks for the link. I've been looking for a good IWB holster for a couple > of years and not found a one that I like. im glad i rolled the dice one more time on an IWB rig. i cannot recommend the VM2 highly enough, with the only downside being the loooooong wait. check with craig at http://LightningArms.com as he has standing orders with sparks and every once in awhile he gets in a large order. he marks them up a little so theyll cost a little more than if you get them directly from sparks, but you dont have the wait if he has them in stock. in the past year ive bought 6-8 holsters from craig and it has never taken more than 2 days to get it in. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> a .357 SIG was and you would also know that it is NO WHERE near the round >> of a .357 MAGNUM. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > undergunned ONE BIT when i carry my g31. if its good enough to protect > the president of the united states, its good enough for me. Here's a very nice Gun Week article on the .357 SIG. Their take is that the round was actually developed for better penetration of cars. As you can see from the ballistics posted there, it is right in there with the .38 and .357 Magnums, rating slightly better than some, and not quite as strong as others. http://www.gunweek.com/2002/feature0210.html Steve You're not much a commedian, son. You need to work more on your jokes and less on your insults if you want to be funny, son. >>>> <BIG SNIP> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Steve > You're not much a commedian, son. You need to work more on your jokes and > less on your insults if you want to be funny, son. Sorry to hear about your humor impairedness, and do hope it improves. Steve >>>> <BIG SNIP> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >Hint: the part about the clip for the revolver and the part about the >holster for said combination was a joke, son. keep your day job steve, you'll never make it as a comedian dad. >Steve >>>>> <BIG SNIP> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >>Steve I'm sorry you missed the humor of some here taking the bait .............. > I'm sorry you missed the humor of some here taking the bait .............. are you SBM by chance? if so, you and azwiley are more alike than you are different. time to kiss and make up. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> I'm sorry you missed the humor of some here taking the bait >> .............. > > are you SBM by chance? if so, you and azwiley are more alike than you are > different. time to kiss and make up. :-) Dude there is no way it could be him, if it were then I definately want a damn explaination for the attack! Either way, how are we "more alike" > how are we "more alike" IF it were SBM you two would be more alike than different in your beliefs of the importance of carry in our society. ive since realized that its NOT SBM which is good because if it were i would have been disappointed in his unwarranted attack. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> how are we "more alike" > > IF it were SBM you two would be more alike than different in your beliefs > of the importance of carry in our society. ive since realized that its > NOT SBM which is good because if it were i would have been disappointed in > his unwarranted attack. Gotcha! Now, fix your site please, all it does is let me click agree over and over and over > Now, fix your site please, all it does is let me click agree over and over > and over your firewall settings are so high that theyre preventing my server from reading your cookie, therefore it doesnt know you clicked "agree". if you could lower them just a little the trouble will go away. ....im in the process of upgrading to another platform that isnt cookie dependant. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> <BIG SNIP> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > someone a mile away with one of those rounds. They will definitely go > through several layers of home construction. What I like about a .357 magnum hand gun is you can load it with .38 Special ammo as well. If the first 2 round of .38 Special don't scare the intruder away, I know my life is in greater peril and I also have a better hold on the grip and a better control of my sight picture as well as situational awareness and the remaining 4 rounds of .357 magnum will be more effective. > There is nothing like a shotgun for home defense. And a pump, at that. > Very reliable. Don't have to be very accurate. Just cocking it in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you find the big clips, please let me know where, so I can buy one. > And where can I get a REALLY big holster for that combo? If by "clip" you are refering to the devices that allow SA rounds to be used in revolvers then the following statement doesn't apply. But I think you don't know what you are talking about. My father taught me a clip was used to reload a magazine, a magazine is used in a semi-automatic of fully-automatic firearms and persons firing a revolver may benefit from a speed loader, but I never heard of a clip for a revolver. > Steve ......... ;-) > If by "clip" you are refering to the devices that allow SA rounds to be > used in revolvers then the following statement doesn't apply. But I think [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> Steve ......... ;-) Note the smiley face. the ;-) thing at the end. This indicates wink, wink. I was just Joshin the poster that perhaps he needed a lot more firepower, and might consider a clip, although with his lack of ballistics knowledge, I doubt he would have caught the clip on a revolver comment. I agree with your statements about reloaders for revolvers. "Clips" for revolvers are called SpeedLoaders. They hold varying amounts of shells (as various revolvers hold various numbers of shells as any REAL shooter knows), and can facilitate the fast loading of a revolver during firefights and during competitive shooting matches. You are correct. There are no clips made for revolvers. I just wanted to see if Mr. .357 Macho knew that. I don't have any clue as to why he pulled the .357 caliber out of thin air, didn't specify Magnum, didn't specify a .357 SIG (which would have been the technically correct thing for a REAL gun handler to state), and why he didn't just claim to own the holy grail of the Large Caliber for the Short Dicked, the .454 Casull. If you go to a gun shop, and ask for a box of .357 caliber shells, they will follow up with a question of what type, as the .357 is not a generic shell such as a .38 caliber. Steve > Note the smiley face. the ;-) thing at the end. This indicates > wink, wink. > > I was just Joshin the poster that perhaps he needed a lot more firepower, > and might consider a clip, although with his lack of ballistics knowledge, > I doubt he would have caught the clip on a revolver comment. Really, just joshin me? You called me and I quote "clueless short dicked egghead" because you made a errant assumption about something. You read something that was not there to read, and in turn started with the personal attacks and insults. It really would have been difficult for you to either, ask if I was refering to a Magnum, to have eduacted your self on the fact that there are other .357 calibers out there, or to have kept your mouth shut. I guess it would have, as you ASSUMED I was refering to a revolver and to a .357 Magnum. Sorry, smiley face or other wise, why should I have thought or cared that you were "just Joshin the poster"? > I agree with your statements about reloaders for revolvers. "Clips" for > revolvers are called SpeedLoaders. They hold varying amounts of shells [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are correct. There are no clips made for revolvers. I just wanted to > see if Mr. .357 Macho knew that. Who cares honestly. Explain to me Mr. I'm just Joshin the Poster, why you ASSUMED that I was refering to a revolver and .357 Magmun. Appearantly you don't know very much about fire arms if you honestly thought that was the only combination for that type of round. > I don't have any clue as to why he pulled the .357 caliber out of thin > air, didn't specify Magnum, didn't specify a .357 SIG (which would have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > box of .357 caliber shells, they will follow up with a question of what > type, as the .357 is not a generic shell such as a .38 caliber. You got it right, YOU DON"T HAVE A CLUE. > You got it right, YOU DON"T HAVE A CLUE. Maybe. But I DO know the difference between a hand gun and a hang gun. Steve Steve, you are truly the horses a.s and an idiot (I've know one or the other before, but never both). >> If by "clip" you are refering to the devices that allow SA rounds to be >> used in revolvers then the following statement doesn't apply. But I [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Steve > Steve, you are truly the horses a.s and an idiot (I've know one or the > other before, but never both). Why, thank you, Ed. I believe that's one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me. Steve >> Steve, you are truly the horses a.s and an idiot (I've know one or the >> other before, but never both). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Steve seeing how you conduct yourself steve, i am not surprised that is one of the nicest things that anyone has ever said about you. >> If by "clip" you are refering to the devices that allow SA rounds to be >> used in revolvers then the following statement doesn't apply. But I think [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Note the smiley face. the ;-) thing at the end. This indicates wink, >wink. no, i actually think it indicates that you spend way too much time on your computer. again, dad, just saying. >I was just Joshin the poster that perhaps he needed a lot more firepower, >and might consider a clip, although with his lack of ballistics knowledge, I >doubt he would have caught the clip on a revolver comment. not sure about your knowledge of ballistics. the 357 mag and the 357 sig are not bad rounds ballistically. now, they are not so hot when you compare other options that are cheaper to buy, easier to control and have a little better ballisitics. but any firearms person would know that both rounds are capable of doing the job. your rant about how many walls the round will go through and how far it will go is unfounded as far as ballisitics go. it isn't the gun, it is the round and you can get a round to match just about any need. there are alot of self defense guns that have greater penetration than either 357 round that you talk about. so, you really just wanted to go after larry because he pissed you off, but what you wrote was as full of bull sh.t as you are. >I agree with your statements about reloaders for revolvers. "Clips" for >revolvers are called SpeedLoaders. They hold varying amounts of shells (as [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Steve > so, you really just wanted to go after > larry because he pissed you off, but what you wrote was as full of > bull sh.t as you are. Interestingly enough, I don't even know who this guy is or how I could have pissed him off, as I have never conversed with him or about him prior to this. Oh wait, it must be my charming personality! ;^) >> so, you really just wanted to go after >> larry because he pissed you off, but what you wrote was as full of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to this. > Oh wait, it must be my charming personality! ;^) No. Really, it was your amazing literary skills. Steve > Oh wait, it must be my charming personality! ;^) Yea Larry, that's it your charming personality! *Big Grin* Signature____________________________________________ Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD >> Oh wait, it must be my charming personality! ;^) > > Yea Larry, that's it your charming personality! > > *Big Grin* ;^p Thanks Chris! LOL >>> If by "clip" you are refering to the devices that allow SA rounds to be >>> used in revolvers then the following statement doesn't apply. But I [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> >>Steve My regrets that you failed to comprehend the conversation and chose to answer in chatroomese. The point was .............. any projectile of a high muzzle velocity and energy is dangerous as a home defense round because it can go through walls VERY easily, and has a range of a mile or more. Sorry that you could not comprehend or stick to the point being discussed. Point was that someone would come out blazing with a ".357" (type and flavor unknown and unstated) and think that this big bad round would make them a big bad home defender. No matter that one who would use such a round in such a way is just a plain vanilla idiot. So, I'm sorry that those here who did not or could not follow the point of the conversation got diverted into such diarrhetic literati minutiae. They would have had more credibility with the .454 Casull argument. Steve >>>> If by "clip" you are refering to the devices that allow SA rounds to be >>>> used in revolvers then the following statement doesn't apply. But I [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > >Steve ok steve, you are right. you are sorry. as an aside, the fact that you own a gun doesn't make you a ballistic expert. in fact, that is the point of my other posts. before you jump on someone or try to add the stupid kind of crap like you just wrote, it would be a help to you if you knew what you were talking about. it would be a help to you if you knew what you were talking > about. I own so many guns, I would have to go to my gun room and count them to accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I was 8. I've been shooting since then. So, prove me wrong. Show me a .357 shell. A generic one. Not a magnum, not a SIG, not anything, but a .357 caliber shell. Steve > accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I > was 8. I've been shooting since then. Really? That's a pretty generic-sounding cartridge, there, Steve. ".22", huh? Well, what is it? .22LR? .22Magnum? .22-250? >> accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I >> was 8. I've been shooting since then. > >Really? That's a pretty generic-sounding cartridge, there, Steve. ".22", >huh? Well, what is it? .22LR? .22Magnum? .22-250? lol. >>> accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I >>> was 8. I've been shooting since then. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >lol. steve, stop and think for a minute. you just got caught in your own stupidity. "most" people that have guns would know what you meant by .22 rifle, just as "most" people would know that 357 refers to the well known model, the .357 magnum. you played a stupid little game because you were pissed at larry but you just ended up making yourself look stupid. the 357 magnum is usually referred to as the 357. it is pretty much the standard in that caliber. now they do have the 357 sig (intended to be a 357 magnum light for the auto loader) and the 357 remington max or 357 max remington (intended as a hunting round i think). there could even be others out there, but the magnum is the stable and we all knew that was what larry was referring to. why don't you relax and stop blowing o-rings over little things. thedumbguy: > thedumbguy: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > steve, stop and think for a minute. you just got caught in your own > stupidity. Nope. It was you again. You even delivered an ironic twist: Only 28 minutes before posting your "stop and think" reply, you said to Steve "certainly anyone at your advanced stage of life can follow a thread?" > "most" people that have guns would know what you meant by .22 rifle, > just as "most" people would know that 357 refers to the well known [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > think). there could even be others out there, but the magnum is the > stable and we all knew that was what larry was referring to. IDIOT! Steve referred to the staple (not 'stable') from the outset. From then on, punkinseed has been pouting as follows: "No where did I ever mention, use or imply the word Magnum, all I said was .357. I gather you have NEVER heard of a .357 Sig have you clueless one? Vastly different the a .357 Magnum. Educate yourself, with this link about them maybe you will learn something" http://www.sigarms.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=8&prod uctid=63 "I made a statement about .357, I did not specify Magnum or otherwise, as the people in here that know me, which I have discussed firearms with would know what I meant." "Sorry you are too stupid to understand that the regulars in here knew what I was refering too" "I'm sorry, but once again, those that know me and who I have been conversing with for many years knew exactly what I was refering too." "I NEVER SAID .357 MAGNUM, YOU DID." SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni >thedumbguy: >> thedumbguy: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >"stop and think" reply, you said to Steve "certainly anyone at your >advanced stage of life can follow a thread?" beryl........great to hear from you again old boy. the home let you at the computer again huh? >> "most" people that have guns would know what you meant by .22 rifle, >> just as "most" people would know that 357 refers to the well known [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >IDIOT! Steve referred to the staple (not 'stable') from the outset. From >then on, punkinseed has been pouting as follows: is steve a friend of yours beryl? or are you just an avenging angel for the people that come here and make fools of themselves? you fill the bill, old bean, because no one could be a bigger fool than you. >"No where did I ever mention, use or imply the word >Magnum, all I said was .357. I gather you have NEVER heard of a .357 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >"I NEVER SAID .357 MAGNUM, YOU DID." beryl, that last part doesn't even make sense. take your meds every night.....relax.......get some more sleep beryl........and you may be able to actually say something that makes sense. thedumbguy: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:21:10 -0700, Beryl <terrapin@coolmail.com> >>thedumbguy: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > for the people that come here and make fools of themselves? you fill > the bill, old bean, because no one could be a bigger fool than you. You've become, by FAR, the biggest fool in this thread. Are you pretending to not know what you did? Maybe hoping your buddies won't be smart enough to see it? >>"No where did I ever mention, use or imply the word >>Magnum, all I said was .357. I gather you have NEVER heard of a .357 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > night.....relax.......get some more sleep beryl........and you may be > able to actually say something that makes sense. IDIOT, "that last part doesn't even make sense" to *you* because little punky wrote all of it, you never read any of it, and you haven't been following the thread. The punkster does NOT have a .357 Magnum. He's been crying repeatedly that his big bad gun is a .357 Sig, not Magnum. Get it? Your little lecture to Steve that "the magnum is the stable and we all knew that was what larry was referring to" was totally asinine! And this came mere *minutes* after you said Steve can't follow the thread, how funny! :^) SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni >> accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I >> was 8. I've been shooting since then. > > Really? That's a pretty generic-sounding cartridge, there, Steve. ".22", > huh? Well, what is it? .22LR? .22Magnum? .22-250? If you can confuse a .22 round with anything else, you would not understand anything else I said. Steve >>> accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I >>> was 8. I've been shooting since then. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Steve what an idiot steve. i can say the same about 357. oops, it's ok for you but not for others? yeah, that's the ticket steve. you are a f.cking moron. now, don't take that personally. it is just an observation. a very factual one, but never the less, i don't mean it personally. >>>> accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I >>>> was 8. I've been shooting since then. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > an observation. a very factual one, but never the less, i don't mean > it personally. Why in the world would I take anything you say seriously or personally? I'd bet a day's pay (if I was still working, that is) that you are a twenty something virgin who still lives at home with your parents. Steve > <the...@whatever.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ohh, so you are going to start playing the same game that Beryl did. Becuase you don't like the way some one talks to you, especially when the do to you what you have done to others, you will start with the "you're just some young punk kid" sh.t. > Ohh, so you are going to start playing the same game that Beryl did. > Becuase you don't like the way some one talks to you, especially when > the do to you what you have done to others, you will start with the > "you're just some young punk kid" sh.t. Hit a nerve, eh? You MUST be some young punk sh.t kid. You can't write sentences, you can't use proper grammar, and your spelling is atrocious. Your math skills are inept. Keep at it, kid. You'll get out of high school some day. And you'll move out of your parent's basement, too. When they die and leave you the house. BWAAAHAAA! >> Ohh, so you are going to start playing the same game that Beryl did. >> Becuase you don't like the way some one talks to you, especially when >> the do to you what you have done to others, you will start with the >> "you're just some young punk kid" sh.t. > >Hit a nerve, eh? You MUST be some young punk sh.t kid. impressive steve. did you learn that at recess today? > You can't write >sentences, you can't use proper grammar, and your spelling is atrocious. we don't get too hung up on spelling and grammar here. >Your math skills are inept. Keep at it, kid. You'll get out of high school >some day. And you'll move out of your parent's basement, too. When they >die and leave you the house. > >BWAAAHAAA! whew. that was a little strange steve. you ok? >> Ohh, so you are going to start playing the same game that Beryl did. >> Becuase you don't like the way some one talks to you, especially when [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BWAAAHAAA! My math skills? How the f.ck did that come into this? Dude, lets get something straight, BOTH my parents and step-parents are older by many years then you are. You are also proving to everyone, like we needed anymore proof, that you truly are a horses a.s. If you would spend more time reading posts then trolling and causing sh.t with people, you would learn something. Like the fact that I was in the military for 16 years. Hmm I guess that might be an indication of my age, an indication that I don't "live with mommy and daddy", that though I am not a ballistics expert I do have a clue as to what I am talking about. So assclown, maybe next time you want to jump in with both feet, why don't you take a little advice and educate yourself about the people you are trying to attack (for no reason I might add) before you do and you will not look like such a horses a.s. Really f.cking mature of you f.cker. Wishing someone's family dead. > BWAAAHAAA! Is that the sound sheep lover makes? Opps, I meant "Is that the sound your sheep lover makes?" >> BWAAAHAAA! > > Is that the sound sheep lover makes? >>Ohh, so you are going to start playing the same game that Beryl did. >>Becuase you don't like the way some one talks to you, especially when [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BWAAAHAAA! Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to see what a punk azwiley1 is. http://tinyurl.com/32fnu3 After a botched attack on SnoMan's reply, he became so flustered that all he could produce were emotional outbursts of profanity. And he fancies himself as calm and efficient with a gun. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni > Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to see > what a punk azwiley1 is. > http://tinyurl.com/32fnu3 > After a botched attack on SnoMan's reply, he became so flustered that all > he could produce were emotional outbursts of profanity. > And he fancies himself as calm and efficient with a gun. Well, I admit I was confused by his claim of years spent in the military, yet he couldn't see the danger in banging away at an imaginary burglar with a large caliber handgun inside a residence. Guess he didn't do much shooting in the mess area. Steve >>Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to see >>what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve Here's how I avoid confusion: - azwiley1 is Gilligan. - Roy is the Skipper, dutifully ready to aid his Little Buddy. - thedumbguy is like the Professor, only stupid. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni >>>Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to see >>>what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > - Roy is the Skipper, dutifully ready to aid his Little Buddy. > - thedumbguy is like the Professor, only stupid. Well, well our troll is back. Things must have become a little slow at the rest area. >>>>Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to see >>>>what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Well, well our troll is back. Things must have become a little slow at the >rest area. yes but he and steve seem to have "found" each other at the rest stop. >>Well, well our troll is back. Things must have become a little slow at the >>rest area. Well, actually, there was a lively discussion on "gromits" going on at the rest stop. One feller was actually giving a demonstration on how to split a length of rubber hose and glue it on the edge of a bored hole. It was intense, but, sadly, all in attendance were unable to grasp the demonstration even though it was visually and verbally simple. Steve >Well, well our troll is back. Things must have become a little slow at the >rest area. Yeah we saw, you already announced yourself in another off topic post to all your butt buddies. You seem to know alot about rest areas. >>Well, well our troll is back. Things must have become a little slow at the >>rest area. >> >Yeah we saw, but you are right. barrel a.s, steve the dweeb and I are butt buddies and proud of it. We know alot about rest areas. >samstone nice of you to admit it >>>Well, well our troll is back. Things must have become a little slow at the >>>rest area. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > nice of you to admit it Hey I saw that too. I think that if Roy were to wear his diaper, like the astronaut, he could drive for a couple hours without hitting all the rest areas. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni >>>>Well, well our troll is back. Things must have become a little slow at >>>>the rest area. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > astronaut, he could drive for a couple hours without hitting all the rest > areas. I'm sure I'd find you in most of them. >>>Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to see >>>what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > - Roy is the Skipper, dutifully ready to aid his Little Buddy. > - thedumbguy is like the Professor, only stupid. Well, I had two out of three. I really think that Gilligan was MUCH smarter than azwiley. Steve >>>>Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to >>>>see what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Well, I had two out of three. I really think that Gilligan was MUCH > smarter than azwiley. Think what you will, as I know for fact that is what you are going to do. The thing is though, as Ed H. said, you made an assumption about something which you did not have all the facts on and instead of asking a question you attacked. Then when you got caught doing the EXACT same thing you attacked me for, you tucked tail and started coming up with all sorts of other things to attack on. Instead of doing right and admitting that you were wrong, you made yourself shine as the hypocritical a.s you really are. Beryl is no better at any of this either, I am actually sorry to have classed you two as Snoman trolls. To Snoman, I apologize for lumping these two in the same "class" as you, you are a step above them in my book. >>>>>Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to >>>>>see what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > these two in the same "class" as you, you are a step above them in my > book. Thank you, O King of the Realm for making that distinction for us. Steve >>>>>>Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to >>>>>>see what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Steve He's wimpering now. <sob> Punklette's troubles began with a bungled SnoMan attack, but he's too small to apologize for that directly. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni >> Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to see >> what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Steve large caliber????? steve, it is very nice to see that you and beryl have formed a bond on this ng. everyone needs someone. You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is NOT a .357 magnum, instead it is a .357 Sig. But, of course, you had already attacked him. You picked a fight because you made an assumption. Rather than apologize, you stick to the "large caliber" argument so you can look like the innocent victim. You are an insecure, idiotic (I'm retracting my apology), sophomoric, horse's a.s. >> Check last month's "Hole in the bed" discussion if you really want to see >> what a punk azwiley1 is. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve > You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is NOT > a .357 magnum, instead it is a .357 Sig. But, of course, you had already > attacked him. You picked a fight because you made an assumption. Rather > than apologize, you stick to the "large caliber" argument so you can look > like the innocent victim. You are an insecure, idiotic (I'm retracting my > apology), sophomoric, horse's a.s. No, but I do stick to the argument that anyone who would blast away at any intruder with a .357 (anything) would be a remarkable idiot with regards to safety. AZidiot was the one who originally made the comment that he'd blast away at things that go bump in the night (including occupants of his own household) with his big bad .357 handgun. I hope he DOES live in Arizona. That puts a lot of distance between us. The rest of you better duck. Steve You don't read to well either. He said "Breaking into my house..." You made another assumption and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bump in the night. I hope you live on the east coast because I want as much distance from you while I'm in California as possible. I can imagine you behind me in traffic, approaching an intersection, but I want to go into the gas station on the far corner of the intersection, so I turn on my turn indicator at the near corner, you assume I mean the next intersection, look down at your little friend "blinky" because you think you might have to piss and don't notice my break lights, then you rear-end me. In the ensuing converstation I realize it's you, punch you in the face and spend the night in jail. >> You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is NOT >> a .357 magnum, instead it is a .357 Sig. But, of course, you had already [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Steve >> You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is NOT >> a .357 magnum, instead it is a .357 Sig. But, of course, you had already [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >things that go bump in the night (including occupants of his own household) >with his big bad .357 handgun, but I blast away at barrel and samstone with my own "gun", every chance that i get. >Steve very strange steve. >>> You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is >>> NOT [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > very strange steve. What's strange are the changes in the text that are not part of what I wrote. Did you do that? Steve >> You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is NOT >> a .357 magnum, instead it is a .357 Sig. But, of course, you had already [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > intruder with a .357 (anything) would be a remarkable idiot with regards > to safety. Your statement here really goes to show your lack of ballistics knowledge. A .357SIG does not have the same "power" behind it as you think it does. However, if you were to read about it, you might know that. You are stuck in your little world where just because it says .357 regardless of what is after it that it is the same. > AZidiot was the one who originally made the comment that he'd blast away > at things that go bump in the night (including occupants of his own > household) with his big bad .357 handgun. So, now we resort to changing someone's name do we? Also, I would love it if you would point out where I made the statements you claim I did. You won't be able to because I didn't make them, I didn't imply them. You are also the one that made the statement that I would be the one to shoot my kid, not the other way around. Nor did I ever say, state or imply that I "blast away at things that go bumb in the night" that was once again you that did. > I hope he DOES live in Arizona. That puts a lot of distance between us. > The rest of you better duck. I do live in AZ, but would be more then happy to make a road trip, why don't you provide me your address. :) >So, now we resort to changing someone's name do we? So you can change sno's screen name but we can't change yours? LOL silly lil boy The word ' then ' means next. Get your son to explain to you the difference between then and than. >>So, now we resort to changing someone's name do we? >So you can change sno's screen name but we "we"? barrell and dweeb had to call in reinforcements huh? i can understand, don't worry. they were getting their ass's kicked. > can't change yours? >LOL silly lil boy >The word ' then ' means next. Get your son to explain to you > the difference between then and than. >>So, now we resort to changing someone's name do we? > So you can change sno's screen name but we can't change yours? > LOL silly lil boy > The word ' then ' means next. Get your son to explain to you > the difference between then and than. Amazing, isn't it? Debating with people who don't know the difference between then and than. I'd rather talk to a dog. At least they will give a predictable response. azpunky1: > "Steve B" <SurDO2Diver@Neptune.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > claim I did. You won't be able to because I didn't make them, I didn't > imply them. Love this, punkin. "I am in bed, pistol very near by (with in arms reach from laying in bed) and loaded as it always is... You honestly think that I would not be awoken by noises and such around my house that are out of the norm?" "my kid has a key and would not be breaking into the house. Secondly he also has a phone and would call vice breaking in, regardless of time." I see a reckless gun owner, and a kid that better *never* make one mistake or he's shot. > You are also the one that made the statement that I would be > the one to shoot my kid, not the other way around. No, punkin, I made that statement. You are the sort that would shoot wildly at whatever scared you. You yourself told us that it's not up to you to determine beforehand if shooting at someone is warranted, it's up to the state to prove, after-the-fact, that it wasn't. You are too irresponsible to be trusted with a gun. > Nor did I ever say, > state or imply that I "blast away at things that go bumb in the night" that > was once again you that did. It's precisely what you told us, the quotes are above. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni > azpunky1: >> "Steve B" <SurDO2Diver@Neptune.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > It's precisely what you told us, the quotes are above. PUHLEEZE, BERYL! You know how much facts confuse the poor child! Steve ;-) > You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is NOT > a .357 magnum, instead it is a .357 Sig. But, of course, you had already > attacked him. You picked a fight because you made an assumption. Rather > than apologize, you stick to the "large caliber" argument so you can look > like the innocent victim. You are an insecure, idiotic (I'm retracting my > apology), sophomoric, horse's a.s. It took him several posts to get it out that it was indeed a SIG, and not just a plain vanilla .357. Not even a Magnum. Your memory is very selective. Steve I don't know what news reader you use, whether if follows indivual threads by topic instead of date, but his first response that it was a .357 Sig, and not a .357 magnum directly followed your vile attack on him. I think you are VERY sophomoric. With all due respect to aswiley1, I know you are capable of speaking for yourself, but this clown has angered me with his inane assumptions. I wonder if the B. in Steve B. is short for "Bozo." >> You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is NOT >> a .357 magnum, instead it is a .357 Sig. But, of course, you had already [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Steve >I don't know what news reader you use, whether if follows indivual threads >by topic instead of date, but his first response that it was a .357 Sig, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yourself, but this clown has angered me with his inane assumptions. I > wonder if the B. in Steve B. is short for "Bozo." Absolutely no worries Ed, have at it. I am enjoying the show as well as my hockey game! > Absolutely no worries Ed, have at it. I am enjoying the show as well as > my hockey game! Oh, that neanderthalic, my stick is bigger than your's, "I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out," kind of sport. No wonder you are misunderstood! Big Grin. ;<) >> Absolutely no worries Ed, have at it. I am enjoying the show as well as >> my hockey game! >> > Oh, that neanderthalic, my stick is bigger than your's, "I went to a fight > and a hockey game broke out," kind of sport. No wonder you are > misunderstood! Big Grin. ;<) Maybe so. LOL > You really don't comprehend well, do you? He repeatedly stated it is NOT a > .357 magnum, instead it is a .357 Sig. But, of course, you had already Ed, you're embarassing thedumbguy now. "you just ended up making yourself look stupid... the magnum is the stable and we all knew that was what larry was referring to" - thedumbguy SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni >>>>> accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I >>>>> was 8. I've been shooting since then. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Steve well........let me know what a days pay was when you actually last had a job and lets bet that amount. > well........let me know what a days pay was when you actually last had > a job and lets bet that amount. That's hard to say. It ranged between $28 and $85 an hour. Steve >> well........let me know what a days pay was when you actually last had >> a job and lets bet that amount. > > That's hard to say. It ranged between $28 and $85 an hour. Damn, you had John's that would pay you $85 an hour for a blow job? They were either more retarded then you, or you were not that good at your job! > If you can confuse a .22 round with anything else, you would not > understand anything else I said. Hey - I was just pointing out an apparent inconsistency, that's all. You seemed to get all worked up over someone else making a general reference to a cartridge, yet you did the same thing. And just to illustrate the point a little further... I've got 3 different ".22 round" boxes in my ammo cases right now (long, long rifle, and magnum) - so yeah, it's pretty easy to get "confused", if one isn't specific about one's meaning. >> If you can confuse a .22 round with anything else, you would not >> understand anything else I said. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > magnum) - so yeah, it's pretty easy to get "confused", if one isn't > specific about one's meaning. And this applies to .22 cal. and not .357, right? Just trying to follow the logic here. Steve I think it's time for any eye exam as you don't seem to be able to read well. >>> If you can confuse a .22 round with anything else, you would not >>> understand anything else I said. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Steve >I think it's time for any eye exam as you don't seem to be able to read >well. that's what i've been saying. steve has a reading problem. steve has a comprehension problem. i think that steve may ride the short bus. >>>> If you can confuse a .22 round with anything else, you would not >>>> understand anything else I said. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Steve > And this applies to .22 cal. and not .357, right? Just trying to follow > the logic here. Okay.... I'll go real slow.... Larry referred to his pistol as a ".357" You (Steve) assumed he meant .357Magnum, and went off on a tirade about that cartridge Larry said he wasn't talking about a .357 Magnum, rather a .357SIG You (Steve) blew a cork over the fact that he wasn't specific, and just used a general ".357" description Later, you (Steve) made a reference to your '.22' rifle I (Tom) pointed out that you (Steve) just did the same thing you blasted Larry for doing (referring to a cartridge in generalities, where one could just as easily assume one caliber over another) You (Steve) are now trying to spin something else out of this. Me (Tom), him (Ed), and I assume him (Larry), are all laughing at your lack of consistency, and blatant hipocrasy. You (Steve) will now reply with something inane, and I (Tom) will ignore it. > Me (Tom), him (Ed), and I assume him (Larry), are all laughing at your > lack of consistency, and blatant hipocrasy. And how. >> And this applies to .22 cal. and not .357, right? Just trying to follow >> the logic here. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Me (Tom), him (Ed), and I assume him (Larry), are all laughing at your > lack of consistency, and blatant hipocrasy. Add ole Denny onto that list. I didn't realize what I was missing over the last few days. This is good stuff... Denny > Me (Tom), him (Ed), and I assume him (Larry), are all laughing at your > lack of consistency, and blatant hipocrasy. Here Here. Something that I have still yet to figure out even after going back and reading everything again, is this. Why did you (Steve) find it necessary to come in to the conversation and flat out blatantly attack me? If you were confused, if you were unsure, if you simply wanted a little more clarification about it all, why didn't you just ASK? > Here Here. > Something that I have still yet to figure out even after going back and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if you simply wanted a little more clarification about it all, why didn't > you just ASK? That's what bothered me too. It was as if he (Steve) was striking back at all the kids who picked on him (Steve) back in school. I hope he (Steve) is not the next one to "go out in a blaze of glory" like the maniac did which started this thread (not Beekeep). >> accurately know. I'm 58, and my grandfather gave me a .22 rifle when I >> was 8. I've been shooting since then. > > Really? That's a pretty generic-sounding cartridge, there, Steve. ".22", > huh? Well, what is it? .22LR? .22Magnum? .22-250? you forgot the old .22 automatic (yes its a round my grandmother has a .22 auto rifle) Signature____________________________________________ Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD > you forgot the old .22 automatic (yes its a round my grandmother has a .22 > auto rifle) I left out a bunch of older .22's.... .22 short, .22CB, .22CB short, .22CB long, .22 Hornet.... it's easy to lose track. Are you referring to the .22 Winchester Automatic, used in the Winchester 1903? >> you forgot the old .22 automatic (yes its a round my grandmother has a >> .22 auto rifle) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are you referring to the .22 Winchester Automatic, used in the Winchester > 1903? yes i believe her rifle is a Winchester. i only mentioned it because i knew of the round, its rather old and difficult to find replacement ammunition for it. (not something you just walk into the local gun shop and ask for anymore) its been quite a few years since i even layed eyes on the old rifle for that very reason. its stored away for its own safety. Signature____________________________________________ Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD its been quite a few years since i even layed eyes on > the old rifle for that very reason. its stored away for its own safety. Careful, or you'll be accused of not even owning said gun because you haven't seen it in a while. People who own only one guy, and who play with it every evening just before bedtime don't understand the concept of safe storage, handprints on bluing, and treating valuable items with respect. The gun industry did go through quite a lot of experimental .22 caliber shells before they arrived at the standard rounds used today. I believe they were making them proprietary so that they would also make money on the ammunition sales, too. An interesting article on the history of the .22 cal. bullet: http://www.chuckhawks.com/history_rimfire_ammo.htm Steve > >People who own only one guy, and who play with it every evening just > before bedtime don't understand the concept It would seem that "theguy" was correct. It appears some serious bonding took place at the rest area. They have taken it to the point of ownership, pretty kinky imo. <GBMFG> >it would be a help to you if you knew what you were talking >> about. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Steve steve, i have never once commented on your .357 v. 357 sig v 357 magnum bull sh.t. my comments concerned your stupid and innane remarks regarding the ballistic properties of the 357 whatever. certainly anyone at your advanced stage of life can follow a thread? as for owning so many guns.......first i doubt it. don't count the mattels, air guns, and b-b guns please. never the less, if the number of guns that you own somehow related to your intellectual level, then the us govt would be brilliant. they are not and it does not. > as for owning so many guns.......first i doubt it. No sh.t. I really don't know how many guns I own. So, think what you will. I really don't give a sh.t. Steve >> as for owning so many guns.......first i doubt it. > >No sh.t. I really don't know how many guns I own. >So, think what you will. I really don't give a sh.t. > >Steve you don't really give a sh.t? and is that why you took the time to answer me?..........the time to get pissed off about it? you may indeed be right however steve. i am not sure that you have the mental capacity to count beyone one or two. and finally steve.......thank you.......i will think what i will. > You are correct. There are no clips made for revolvers. Guess you've never heard of moon clips, then, huh? >> You are correct. There are no clips made for revolvers. > > Guess you've never heard of moon clips, then, huh? That would be no. Please explain, as I am always interested in buying something more for my guns. :-) Steve >>> You are correct. There are no clips made for revolvers. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve Googled them, and a friend had one for a .45 cal. revolver he had. Funny, but the one I saw had six .357 MAGNUM rounds in it. Wonder if they make it for the plain .357 rounds, too. Steve I had a thought while laying in bed this evening. Why don't colleges teach ancient technology courses? Such things as throwing sticks, slings, and sling shots could be taught. One frat rat with a sling shot and some 1/2" steel ball bearings could have put a hurt on that guy, and a half dozen could have killed him. Oh, but wait. That wouldn't be PC. Unless, of course, they taught it in conjunction with ethnic diversity or some such nonsense that would link it to some minority group. But then, that's entirely possible, as sling shots have been historically linked to downtrodden minority kids, haven't they. I think I'm on to something. And a Wrist Rocket or equivalent with ball bearings makes one nasty weapon. Even one made out of a tree fork and strips of inner tubes works pretty good. Steve >I had a thought while laying in bed this evening. Why don't colleges teach >ancient technology courses? Such things as throwing sticks, slings, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I think I'm on to something. i just think you are on something. >And a Wrist Rocket or equivalent with ball bearings makes one nasty weapon. >Even one made out of a tree fork and strips of inner tubes works pretty >good. > >Steve > I had a thought while laying in bed this evening. Why don't colleges teach > ancient technology courses? Such things as throwing sticks, slings, and > sling shots could be taught. > > One frat rat with a sling shot and some 1/2" steel ball bearings could have > put a hurt on that guy, and a half dozen could have killed him. How many people carry sling shots with 1/2" steel ball bearings around at school? >> I had a thought while laying in bed this evening. Why don't colleges >> teach ancient technology courses? Such things as throwing sticks, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How many people carry sling shots with 1/2" steel ball bearings around at > school? All they needed was one. Steve > All they needed was one. I dont think it's a good idea to allow students to have weapons on campus. However, I do think the security guards and some trained staff should. The guards at VT were unarmed from what I've heard. >> I had a thought while laying in bed this evening. Why don't colleges >> teach ancient technology courses? Such things as throwing sticks, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How many people carry sling shots with 1/2" steel ball bearings around at > school? I'd use 3/8" ball bearings. Higher velocity and you can carry more of them for the same total weight. ;+)> > I'd use 3/8" ball bearings. Higher velocity and you can carry more of > them for the same total weight. ;+)> A friend of mine used to own a used car lot. Sometimes, they would have some undesirables congregate in the back alley. He would launch some 3/8" nuts sith a Wrist Rocket down through the alley at head height plus a couple of feet. It didn't take long for the alley to be clear of everything but tomcats. He zinged one over my head once, and it sounds just like a ricocheting bullet. Steve >> I'd use 3/8" ball bearings. Higher velocity and you can carry more of >> them for the same total weight. ;+)> > >A friend of mine used to own a used car lot. somehow steve that does not surprise me. did you work for him? just guessing. >Sometimes, they would have >some undesirables congregate in the back alley. like when you came to work and parked out back steve? > He would launch some 3/8" >nuts that had to f.cking hurt man. > sith a Wrist Rocket down through the alley at head height plus a couple >of feet. It didn't take long for the alley to be clear of everything but >tomcats. He zinged one over my head once, and it sounds just like a >ricocheting bullet. wow. i bet you were really scared. was that your combat experience steve? man, you are a stud. >Steve >>> I'd use 3/8" ball bearings. Higher velocity and you can carry more of >>> them for the same total weight. ;+)> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >>Steve Google Pleiku, Khe Sahn and An Khe. You can Google, right? >>>> I'd use 3/8" ball bearings. Higher velocity and you can carry more of >>>> them for the same total weight. ;+)> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >You can Google, right? as i said stevie boy, you are a hoot. > tomcats. He zinged one over my head once, and it sounds just like a > ricocheting bullet. Darwin must have been on a coffee break.... >> tomcats. He zinged one over my head once, and it sounds just like a >> ricocheting bullet. > > Darwin must have been on a coffee break.... Murphy wont be napping long. Signature____________________________________________ Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD > I'd use 3/8" ball bearings. Higher velocity and you can carry more of > them for the same total weight. ;+)> I'd go with a set of 30 weight ball bearings, myself. It's all ball bearings nowadays. :^) > How many people carry sling shots with 1/2" steel ball bearings around > at school? No one here in NJ.... they (slingshots) are illegal. And no, I'm not kidding... >> How many people carry sling shots with 1/2" steel ball bearings around >> at school? > > No one here in NJ.... they (slingshots) are illegal. > > And no, I'm not kidding... what????????????? you gotta be!!!! heck we broke a many windows as kids here. =) Signature____________________________________________ Chris 05 CTD 06 Liberty CRD > what????????????? you gotta be!!!! Nope... 2C:39-1r defines "Weapons", and includes "slingshots", and 2C:39-5d defines as a 4th degree crime the possession of "other weapons not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have". 2C:39-9d also makes it a 4th degree crime to "manufacture, transport, ship, sell, or dispose of a weapon, including [...] slingshots" 4th degree crimes can carry sentences of 1-3 years. >> what????????????? you gotta be!!!! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 4th degree crimes can carry sentences of 1-3 years. I'd just heard on the radio this week where NJ has a law on the books that states it is illegal for [commercial] fishermen to do any knitting during the fishing season. Not certain where that one comes from but apparently still on the books, probably from colonial times I would presume. SMH Moon clips, that's the name. I couldn't remember it during my earlier post. Once again Tom, thanks. >> You are correct. There are no clips made for revolvers. > > Guess you've never heard of moon clips, then, huh? > I don't have any clue as to why he pulled the .357 caliber out of thin > air, didn't specify Magnum, didn't specify a .357 SIG (which would have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve Hey, I do happen to own a .454 Casull (Taurus Raging Bull). No deficiencies here! ;^) There are a couple of more powerful rounds than the .454 on the market. The .460 S&W and the .500 S&W. The penile impaired have moved on to those. ;^) I find the .454 to be fine for deer hunting and I can use .45 Colt as a less powerful alternative if so desired. Ken > Punkin is exactly the sort who will bolt out of bed firing at that > shadowy "thug", then turn on the light and discover that he's just shot > his own kid. I've read it before. Prove to me that even 1% of the lives lost have been due to the mistaken shooting of a family member rather than an unwanted intruder(s). I want stats, genius, not your over-inflated banter. Craig C. > > Punkin is exactly the sort who will bolt out of bed firing at that > > shadowy "thug", then turn on the light and discover that he's just shot > > his own kid. I've read it before. Yeah, 16 years in the Army and all my years hunting and shooting taught me to just fire "blindly" at noise. First off stupid, my kid has a key and would not be breaking into the house. Secondly he also has a phone and would call vice breaking in, regardless of time. See jack off, my kid has common sense and manners, to bad we can't say the same for you. Craig, I would not waste too much time with this troll. He is only here to strit sh.t up and cause trouble. He has been following me because of the spankings Sno* had been getting and was offended that some one would dare pick on his idol and lover. >> > Punkin is exactly the sort who will bolt out of bed firing at that >> > shadowy "thug", then turn on the light and discover that he's just shot [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >because of the spankings Sno* had been getting and was offended that >some one would dare pick on his idol and lover. i'd have to second larry's comment. beryl is just trying to rile larry up. he just doesn't have the sense to do it very well. i don't think that beryl would know a gun from his a.s. now, if he could kill you with a prissy comment.......well then you would be right to be worried. >>>Do me a favor, and study possible scenarios if at least 1/4 of 50 people >>>had a gun. First off, a percentage will panic, and unload anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > "thug", then turn on the light and discover that he's just shot his own > kid. I've read it before. OK, throuw out real world numbers and substitute a hypothetical response to a hypothetical situation in order to support your prejusticed position. Shee's that's real smart. Are you in Congress? > OK, throuw out real world numbers and substitute a hypothetical response > to a hypothetical situation in order to support your prejusticed position. > Shee's that's real smart. Are you in Congress? Statistics can be found to support nearly any conclusion. Of course, the real world does it backwards, and uses statistics and facts to reach a conclusion. But we're not dealing with that type of people here. Well, I mean there are only a few that are very far off plumb, and everyone knows who they are. Although the people themselves don't have a clue. Steve > Statistics can be found to support nearly any conclusion. Of course, the > real world does it backwards, and uses statistics and facts to reach a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If by "very far of plumb," you mean the maniac who shot 32 innocent victims, 2 years prior to this slaughter was found to be mentally ill and a potential danger to himself, yet nobody did anything about it, and those who were in close contact stopped going to the same classes he was in because they were afraid of him, then I agree with you. However, there were 32 innocent victims of this "very for off plumb" person who had no means to protect themselves and payed the ultimate fate and probably didn't know he was "very far off plumb." There have been several cases in which the courts have found that the police are not required to protect any individual, rather they are responsible for the protection of "society at large." You may reject any statistics you want, but I notice you fail to post anything in support of your argument except silly, baseless rhetoric. One must use logic to reach policy decisions. Anecdotes do not scale beyond the indivual story. I fear the criminal in possesion of a gun. I don't fear the law abiding gun owner, why do you? >> Statistics can be found to support nearly any conclusion. Of course, the >> real world does it backwards, and uses statistics and facts to reach a [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I fear the criminal in possesion of a gun. I don't fear the law abiding > gun owner, why do you? We have crossed wires somewhere. We agree. My statements about statistics and conclusions were meant to say that some people just have their minds made up in a very biased skewed way, then go about finding statistics that support that invalid position. They're mind is made up, don't confuse them with facts. It's done in government and politics all the time. "Normal" people examine the facts and statistics, then reach a conclusion by the weight and content of the statistics and evidence they observe. I wanted to point out that there are some people here who do just that. They have a thoroughly cemented preconceived position, and can and do find information to support themselves rather than hearing anything new. I have been a victim, and had a family member who was a victim of people who were "a little off plumb." The police were contacted, and the best we could get out of them was "if they do kill someone, they will be in a lot of trouble." The two parties were killed about a month later during a home invasion. They broke into a man's house. The man intercepted the intruders, and the daughter ran into a closet. The two intruders beat the man, then threw him in the closet, not knowing the daughter was in there. She untied him. He then killed both of them with a handgun. I have no fear of armed citizens, and wish the whole US was as lenient as Vermont, where any citizen can carry as long as they do so with no criminal intent. By reciprocity, at last tally, I am licensed to carry a concealed firearm in 39 states, being mainly licensed in Nevada, Utah, and Florida. I firmly believe in the idea of "More Guns, Less Crime" authored by John Lott. There have been MANY (caps intentional) situations in my city of 1.5 million where innocent lives could have been saved by citizens carrying guns. I do not know if it would have made a difference in this last situation, but I do have to believe that any resistance would have been better than what happened there. And all the water, tears, and debate in the world will not wash away the blood of these victims from the liberal anti-gunners who think all we need to do to solve these situations are to ban guns and love people more. Or throw more tax dollars at the whole mess. Why do people do these things? Because they know they will meet with no resistance because liberalism has neutered the American public. Steve In light of this post I appoligize for everything I said earlier in this thread, with the exception of anything that followed "Clueless short dicked eggheads." I still think you're a horse's a.s, but I no longer think you are an idiot. >>> Statistics can be found to support nearly any conclusion. Of course, >>> the real world does it backwards, and uses statistics and facts to reach [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Steve >In light of this post I appoligize for everything I said earlier in this >thread, with the exception of anything that followed "Clueless short dicked >eggheads." I still think you're a horse's a.s, but I no longer think you >are an idiot. well.......thats something for him anyway. >>>> Statistics can be found to support nearly any conclusion. Of course, >>>> the real world does it backwards, and uses statistics and facts to reach [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >> >> Steve >>> Statistics can be found to support nearly any conclusion. Of course, the >>> real world does it backwards, and uses statistics and facts to reach a [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > >Steve actually, i agree with most of what you said. the last part we disagree on, but for the most part i think you are right. as for why people do these things, it isn't because they think they will meet no resistance. they usually don't think it through that far. and other times, in fact in a substantial number of these cases, they think that they will meet resistance and will die. they can't kill themsleves so they have some one else do it. the real reason that they do it is that they are crazy though. they don't think like the rest of us do. they don't use logic. they are just f.cked up people. having armed citizens isn't as much a preventativve measure as it is simply a defensive one. > A trained police officer at a range of 10 feet with a handgun in a > firefight will hit the intended target an average of 2-3 times per 10 > shots. the typical police successful hit rate is 26%. the typical CCW successful hit rate is over 70%. for whatever reason, those are the FACTS. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com I remember the shootings at Texas from the clock tower but IIRC they didn't involve a hand gun and hand guns would have been useless unless you were Frank Cannon. Sub 22 year olds is what our goverment preferrs to give weapons too to fight our wars. beekeep >No flaming, but respectful disagreement. >You couldn't be much older than me, if at all. I went to University of [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> >> beekeep Now picture a scenario where a gunman comes into a class, and opens fire. > Then if 1/4 of the class of sub 22 year olds are packing, take out there > firearms, then chaos and bullets fly everywhere; and if the gunmen actually > does get hit, so do alot of other unarmed bystanders. Also, the gunman > would change his tactics with respect to everyone packing; and the > bodycount is the same, if not higher. I've come to believe "everyone packing" would have a calming effect on society in the longer run, perhaps after an initial bloodbath where it takes criminal and emotionally unstable types to get the message that they don't necessarily "outgun" the people around them, and caution in behavior is required. Eventually, because there are so many more good people to whackos, the whackos get ground down to non-existence, or learn to keep a lid on their behavior lest very bad things happen to them. > How about finding a way to keep people from popping a circuit, and > recognizes signs of someone about to do something like this, instead of > debating the gun issue? One must wonder how one can do this, especially in an environment where ones' individual rights are not to be violated in any way before there is reason; i.e. before someone actually does something bad. I think it would be easier to impress upon the unstable/criminal that there really are personal costs to be paid if one doesn't maintain a cork or their social behavior. With everyone packing a gun, I'll bet civil discourse would improve dramatically over a long run! SMH > Keep in mind that I am one of this places elders. I can remember back > when I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > beekeep The whole US should be like Vermont. In Vermont, any citizen can carry a concealed firearm so long as they are not carrying it with illegal intent. A gun is like a calculator. It just sits there until you need it. There were about forty people directly involved with the shooter. Perhaps that many or MORE who were close enough to hit him with a baseball. Out of that amount of people (I'd say at least 100), if someone had a gun, the day might have ended differently. Steve > Flame away. anyone flaming you for this is an idiot. one studen legally carrying could have prevented this entire tragedy. i can assure you that EVERY student cowering helplessly under a desk completely at the mercy of the bad guy would have supported legal carry in their school. when you gather large groups of people and ensure they are unarmed they are no more better off than sheep. where sheep gather, wolves follow. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Flame away. > > anyone flaming you for this is an idiot. one studen legally carrying > could have prevented this entire tragedy. i can assure you that EVERY > student cowering helplessly under a desk completely at the mercy of the > bad guy would have supported legal carry in their school. Nate, I've had a ccw for several years and can't argue against carrying but remember how much you drank when in college?? I do and sure wouldn't think it'd be a good idea to have a bunch of hung-over kids walking around armed. Way too many hormones and alcohol involved there. That being said, I wouldn't want to trust my life to a bunch of unarmed security idiots either. > when you gather large groups of people and ensure they are unarmed they > are no more better off than sheep. where sheep gather, wolves follow. That's what varmit rifles were made for... Denny > Nate, I've had a ccw for several years and can't argue against carrying > but remember how much you drank when in college?? you just cant punish everyone by taking away their RIGHTS for fear what some might do. im certain there were many anti-gun liberals who died that day.....and in the final moments of their lives i can dang well bet they wished they had a gun. you cannot depend upon the police, security guards, or the good graces of the bad guys to ensure your safety. personal security is a personal responsibility and when you deny someone the right to defend themselves you subject them to the will of others.....as this horrible incident clearly shows. > I do and sure wouldn't think it'd be a good idea to have a bunch of > hung-over kids walking around armed. ....all it would have taken was one responsible gun owner who was properly trained in how to use it. when the bad guy is the only one that is armed he has ALL the power, and everyone around him is subject to his will. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Nate, I've had a ccw for several years and can't argue against carrying >> but remember how much you drank when in college?? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the right to defend themselves you subject them to the will of > others.....as this horrible incident clearly shows. Nate, trust me, I'm on your side on this. Somebody takes away my right to own a weapon and I'm not gonna be a happy camper. I just don't think we'll ever see concealed carry allowed on any campus just for the above reason. My co-workers and me get into a discussion from time to time. A number of them run the local dirt track on Friday nights and they're always talking about somebody getting into a fight in the pits. And the constant badmouthing of the other drivers. Compare that to my competative shooting where there is an unreal amount of politeness amonst the shooters. I wonder if it has anything to do with a .45 on the hip....even tho it's unloaded.. Denny >>> Nate, I've had a ccw for several years and can't argue against carrying >>> but remember how much you drank when in college?? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > about somebody getting into a fight in the pits. And the constant > badmouthing of the other drivers. Pal, fights in the pit's are a tradition at just about every small track on Fri and Sat nights. The guns are in the haulers. Hell, at Thompson in CT when Spencer was running modifieds, heaven help the other guy who spun Jimmy. His entire pit crew was on him. Hell his pit crew was his family and were some tough people. >Compare that to my competative shooting > where there is an unreal amount of politeness amonst the shooters. I > wonder if it has anything to do with a .45 on the hip....even tho it's > unloaded.. Rules, you have rules, that are enforced at the range. Racin' the first rule is there are no rules. It's all who your sponser is. Roy > Denny > Nate, trust me, I'm on your side on this. no doubt, sir. > I wonder if it has anything to do with a .45 on the hip....even tho it's > unloaded.. i think its a different mind-set entirely. carry brings a keen sense of responsibility and awareness. you just cant afford to be "stupid" when you carry. in fact, you have an obligation to avoid senseless trouble when you carry. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >>> Flame away. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Way too many hormones and alcohol involved there. That being said, I >wouldn't want to trust my life to a bunch of unarmed security idiots either. Not everyone on a college campus is in the 19-25 year old range. beekeep >>Flame away. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when you gather large groups of people and ensure they are unarmed they are > no more better off than sheep. where sheep gather, wolves follow. You're suggesting an ideal scenario where _one_ responsible person with a gun can do everything right. Probably every gun enthusiast fantasizes that he could have been Virginia Tech's hero. I think that your 25,000 gun-carrying "sheep" on the VT campus might be a poor solution. Your 'sheep & wolves' analogy isn't realistic, real wolves don't look like sheep, and they don't wear sheep's clothing. The VT gunman looked like anybody else would holding a gun, so the final outcome may have been based on who had the itchiest trigger finger and who shot at who first. Students could have continued shooting each other across the campus after the original gunman was already dead. If just 100 armed and excitable azwileys saw each other pointing guns, that's 99 dead right there. Did you miss it? azwiley1 has let us know that it simply isn't his responsibility to determine beforehand whether shooting someone is justified. It's the state's duty to prove, after the shooting, that it wasn't. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni >>>Flame away. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > justified. It's the state's duty to prove, after the shooting, that it > wasn't. Man, you just gotta keep the bs going don't ya. > >>Flame away. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > justified. It's the state's duty to prove, after the shooting, that it > wasn't. Man you are dumber then a box of rocks and you're too damn stupid to just STFU at times, even when one of your "partners in crime" says let it rest. Also, if you are going to try and quote something that I or anyone said, get it right a.shole. I did not say or imply that I didn't have to prove anything, I stated as it is the fact of law here that the DEFENCE/DEFENSE does not have to prove that I was justified, that it is up to the state/prosecution to prove that it was UNJUSTIFIED. What don't you understand fucknuts? >> >>Flame away. >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > is up to the state/prosecution to prove that it was UNJUSTIFIED. What > don't you understand fucknuts? This is getting very old don't ya think. Comes a time when nobody is able to prove a point. > >> >>Flame away. > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Roy, my reply was not an attempt to prove a point, though I do agree with you on the getting old issue. However, I'm not going to sit here and let some assclown make false statements and claim it is what I said. ... >>Did you miss it? azwiley1 has let us know that it simply isn't his >>responsibility to determine beforehand whether shooting someone is >>justified. It's the state's duty to prove, after the shooting, that it >>wasn't. ... > Also, if you are going to try and quote something that I or anyone > said, get it right a.shole. I did not say or imply that I didn't have > to prove anything, "You're right, it is not up to me to prove "he" was armed and that my life or that of my family was in danger. It is up to the "state pros" to prove that my life and/or that of my families WASN"T." - punkin > I stated as it is the fact of law here that the > DEFENCE/DEFENSE does not have to prove that I was justified, that it > is up to the state/prosecution to prove that it was UNJUSTIFIED. What > don't you understand fucknuts? I understand that you're now babbling about your defense in court, your legal argument. Not your personal defense when you decide to shoot someone. I understand that you don't really give a flip about who you mistakenly shoot, as long as you're off the hook. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni <snip> For those here who are old enough, Fearless Fosdick came to my mind. (from Lil' Abner) Steve > I understand that you're now babbling about your defense in court, your > legal argument. Not your personal defense when you decide to shoot > someone. I understand that you don't really give a flip about who you > mistakenly shoot, as long as you're off the hook. What is it that you do not comprehend? My statement was and I will repeat it for you hard of hearing types once again. I'll even do it in caps for you. (If you are going to try and quote some one get your sh.t right) IF SOME ONE BREAKS INTO MY HOUSE (NOT INVITED IN, NOT SOME ONE I KNOW, NOT MY KID) AND I FEEL THAT THE LIFE OF MY FAMILY OR MY OWN IS IN DANGER, IF HAVE THE JUSTIFIABLE RIGHT TO SHOOT THEM! IT THEN FALLS ON THE STATES PLATE TO PROVE THAT THE SHOOTING WAS UNJUST, NOT FOR THE DEFENSE TO PROVE IT WAS JUST. Now, absolutely no where in ANY post I made in this thread did I EVER say, imply or insinuate that I would "jump out of bed blasting" that is your feeble mind reading into what you want to see instead of what is there. The accusation to this effect came from you (or maybe it was Steve B not sure) but it damn sure as hell did not come from me. Ahh hell you're a f.cking retard anyway, you won't read what is actually there in front of you, so who cares. The > accusation to this effect came from you (or maybe it was Steve B not sure) > but it damn sure as hell did not come from me. All I have said, and will continue to say is that shooting someone is not as simple scenario as you project it to be. It's not always written in stone, and any slimy lawyer who's worth his Evian water knows ten different ways to come at you. OR will come up with some new tactic. And even if you do win the case, your lawyer gets his $400 per hour, and good luck getting that back from the perp in small claims court. Steve > The >> accusation to this effect came from you (or maybe it was Steve B not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And even if you do win the case, your lawyer gets his $400 per hour, and > good luck getting that back from the perp in small claims court. Understood, and I believe you understand what I was saying. That being said, I will end this as I don't have any desire to enter into another pissing contest with you over this. > I think that your 25,000 gun-carrying "sheep" on the VT campus might be a > poor solution. i have _never_ stated, suggested, or implied in ANY way that every student should be armed. what ive stated is that you cannot deny that right to those who wish to exercise it. > Students could have continued shooting each other across the campus after > the original gunman was already dead. give me _any_ statistical data to substantiate that this is in any way a probability. your statement sir, is without merit. you do however bring up a valid point. without knowing who the gunman is it can be quite difficult to distinguish between the good guys and the bad. this is where proper training comes into effect. if you follow your training you minimize the possibility of shooting the wrong guy. yes, it happens....but given the choice of facing a trained, armed good guy verses being unarmed and completely at the mercy of an armed bad guy, ill take my chances on the good guy. SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >>I think that your 25,000 gun-carrying "sheep" on the VT campus might be a >>poor solution. > > i have _never_ stated, suggested, or implied in ANY way that every student > should be armed. what ive stated is that you cannot deny that right to > those who wish to exercise it. I can't deny the right to wear body armor to those who wish to exercise it. >>Students could have continued shooting each other across the campus after >>the original gunman was already dead. > > give me _any_ statistical data to substantiate that this is in any way a > probability. your statement sir, is without merit. Mass hysteria & panic happens. Merely saying the wrong words in large groups has caused trampling deaths in stampedes. Wasn't there a story about some guy hid out in the forests (Phillipines?) for like 30 years because he never got the word that WWII was over? I think there has to be communications, and a commander to orchestrate things. Imagine how much tougher the police's job would be with thousands of alarmed and armed students running around. Who should they shoot at? > you do however bring up a valid point. without knowing who the gunman is it > can be quite difficult to distinguish between the good guys and the bad. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > being unarmed and completely at the mercy of an armed bad guy, ill take my > chances on the good guy. Maybe it's time for software to control guns, like it does nearly everything else... Gun contains small battery and piezo tweeter that emits a *chirp* every few seconds, like a car alarm. Won't operate without it. Now everyone knows who the wolf is, it's the guy chirping. Also a time delay, so the gun isn't ready for use until it's been actively chirping for 30 minutes. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni > Maybe it's time for software to control guns, like it does nearly > everything else... Yeah thats what I need my gun to do, "bluescreen" at a critical moment. >> Maybe it's time for software to control guns, like it does nearly >> everything else... > >Yeah thats what I need my gun to do, "bluescreen" at a critical moment. gives a new meaning to the blue screen of death. > Yeah thats what I need my gun to do, "bluescreen" at a critical moment. Don't laugh.... my state already has law on the books that says only smart guns can be sold in this state.... just as soon as one is developed. That's right - we actually have a law requiring something that doesn't even exist yet. Oh, of course, LEO's are exempt from the law... as well, I'm sure, are the personal security staff of the elected officials. Hmmm..... >> Yeah thats what I need my gun to do, "bluescreen" at a critical moment. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm sure, are the personal security staff of the elected officials. > Hmmm..... Reminds me of US Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders' comment that we needed "safer bullets." Steve > I can't deny the right to wear body armor to those who wish to exercise > it. no you cant....but where the heck did that come from? > Mass hysteria & panic happens. Merely saying the wrong words in large > groups has caused trampling deaths in stampedes. totally unrelated to what i asked you for. show me ANY statistical data that substantiates your statement as any sense of probability. i dont think any of those who died that day died of being trampled. > Imagine how much tougher the police's job would be with thousands of > alarmed and armed students running around. Who should they shoot at? you mean those same police who didnt respond for how many hours? > Maybe it's time for software to control guns heh. :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >> Maybe it's time for software to control guns .....i think ill control my own, thanks. http://media.concealedcarryforum.com/practice.wmv :-) SignatureNathan in Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >>I can't deny the right to wear body armor to those who wish to exercise >>it. > > no you cant....but where the heck did that come from? The armor is purely defensive. I'm not at increased risk if the class clowns sitting behind me wear it. If they're carrying guns, though, they affect me, and without my consent. Maybe I'd be safer, maybe not, but why should they impose their decision on me? >>Mass hysteria & panic happens. Merely saying the wrong words in large >>groups has caused trampling deaths in stampedes. > > totally unrelated to what i asked you for. show me ANY statistical data > that substantiates your statement as any sense of probability. i dont think > any of those who died that day died of being trampled. It isn't totally unrelated. It's an example of people following the reactions of others around them. Rather than hunt for statistics, I'll just agree that it's improbable. Improbable things will happen. >>Imagine how much tougher the police's job would be with thousands of >>alarmed and armed students running around. Who should they shoot at? > > you mean those same police who didnt respond for how many hours? I mean every campus police officer. >>Maybe it's time for software to control guns > > heh. :-) Cho Seung Hui's gun would have been just as likely to BSOD as anyone else's. Perhaps with RFID chips in them, guns could be scanned for their identity and remotely turned off. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni > clowns sitting behind me wear it. If they're carrying guns, though, they > affect me, and without my consent. Your consent? Your consent isn't needed for someone to avail themselves of their rights. Unless you're from one of the few states that refuses to recognize these rights, you've been in close proximity to more people than you know with a concealed weapon - and none of them needed your "consent" to do so. >>clowns sitting behind me wear it. If they're carrying guns, though, they >>affect me, and without my consent. > > Your consent? Your consent isn't needed for someone to avail themselves of > their rights. Then the VT gunman, who purchased his gun legally, was exercising his right to bring his gun on campus. Got it. > Unless you're from one of the few states that refuses to > recognize these rights, you've been in close proximity to more people than > you know with a concealed weapon - and none of them needed your "consent" to > do so. Rights granted by states, and the U.S. Constitution, are two different animals. Unless the Constitution says otherwise, I guess your redneck state gov't can do whatever it wants. I live in a blue state. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni > Then the VT gunman, who purchased his gun legally, was exercising his > right to bring his gun on campus. Got it. Yes, his purchase was legal. His concealed carry of same was NOT legal, as he did not possess a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit. > Rights granted by states, and the U.S. Constitution, are two different > animals. Correct. States should not be allowed to deprive citizens of rights guaranteed them by the USC. Most states recognize this basic concept. Sadly, a few do not. > Unless the Constitution says otherwise, I guess your redneck state gov't > can do whatever it wants. My redneck state.... now that's funny. You are aware that I live in New Jersey (as I've posted here in this thread numerous times).... a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and some of the highest murder rates per capita of that same country (I know, I can't figure it out either)? > I live in a blue state. Which one? >>I live in a blue state. > > Which one? Kalifornia SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni > Kalifornia Plenty of counties in your state issue CCW permits. Do the county sheriff's call you for each one to get your "consent"? When I was looking into a permit several years ago I found that plenty of counties do, but you need to get a permit from each incorporated city in the county through which you plan to carry, even if you're driving through on the interstate. The only way to legally transport a gun in California without a permit is unloaded, in a locked case, not within reach of any of the vehicles occupants and the ammunition not within the same locked case. >> Kalifornia > > Plenty of counties in your state issue CCW permits. Do the county > sheriff's call you for each one to get your "consent"? >> Kalifornia > > Plenty of counties in your state issue CCW permits. Do the county > sheriff's call you for each one to get your "consent"? I live in Las Vegas. It is a big megalopolis now, with cities that border on each other. I am a permitee in Nevada, Utah, and Florida. That allows me to carry in about 39 states. However, even here where I live, the laws are different in North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Boulder City. Every one has its own laws regarding concealed carry, and they supercede the state law and the regulations under which the local LVMPD issued the permit. So, at times even if you are permitted, you can be in violation of lots of local laws as you drive from town to town and county to county. It is impossible to know all the laws of all the places you go to at times, such as traveling. Steve >>> Kalifornia >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Steve that is not a good idea at all. in my state, a local jursdiction can give you more rights than state law, but can not restrict you more than state law. i was in parhump nevada a year or two ago for a bit. it seemed that anyone could pretty much do whatever they wanted to there with guns. i loved the guy running for sheriff that drove around town with two cowboy guns on his hips. i did love the country too. we only had to drive about a mile to find a safe place to shoot. wide open country. very pretty. spent some time in north las vegas when i was training out on the nevada test site. north las vegas just didn't appeal to me. my trips into las vegas also left me unimpressed. my wife liked it because she loves to shop and obviously they have a lot of places to do that. she also liked the local architecture. but for me, vegas was a bust. i have to admit, i liked parhump. very isolated. i was trying to think of some way to say "tard" in my post, but it just didn't work out, but then i think i just did it anyway. sorry. :) > So, at times even if you are permitted, you can be in violation of lots of > local laws as you drive from town to town and county to county. It is > impossible to know all the laws of all the places you go to at times, such > as traveling. Actually Steve, it is not "impossible" though I will admit it is pretty damn hard. I had a link to a website that gave ALL the states laws on hand gun carry. I found it because of the very reason you cited, travel. I used to drive from AZ to NY annually and wanted to be able to have the pistol with me, but found that once I crossed into NY, I was screwed as if you don't have a permit, you can not even transport. I would be happy to find that site for you if you like. > Actually Steve, it is not "impossible" though I will admit it is pretty damn > hard. I had a link to a website that gave ALL the states laws on hand gun [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have a permit, you can not even transport. I would be happy to find that > site for you if you like. I think if one doesn't know the laws of the area they're traveling then they shouldn't travel there, or pack differently. Theres always a few people that fail to do a little research and take their guns to Mexico for instance. Bad mistake if you get caught! >> Actually Steve, it is not "impossible" though I will admit it is pretty >> damn hard. I had a link to a website that gave ALL the states laws on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > people that fail to do a little research and take their guns to Mexico for > instance. Bad mistake if you get caught! Man I would rather take it to NY with me and advertise that I have it then go into Mx with even one live round in the vehicle (no weapon) and be caught. > Man I would rather take it to NY with me and advertise that I have it then > go into Mx with even one live round in the vehicle (no weapon) and be > caught. I believe you can take a gun to Mexico if you plan to hunt but have to file for a permit, inspection etc. When I have traveled through Mexico I have been stopped at remote roadblocks and asked if I had weapons etc. From what I understand the locals there love these roadblocks around their cities as they did cut violent crimes. Rough way to cut it though. I've never had trouble at these roadblocks and traveled through with ease but they are intimidating, mostly rifle toting military guys. Strange place but I have to travel there as my folks retired in Mexico. >> Actually Steve, it is not "impossible" though I will admit it is pretty >> damn hard. I had a link to a website that gave ALL the states laws on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> if you don't have a permit, you can not even transport. I would be happy >> to find that site for you if you like. Laws change daily, and state laws do not reflect county or municipal laws. I believe it would be impossible to compile the rules because by the time you're done, they've changed. > I think if one doesn't know the laws of the area they're traveling then > they shouldn't travel there, or pack differently. Theres always a few > people that fail to do a little research and take their guns to Mexico for > instance. Bad mistake if you get caught! So, if you take off on a trip in your motorhome, you should know in advance the laws in every city, town, county, and state you're going to be in? No one has that much brain space. Steve > >> Actually Steve, it is not "impossible" though I will admit it is pretty > >> damn hard. I had a link to a website that gave ALL the states laws on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I believe it would be impossible to compile the rules because by the time > you're done, they've changed. The statement about state laws not reflecting county laws is not an accurate statement Steve. As I am pretty familiar with the laws there, NY for example, the permits are issued via the individual counties, Niagra or Erie let's say. Though the permit is issued by say Erie, it is accepted and valid for the entire state as it's a New York State permit. Now, I do understand what you are saying and do agree, but I feel it is rather a blanket statement. > > I think if one doesn't know the laws of the area they're traveling then > > they shouldn't travel there, or pack differently. Theres always a few [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the laws in every city, town, county, and state you're going to be in? No > one has that much brain space. Sure they do Steve, if they know how to use the internet. Just as Tom L. posted two links there are likely 100's more out there with more (or less) info. It doesn't take much time to find the info in your planning stages, IF you want too. >> >> Actually Steve, it is not "impossible" though I will admit it is >> >> pretty [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > (or less) info. It doesn't take much time to find the info in your > planning stages, IF you want too. The only thing certain is that every state, county, and municipality has the right to set its own laws. And then, within that, private properties, such as businesses, have the right to set theirs, too. It's a vast conglomeration of rules and laws, and something that even those who do it full time, such as nra.org and packing.org can't keep up to date information on. They have disclaimers on their sites that say the information may not be correct or in force at the time the article was posted. As you have said, the best thing is to know ahead of time when that is possible to do. Certainly, if I was to be going out of the US, I would not be so stupid as not to investigate the laws first. However, even inside the US, it is a good idea to know first, and a lot of that information can be gotten in advance. And in those areas where one is in doubt, there's the old separate the gun and ammo idea. Rules in a lot of states seem to favor the idea that RVs are mobile houses, and that the homeowners have the right of self protection as if they were in a stationary house. Some states have now extended that idea towards motor vehicles provided certain requirements are met .... like registration, CCF permit ....... and certain things that pertain to that particular jurisdiction. It's a big jumble of rules. And making suppositions and assumptions can cost you a lot if you're wrong. Steve >>>>Actually Steve, it is not "impossible" though I will admit it is pretty >>>>damn hard. I had a link to a website that gave ALL the states laws on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > say Erie, it is accepted and valid for the entire state as it's a New > York State permit. You got it backwards. State laws often reflect County laws, but only because *County laws always reflect State laws*. They have to! A county can't permit something that the state forbids. It can forbid something that the state permits, but it can't forbid something that the state guarantees. And a county or state can't forbid something that the federal gov't guarantees. Authority flows from Federal->State->County in that order. And I don't exactly see the toothless 2nd Amendment guaranteeing freedom to carry guns in every county, do you? SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni > Laws change daily, and state laws do not reflect county or municipal laws. > I believe it would be impossible to compile the rules because by the time > you're done, they've changed. Oh yeah, forgot though the statement about changing laws is at least partially correct, I seriously doubt that laws concerning carrying a hand gun change anywhere near that often. > So, if you take off on a trip in your motorhome, you should know in advance > the laws in every city, town, county, and state you're going to be in? No > one has that much brain space. If you are going to pack a gun then yes, you should know the laws regarding guns in vehicles in the states you are traveling through. >> So, if you take off on a trip in your motorhome, you should know in >> advance the laws in every city, town, county, and state you're going to >> be in? No one has that much brain space. > > If you are going to pack a gun then yes, you should know the laws > regarding guns in vehicles in the states you are traveling through. Okay. Do this. Take a 3,000 mile trip. Plan all that out in advance, researching each town, county, and state you will go through. Let us know how long it takes to get ready for the trip. Steve > Okay. Do this. Take a 3,000 mile trip. Plan all that out in advance, > researching each town, county, and state you will go through. Let us know > how long it takes to get ready for the trip. Been there done that. Not very difficult to find out what the strictest laws are for a given state. Thats all you need to know. If you can't figure it out then leave the gun at home. Ignorance isn't the solution. >>> So, if you take off on a trip in your motorhome, you should know in >>> advance the laws in every city, town, county, and state you're going to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > researching each town, county, and state you will go through. Let us know > how long it takes to get ready for the trip. Steve, I guess you never read anything I have posted. I used to drive from AZ to NY once a year. Total trip distance was 2283 miles (close enough for you) and I did exactly what you are asking to be done. How long it took me, about a day to pack and about two days to find out the "general" state law for each of the states I drove through. I'm not sure why you seem to have such a problem with it. > Steve, I guess you never read anything I have posted. I used to drive from > AZ to NY once a year. Total trip distance was 2283 miles (close enough for > you) and I did exactly what you are asking to be done. How long it took me, > about a day to pack and about two days to find out the "general" state law > for each of the states I drove through. I'm not sure why you seem to have > such a problem with it. It's really not that difficult. If you keep your gun unloaded, locked up (not loose in the vehicle) and a trigger lock you'll be within the majority of state laws. > It's really not that difficult. If you keep your gun unloaded, locked up > (not loose in the vehicle) and a trigger lock you'll be within the > majority of state laws. And attitude is 99.9% of it, too. Having the gun inoperable and inaccessible, and telling the officer about it within 30 seconds of the time he stops you speaks a lot for you. Trying to sit there and argue the law in the state you're from versus the town you're in is a recipe for disaster. But then, carrying an inoperable inaccessible defensive weapon is kind of an oxymoron, too. Steve > But then, carrying an inoperable inaccessible defensive weapon is kind of an > oxymoron, too. Thats the law in many states. >>>> So, if you take off on a trip in your motorhome, you should know in >>>> advance the laws in every city, town, county, and state you're going to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "general" state law for each of the states I drove through. I'm not sure > why you seem to have such a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it. I'm sure that you're sure about the laws in the areas that you have traveled to. The United States is a very large place. Laws vary immensely from place to place. In my own tip of Southern Nevada, there are four different sets of laws in the same metropolitan area, and that is within only one state and one county. To suggest that all laws in every state, county, municipality and unincorporated area of the United States can be monitored, recorded, updated, and kept up with, by any one individual is giving that individual a lot of credit. You found out the "general" law in each state that you drove through. What you don't seem to understand is that, like here in Nevada, you can drive through a town in a state, and that town requires totally different things of even CCF holders. Such as weapon in trunk, bullets in glove box, weapon in locked box, ammunition in separate locked box, etc. I think that if you spent the days it would take to research every little town you went through, or got off to get gas or hamburgers at, that you might find that you were actually in violation of that jurisdiction's gun laws. Knowing the "general" laws of the state does not exempt you from following the laws of the two block street you might be on while dodging off the Interstate for gas. And bubba, those local Barney Fifes are notorious for generating income for their little burgs by snagging city boys who want to tell them all about how the laws are ..... in the city. Our last CCF course was ten hours, up from six for the first, eight for the second. One added section was the changes in the three bordering municipalitiy's laws that affect CCF holders of state permits while in those municipalities. So, you can go to a class, learn the last set of laws, and still get nailed if the laws change before you get to a renewal class and learn the new ones. Multiply that by 25,884,599 and you have an idea of why I say "One size don't fit all" ......... that general state rules don't always apply in all the small towns. That's not my problem, but the thought that I'm trying to convey. Steve > To suggest that all laws in every state, county, municipality and > unincorporated area of the United States can be monitored, recorded, > updated, and kept up with, by any one individual is giving that individual a > lot of credit. You're exageratting the issue way overboard making it far more difficult that reality. You don't need to know every single vehicle gun law in every city, county and state. Only what the strictest is on your travel route. Not that tough to find out for a given state. Furthermore its only an issue if you have a need to only comply with in a bare minimal fashion. > You found out the "general" law in each state that you drove through. What > you don't seem to understand is that, like here in Nevada, you can drive > through a town in a state, and that town requires totally different things > of even CCF holders. Such as weapon in trunk, bullets in glove box, weapon > in locked box, ammunition in separate locked box, etc. Exactly. Go with the strictest state laws and you're fine for your trip. If you it is too tough for you to comply then don't take your gun. > You're exageratting the issue way overboard making it far more difficult > that reality. You don't need to know every single vehicle gun law in > every city, county and state. Only what the strictest is on your travel > route. Not that tough to find out for a given state. Furthermore its > only an issue if you have a need to only comply with in a bare minimal > fashion. I have owned multiple Motorhomes and travel trailers. I converse with a lot of people along the way. I have just heard too many stories from these people who were stopped for a tail light, searched, and either terribly inconvenienced and let go, or terribly inconvenienced and let go lighter by different amounts of cash. I'm not basing my opinions on my own paranoia or personal thoughts. I'm basing it on quite a few stories I was told firsthand by people who lived them. You must be old enough to know that most policemen have it in their minds when they stop you whether or not they're going to check you, cite you, or really give you a going over. And lots of times, it has to do with things like they're having a bad hair day or not getting any or a lot of things other than the actual situation at hand. You can get clear. You can get off. You can get a clear record. Eventually. It just costs you a pretty good chunk of change. Steve > I have just heard too many stories from these > people who were stopped for a tail light, Safety stops is something far more common in the east than the west. There is no vehicle safety inspection here in AZ in order to get license tags for instance. It's a rare day that a cop will pull someone over for bald tires, busted windshield etc. I have heard this is pretty common in the east. >>>>> So, if you take off on a trip in your motorhome, you should know in >>>>> advance the laws in every city, town, county, and state you're going to [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >Steve actually steve, you fit in well on this ng. you'll argue about anything. stick around. > actually steve, you fit in well on this ng. you'll argue about > anything. stick around. Actually, guy, I'm not arguing. I'm just trying to make the point that there are literally millions of laws in lots of small towns all over the US, and none of us have the vast intellect and body of experience to know them all, or to keep current on them no matter how many trips we make to nra.org. Some will argue that they do, but then loose credibility when they can't even spell correctly. <g> Steve > <the...@whatever.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve Here, tell me if this is spelt correctly screw you <g> gee, I thought it was you that said to drop it? > <the...@whatever.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve Actually Steve, again it is not that hard to find the information you say we "can't know" this is the site that I had refered too and if you take the time to read through it, you will see, as example, New York lists the over all state laws and then goes on to list the individual county laws. Now, is this to say that it is 100% complete or 100 accurate, I don't know, but if you were unable to find the info you need on here, I would say there is a problem with your eyes. http://www.packing.org/state/ I knew you would find that site again. Thanks. >> <the...@whatever.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://www.packing.org/state/ You're very welcome Ed. I hope that you and anyone else reading this thread with any interest and had the common sense to actually look at the link will find it useful. Contrary to what one pompous a.s thinks, no where did I ever state that I knew EVERY law in EVERY jurisdiction, I simply stated as did a few others, that his claims of not being able to find the information is pure B.S. Anyone smart enough to read the info on the link would plainly see that the info is broken down by states, and includes everything from what other states permits they honor, to travel requirements, to individual counties (again, which we have been told by Steve couldn't be known) additional laws. Now please feel free to let me know what it is about my writings that you can not understand, as according to one self-righteous, pompous individual, I have an inability in writing, speaking, and communicating effectively. :) >I knew you would find that site again. Thanks. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> http://www.packing.org/state/ > Now, is this to say that it is 100% complete or 100 > accurate, I don't know, but if you were unable to find the info you > need on here, I would say there is a problem with your eyes. Laws, courts, and police officers don't operate on an "I don't know" basis. Even if they're wrong, they'll take some sort of action. They don't accept "I don't know" as an answer either. On the one hand, you say you researched the laws, you traveled the territory, you're certain about these things, yet then on the other hand say, "I don't know". Which is it? Steve >> Now, is this to say that it is 100% complete or 100 >> accurate, I don't know, but if you were unable to find the info you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Which is it? What the hell are you talking about? You obviously have a read and/or comprehension problem (again). My "I don't know" was directed at the site not the laws. You need to read more and jump less Steve, if you did, you have understood what was written. >>> Now, is this to say that it is 100% complete or 100 >>> accurate, I don't know, but if you were unable to find the info you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > not the laws. You need to read more and jump less Steve, if you did, you > have understood what was written. Either that, or you need to be more concise in communicating your ideas. As an example: I just read: You obviously have a read and/or comprehension problem (again). I do not understand what a "read" problem is. Until you can write in a manner that concisely conveys your thoughts, ideas, and positions, there is a small chance that I could continue to misconstrue what you write. It is obvious that you are not going to do that any time soon, so I give up on you. You write as a sixth grader, and I just don't get what it is you are saying. This is just one example of your writing style, and I choose not to participate any longer. Good luck in your life pursuits. Now, say goodbye, Gracie. Steve >>>> Now, is this to say that it is 100% complete or 100 >>>> accurate, I don't know, but if you were unable to find the info you [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > you are saying. This is just one example of your writing style, and I > choose not to participate any longer. First off, I don't ever recall asking you for any help, with anything. So, why you took it upon yourself to try and teach me anything is beyond me. Second off, I see we are back to your double standards. Steve, don't be a f.cking idiot, you knew EXACTLY what I meant, so what I mis-spelt it. I do write in a manner that concisely conveys my thoughts, you are just being a douche bag that tells me and everyone else to drop it, then you continue on whenever it fits your needs. I'm sorry that you are so anal you couldn't even fit a lump of coal up your a.s, but you really need to get the f.ck off your self-righteous horse. You ARE NOT the group spelling teacher, you ARE NOT the groups English teacher, so get over it and yourself. As to you not participating any longer, good! Maybe we will all get a break from your egotistical "I am better then you" smug attitude. Here I was trying to provide you with information that you claim doesn't exist, that you can't find, etc. Here I provide you a link that I know you did not look at, that proves that ANYONE can find more information about CCW laws in ALL the states that you claim could not be done, yet you resort to this sh.t again. You sir are a hypocritical a.s! You can't even accept that I proved you partially wrong about "planning a trip covering 3000 miles" and I did it in a manner of minutes. With all due respect, Steve. One as intelligent as yourself should be able to use the context in which another writes to interpret what the other means. Because you are retired at 58, either you have been lucky, or smart and hard working enough, to amass sufficient wealth to retire at an early age. Personnally, I don't believe in luck, therefore, I assume you are an intelligent, hard worker. You can stick to your argument that because another doesn't always use proper grammar, spelling and punctuation, you don't understand what the other is trying to convey, but I think you realize you have lost the debate based on logic, therefore you rely on the language barrier argument as a means to deny your logic is questionable. Many positions in this tread have merit. Your's, "being ignorant of the law is no excuse for breaking the law," and "the internet is not a sufficient source of information (one which I concur with)" and other's "taking reasonable measures to stay within the intent of the law, even if falling outside of the letter of the law" are examples. It occurs to me that one way to stay within the letter of the law is, prior to travelling through a jurisdiction, call them (I don't know of a jurisdiction which doesn't publish their contact information) and ask what are the current laws, or at least what are the changes to the law as of the last date one knew them to be. Furthermore, your example of being forthright with all law enforcement personnel you encounter makes a lot of sense. I have been stopped for legitimate reasons, ranging from a burned out turn indicator, to speeding in excess of 25 MPH over the limit, to suspected DUI, and more often than not, I get a warning (and sometimes an explaination of the law I was violating) because I was courteous and honest with the cop. I wonder if some the stories others have told you included the whole truth. >>>> Now, is this to say that it is 100% complete or 100 >>>> accurate, I don't know, but if you were unable to find the info you [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Steve > With all due respect, Steve. One as intelligent as yourself should be > able to use the context in which another writes to interpret what the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > violating) because I was courteous and honest with the cop. I wonder if > some the stories others have told you included the whole truth. Think what you will, Mr. H. I am just done with arguing with a twit who can't understand the fact that I don't believe that he knows every law in every burg and small town in the United States. Although he continues to assert that he does. I cannot expect that he can assimilate or absorb the sites and cites, let alone the logic and discussions posted by myself or others if he cannot conduct basic conversational English in a relaxed atmosphere such as this forum. Any time anyone bests him, he launches into a childish profane rant. I need not prove anything about myself to you or anyone else. I've had a rough and tumble life, been on many adventures, made and lost more than one fortune, made some brilliant moves, made some absolutely dumb moves, which brings me to the point I am today. I am retired, live very comfortably, and have enough to do so for the next hundred years at this pace. I spend different seasons in multiple states. As for my forthrightness about my law enforcement experiences, and my truthfulness, again, I have no need to explain anything. Let me just say that I pass very easily through multiple jurisdictions within the nearly two million people I live among because of my qualifications, certifications, commissions, and network associations. Plus, I do live 100% within the law, and that helps a lot. I do not fear being stopped by the authorities, and haven't been stopped in nine years. They either see my vehicular ID and don't stop me, or see my personal ID, and the stop is over with a quick ID check. Or a quick ticket, as was the case nine years ago when I bumped a guy who was riding in my blind spot with my motorhome. The guy sure was pissed that I knew the traffic officer, and that we were joking around while he was writing me a ticket. I guess he wanted the officer to beat me with his nightstick. The officer said to me, "You know I have to scratch you." (write me a ticket), and the guy I hit insisted on an explanation on what that meant. The traffic officer politely explained, then asked the man to go sit in his car. Life is good. How's things in your neck of the woods? > Life is good. > > How's things in your neck of the woods? Good. Thanks for asking. >> actually steve, you fit in well on this ng. you'll argue about >> anything. stick around. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Steve just saying, i enjoy your "discussions" then. > Some will argue that they do, but then loose credibility when they can't > even spell correctly. <g> Or lose even more credibility when they mis-use the word 'loose'? >> Some will argue that they do, but then loose credibility when they can't >> even spell correctly. <g> > > Or lose even more credibility when they mis-use the word 'loose'? Sorry you missed the <g>. Steve > hard. I had a link to a website that gave ALL the states laws on hand gun > carry. http://packing.org http://handgunlaw.us > If just >100 armed and excitable azwileys saw each other pointing guns, that's 99 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >justified. It's the state's duty to prove, after the shooting, that it >wasn't. Nah - he's too busy trying to catch that damn road runner bird! I think ACME makes bullets but I don't think they make guns anyway. beekeep A couple of Beryl snippets > You're suggesting an ideal scenario where _one_ responsible person with > a gun can do everything right. Probably every gun enthusiast fantasizes > that he could have been Virginia Tech's hero. Better than fantasizing the banning guns would end violence. Is saving the lifes of inocent people that far removed from you mind? > Then the VT gunman, who purchased his gun legally, was exercising his > right to bring his gun on campus. Got it. What right? I see post after post of made up sh.t by you. Clearly you're not firing on all cylinders, if any. This Beryl guy lives in lala land. No wonder he came to Snomans defence... Looks like alt.autos.dodge.trucks has a new toy to play with. Try not to break it to fast. <BFG> Heatwiff: > A couple of Beryl snippets > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > defence... Looks like alt.autos.dodge.trucks has a new toy to play with. > Try not to break it to fast. <BFG> That's what thedumbguy was saying about azpunkinmash a month ago. Exactly! "i have this idea that he's gonna be even better now that he has a new toy to play with." - thedumbguy But little punkin never could control his emotions. He's so fragile. thedumbguy never did much, mostly sat on the sidelines making little squeaky sounds. And look at Skippy now, fizzled again. Noboby seemed to have much fun playing. SignatureIn girum imus nocte et consumimur igni |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.