Why GA is Dying

[Travis Marlatte]

I don't have No Trespassing signs in my yard or on my house. However, I
expect everyone - with no exceptions - to recognize that it is not public
property and that is not acceptable to be prowling around. On the other
hand, there are many public places that are off limits. The lack of signs
does not indicate the intent of the owner (private or public).

Airports used to be friendly, inviting places where people did go to just
hang out. It was common for non-pilots to become pilots simply by being
handy for an invitation. For the most part, the terrorists have at least put
a notch in their anti-freedom belt. They have changed our perspective about
what is and what is not acceptable behavior in almost all situations.

On the other hand, I have the freedom to go flying whenever I want. I just
have to ask my significant other first. I am never told no but going without
asking will have dire consequences. Is that true freedom or not?

I can go to any small airport and take all the pictures I want. Out of
respect for the owners and operators, I will make my presence known and give
them the chance to object. The act of asking practically eliminates the
chance that they will refuse. However, to bypass that courtesy will
certainly raise their suspicions. It would have (should have) raised their
suspicions prior to 9/11 but probably not to the level of taking action.
Now, the threshold for action is much lower.

However, in the spirit of freedom, we should approach such situations, as
another poster said, in a friendly way, with the presumption of innocence.
Trust but verify. With a "Howdy! Ya like airplanes?" attitude rather than
"Can I see some ID?"

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> The airport in question most certainly is not private property, and there
> are no signs posted on the field or even notices posted in the FBO
> directing visitors, ramp walkers, or picture takers to check-in, show ID,
> or anything else.
>
> KB
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> And you, in contrast, are just a fountain of facts. Not.
>

At least I don't start insulting people when I run out of ideas. Though
maybe I should...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> >>It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
> >>probably are still living with your parents.
> >
> >
> > You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. ...
>
> I've not posted a single personal attack. Just making some observations
> that are consistent with the posts being made.
>

Ah, so soon after giving out the prize for the dumbest post, you win it back
for yourself...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Much less of a problem than the prior regime which largely ignored
> terrorists and let them get strong and well organized. Almost all of
> the planning and preparation for 9/11 occurred during the Clinton
> regime. Then again, you are too young to remember that.
>

Man, another winner for your own prize. You need to stop that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Anyone who doesn't want to carry a gun is free to do so, the armed
>> citizen will protect you. But the other way around, you don't have a
>> right to tell us that we can't protect ourselves and our families.
>
>
> Hey, I'm *totally* fine with people owning guns. I'd own one myself if
> I hadn't just bought a house, car, and checkout in a Seneca. What I'm
> not ok with is someone *knowing* that I own a gun. That makes me feel
> LESS safe. I don't want to be killed in my house by my own gun. Don't
> get me wrong, I'd use it, but I don't need someone breaking in, finding
> it, and using it on me when I get home. And with cc permit info out
> there for everyone, it would be very easy to find those people.
>
> Because let's face it, it's hard for a woman to conceal a firearm in
> Texas in the summer. It's got to stay in the house.

Woman have more options for concealed carry. Purses and bras can be
very good places, unless the woman is very underendowed. Even then, a
purse is about as good as it gets. Men have a harder time concealing a
handgun as few carry purses and wallets aren't large enough.

I suppose in Texas a hat would be a good choice!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>And you, in contrast, are just a fountain of facts. Not.
>>
>
>
> At least I don't start insulting people when I run out of ideas. Though
> maybe I should...

Yes, that would be an improvement.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>>>It is obvious that you haven't yet learned to think on your own and
>>>>probably are still living with your parents.
>>>
>>>
>>>You've now posted several personal attacks against Emily. ...
>>
>>I've not posted a single personal attack. Just making some observations
>>that are consistent with the posts being made.
>>
>
>
> Ah, so soon after giving out the prize for the dumbest post, you win it back
> for yourself...
>

You obviously haven't seen a personal attack before.

Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Parking lots are not sterile areas and guns are allowed,
> even in the checked baggage on the airlines.

I dunno, we have the signs up in the parking lot and the building saying
cc is not permitted. Yeah, I can leave it unloaded, but what's the
point in that?

This is a large airport, btw, not a GA one. And a very large company.
They're kinda paranoid.

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> You obviously haven't seen a personal attack before.
>

I have. And lame backpedaling, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

They probably offer a burial benefit.



"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Parking lots are not sterile areas and guns are allowed,
| > even in the checked baggage on the airlines.
|
| I dunno, we have the signs up in the parking lot and the
building saying
| cc is not permitted. Yeah, I can leave it unloaded, but
what's the
| point in that?
|
| This is a large airport, btw, not a GA one. And a very
large company.
| They're kinda paranoid.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..

> And still...if I own a gun, I don't want criminals knowing. That makes
> you a target.

That's just silly Emily. Think about it. There are two people you have the
opportunity to rob. You know that person 1 has received training in how to
use a gun and there is a pretty good chance that they are carrying it on
them. Person 2 has not had the training and is probably NOT carrying a
firearm.

Which one would you rob? Add to that I kind of doubt that the criminal
element is going to be heading down to the State Police (or whomever manages
your CCW system) filing FOIA requests. That would sort of leave a paper
trail when peoples handguns started getting stolen.

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>You obviously haven't seen a personal attack before.
>>
>
>
> I have. And lame backpedaling, too.

Pretty thin-skinned then.

Nothing to back pedal from.

Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> They probably offer a burial benefit.

They do. But only if I die overseas.

[Emily[_1_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Emily wrote:
> > Jim Macklin wrote:

> Woman have more options for concealed carry. Purses and bras can be
> very good places, unless the woman is very underendowed. Even then, a
> purse is about as good as it gets. Men have a harder time concealing a
> handgun as few carry purses and wallets aren't large enough.

I'm not sure keeping it in a bra would be very comfortable.

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>Emily wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>
>>Woman have more options for concealed carry. Purses and bras can be
>>very good places, unless the woman is very underendowed. Even then, a
>>purse is about as good as it gets. Men have a harder time concealing a
>>handgun as few carry purses and wallets aren't large enough.
>
>
> I'm not sure keeping it in a bra would be very comfortable.
>

I think they make special holsters for bras and/or special bras with
holsters built in.

Getting mugged isn't always comfortable either. :-)

Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
<snip>
> I think they make special holsters for bras and/or special bras with
> holsters built in.

Great. Now I just *have* to google bra holsters.

> Getting mugged isn't always comfortable either. :-)

I'd imagine not. Fortunately, I don't get out enough to really be at
risk.

Actually...I bought a car a few weeks ago in a not so great part of
town. I would have paid good money for a gun then.

[Jim Macklin]

Do they bury you over there too?



"Emily" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > They probably offer a burial benefit.
|
| They do. But only if I die overseas.
|

[Jim Macklin]

It has been said that Dolly Parton can conceal a 44 Magnum,
but Twiggy had trouble with a 25 auto. Padded bras and
small guns.

The point is, men must buy pants a size bigger, jackets a
little bigger, shirt tails a little longer. Women also have
to make changes to what they wear.

The journalists photo vest, surgical scrubs, it all depends
on whether you want to carry and what the laws require. I
general, a concealed weapon must remain concealed so as not
to terrify the general public. Just how that is done,
depends on your body type and fashion sense.

I saw a well built girl wearing a T-shirt and a pair of bib
overalls, lots of things were concealed.



"Emily" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Matt Whiting wrote:
| > Emily wrote:
| > > Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Woman have more options for concealed carry. Purses and
bras can be
| > very good places, unless the woman is very underendowed.
Even then, a
| > purse is about as good as it gets. Men have a harder
time concealing a
| > handgun as few carry purses and wallets aren't large
enough.
|
| I'm not sure keeping it in a bra would be very
comfortable.
|

[Jim Macklin]

Guns are like fire extinguishers, you rarely need one, but
when you do you need it very much.

It is a good idea to not go somewhere with a gun if the only
reason you feel comfortable going there is because you have
the gun. Cops and soldiers have to go in harm's way.
Private persons do not. The gun is for the time the
predators and wild animals [there have been many people
killed and maimed in Kansas by dogs] come to you at the
market or when you're driving back to your home. A favorite
robbery tactic is to wait in the shadows near a garage door
and sneak in right behind your car. Your gun in the house
does you no good, the gun in your car does. Tip, put yard
lighting so it covers the areas around your garage so no
robber cam hide within 50 feet.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Matt Whiting wrote:
| <snip>
| > I think they make special holsters for bras and/or
special bras with
| > holsters built in.
|
| Great. Now I just *have* to google bra holsters.
|
| > Getting mugged isn't always comfortable either. :-)
|
| I'd imagine not. Fortunately, I don't get out enough to
really be at
| risk.
|
| Actually...I bought a car a few weeks ago in a not so
great part of
| town. I would have paid good money for a gun then.
|

[Jose[_1_]]

> I would have paid good money for a gun then.

How do you get your guns otherwise?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Do they bury you over there too?
>
>
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> |
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > They probably offer a burial benefit.
> |
> | They do. But only if I die overseas.
> |
>
>
Hehehehe.

No, they pay to repatriate the remains.

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Guns are like fire extinguishers, you rarely need one, but
> when you do you need it very much.
>
> It is a good idea to not go somewhere with a gun if the only
> reason you feel comfortable going there is because you have
> the gun. Cops and soldiers have to go in harm's way.
> Private persons do not. The gun is for the time the
> predators and wild animals [there have been many people
> killed and maimed in Kansas by dogs] come to you at the
> market or when you're driving back to your home. A favorite
> robbery tactic is to wait in the shadows near a garage door
> and sneak in right behind your car. Your gun in the house
> does you no good, the gun in your car does. Tip, put yard
> lighting so it covers the areas around your garage so no
> robber cam hide within 50 feet.

I leave that too Brandy. Brandy is our husky/shepherd mix. I really
don't depend on her for defense as she is way too nice, unless you are a
woodchuck. She really dislikes woodchucks for some reason. I depend on
her to point out the folks that I need to take care of.

Matt

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:30:17 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to vote
> so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?

We used to require land ownership to vote... Personally, I think it
was a mistake going away from it...

[Jim Macklin]

Good policy, deny the means to possibly save your life, but
be generous with the benefits after you're dead.

I guess we should drop this thread for now, seems we have
gotten far off aviation.

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
|snip|
| No, they pay to repatriate the remains.

[Jim Macklin]

Dogs, particularly the little ones, are good alarm systems.
The big dogs, even the gentle ones can become very defensive
and protective.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Guns are like fire extinguishers, you rarely need one,
but
| > when you do you need it very much.
| >
| > It is a good idea to not go somewhere with a gun if the
only
| > reason you feel comfortable going there is because you
have
| > the gun. Cops and soldiers have to go in harm's way.
| > Private persons do not. The gun is for the time the
| > predators and wild animals [there have been many people
| > killed and maimed in Kansas by dogs] come to you at the
| > market or when you're driving back to your home. A
favorite
| > robbery tactic is to wait in the shadows near a garage
door
| > and sneak in right behind your car. Your gun in the
house
| > does you no good, the gun in your car does. Tip, put
yard
| > lighting so it covers the areas around your garage so no
| > robber cam hide within 50 feet.
|
| I leave that too Brandy. Brandy is our husky/shepherd
mix. I really
| don't depend on her for defense as she is way too nice,
unless you are a
| woodchuck. She really dislikes woodchucks for some
reason. I depend on
| her to point out the folks that I need to take care of.
|
| Matt

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:35:36 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> I leave that too Brandy. Brandy is our husky/shepherd mix. I really
> don't depend on her for defense as she is way too nice, unless you are a
> woodchuck. She really dislikes woodchucks for some reason. I depend on
> her to point out the folks that I need to take care of.

For the most part, my dog only barks at things that are likely to be
worthy of my attention and even then, not a lot of barking... He's
half German Shepherd and half St. Benard... He's rather friendly, so
the barks are more often of the "Hi nice to meet you come pet me
please please please" type of barks accompanied with lots of tail
wagging... He's accidentally killed a couple of ducks who had the
nerve to try to fly away from him when he went up there to say hi...
He handles small dogs without a problem -- one of his playmates used
to be a Jack Russel terrier who used to run circles around him...
Still, he warns me well enough that I can decide which caliber is more
appropriate for the cause of the barking... Armadillos and possums get
..22s, cats and grackles get a 1000 fps .177 air rifle pellet, most
other things get either a 12-gauge of 000-buck or a .45, dependent
upon what is closer to me at the time... If it's on my property, it's
fair game...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:30:27 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> It is a good idea to not go somewhere with a gun if the only
> reason you feel comfortable going there is because you have
> the gun.

There are some of us who refuse to allow the criminal element dictate
where we are allowed to go... Of course, maybe this is just a Texas
thing... I suspect that the liberals up in the northeast would feel
differently about this...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:30:50 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> I dunno, we have the signs up in the parking lot and the building saying
> cc is not permitted. Yeah, I can leave it unloaded, but what's the
> point in that?

If it's not a 30.06 sign, it's not legal... Regardless of that, the
2nd Amendment says, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", so **** 'em...

Back before Bush signed the CHL law, I carried a 12-gauge pistol grip
shotgun in my vehicle all the time... I also carried between my
vehicle and the apartment I was staying in while in Dallas... For some
reason, none of the gang banger punks wanted to bother me...
Intimidation through superior firepower, I guess...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:27:20 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> Hey, I'm *totally* fine with people owning guns. I'd own one myself if
> I hadn't just bought a house, car, and checkout in a Seneca. What I'm
> not ok with is someone *knowing* that I own a gun.

Awh, come on... This is Texas... It's assumed that *eveyone* owns a
gun anyway... Although I keep most of my guns locked up in a 1600 lb
gun safe, there's always at least one that I have with me or *very*
close to me... If I'm asleep, it's on the nightstand... My dog wakes
me up when something comes around that I might need to kill...

> I don't want to be killed in my house by my own gun.

You would rather be killed by one of your kitchen knives? That's
probably more statically likely...

> And with cc permit info out there for everyone, it would
> be very easy to find those people.

But a significant portion of the gun owners do not get a CHL for
whatever reason... Some because they only hunt with their firearms or
go to the range... Some because they do not believe that the
government has a right to restrict their 2nd Amendment rights... If we
didn't have a CHL here in Texas, I would still carry...

> Because let's face it, it's hard for a woman to conceal a firearm in
> Texas in the summer.

And it is easier for a guy???

Women are expected to be carrying purses... The best us guys can do is
carry it in a fanny pack... Yeah, there are some briefcases that have
conceals compartments, but you can't carry them around with you
*everywhere*... I'm able to carry an 11-shot .45 around in a fanny
pack that is not so large that it screams "CARRYING"... Not exactly
something that I could do with a typical M1911 type of .45...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:09:50 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> And still...if I own a gun, I don't want criminals knowing. That makes
> you a target.

I must disagree... Criminals are going to go after easy targets... If
there is a greater chance that they might get killed by their intended
target, they will go elsewhere... It's all a risk and reward type of
scenario... Pretty much the same reason cops go after speeders vs real
criminals -- low risk, good money vs high risk and expending money for
trial and incarceration...

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:30:27 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>
>>It is a good idea to not go somewhere with a gun if the only
>>reason you feel comfortable going there is because you have
>>the gun.
>
>
> There are some of us who refuse to allow the criminal element dictate
> where we are allowed to go... Of course, maybe this is just a Texas
> thing... I suspect that the liberals up in the northeast would feel
> differently about this...

Would you like a few? I'd be happy to send some down your way! :-)


Matt

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:09:50 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
> > And still...if I own a gun, I don't want criminals knowing. That makes
> > you a target.
>
> I must disagree... Criminals are going to go after easy targets... If
> there is a greater chance that they might get killed by their intended
> target, they will go elsewhere... It's all a risk and reward type of
> scenario... Pretty much the same reason cops go after speeders vs real
> criminals -- low risk, good money vs high risk and expending money for
> trial and incarceration...

Even a bigger factor is the likelihood that a crook is going to take the
time to look up and see if a potential victim has a gun registered. Is it
even possible to look up information like that?
--
Jim in NC

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Good policy, deny the means to possibly save your life, but
> be generous with the benefits after you're dead.

Well, technically they only bury you if you die outside the US.

And I think the no gun thing has to do with the airport more than the
company. Or maybe not. They are a huge corporation and have huge
issues with liability. I honestly love my company, it's a great place
to work, and most people would back me up on that.

And since in my state, you can't have a gun where alcohol sales make up
a certain amount of revenue, it's a moot point.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:30:50 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> I dunno, we have the signs up in the parking lot and the building saying
>> cc is not permitted. Yeah, I can leave it unloaded, but what's the
>> point in that?
>
> If it's not a 30.06 sign, it's not legal...

It is.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
<snip>
>
> Women are expected to be carrying purses...

That's what everyone says until they see the size of my purse. TINY.

[Emily[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:09:50 -0500, Emily >
>> wrote:
>>> And still...if I own a gun, I don't want criminals knowing. That makes
>>> you a target.
>> I must disagree... Criminals are going to go after easy targets... If
>> there is a greater chance that they might get killed by their intended
>> target, they will go elsewhere... It's all a risk and reward type of
>> scenario... Pretty much the same reason cops go after speeders vs real
>> criminals -- low risk, good money vs high risk and expending money for
>> trial and incarceration...
>
> Even a bigger factor is the likelihood that a crook is going to take the
> time to look up and see if a potential victim has a gun registered. Is it
> even possible to look up information like that?

FOIA request.

[Jim Macklin]

Try #4 buck, better pattern.



"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:35:36 GMT, Matt Whiting
>
| wrote:
| > I leave that too Brandy. Brandy is our husky/shepherd
mix. I really
| > don't depend on her for defense as she is way too nice,
unless you are a
| > woodchuck. She really dislikes woodchucks for some
reason. I depend on
| > her to point out the folks that I need to take care of.
|
| For the most part, my dog only barks at things that are
likely to be
| worthy of my attention and even then, not a lot of
barking... He's
| half German Shepherd and half St. Benard... He's rather
friendly, so
| the barks are more often of the "Hi nice to meet you come
pet me
| please please please" type of barks accompanied with lots
of tail
| wagging... He's accidentally killed a couple of ducks who
had the
| nerve to try to fly away from him when he went up there to
say hi...
| He handles small dogs without a problem -- one of his
playmates used
| to be a Jack Russel terrier who used to run circles around
him...
| Still, he warns me well enough that I can decide which
caliber is more
| appropriate for the cause of the barking... Armadillos and
possums get
| .22s, cats and grackles get a 1000 fps .177 air rifle
pellet, most
| other things get either a 12-gauge of 000-buck or a .45,
dependent
| upon what is closer to me at the time... If it's on my
property, it's
| fair game...
|

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:30:17 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
>> vote
>> so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>
> We used to require land ownership to vote... Personally, I think it
> was a mistake going away from it...

Yep, those pesky civil rights laws.

[Jim Macklin]

In Texas you can't legally take a gun to a drinking
establishment.


There are often reasons why you need to somewhere and taking
a gun is reasonable. But if all you want to do is proclaim
your "manliness" stay home. Many DAs will look up your
blog, public statements and take you to court because you
were "looking for trouble" and that will cost you $5-10,000
if the jury finds you innocent.


"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:30:27 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
| > It is a good idea to not go somewhere with a gun if the
only
| > reason you feel comfortable going there is because you
have
| > the gun.
|
| There are some of us who refuse to allow the criminal
element dictate
| where we are allowed to go... Of course, maybe this is
just a Texas
| thing... I suspect that the liberals up in the northeast
would feel
| differently about this...

[Jim Macklin]

For those not in on Texas law, a 30.06 sign is a sign that
conforms to the Texas law on such signs, as to wording and
size and location. 30.06 is the chapter in the law.

..30/06 is the rifle caliber.



"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:30:50 -0500, Emily
>
| wrote:
| > I dunno, we have the signs up in the parking lot and the
building saying
| > cc is not permitted. Yeah, I can leave it unloaded, but
what's the
| > point in that?
|
| If it's not a 30.06 sign, it's not legal... Regardless of
that, the
| 2nd Amendment says, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", so ****
'em...
|
| Back before Bush signed the CHL law, I carried a 12-gauge
pistol grip
| shotgun in my vehicle all the time... I also carried
between my
| vehicle and the apartment I was staying in while in
Dallas... For some
| reason, none of the gang banger punks wanted to bother
me...
| Intimidation through superior firepower, I guess...

[Jim Macklin]

There is a bit of "Jim Crow" in many of these laws. In
Kansas it costs $150 to apply for a permit, non-refundable,
for a 4 year period and $110 for a renewal. Mandatory
training will cost anywhere from $100 to several hundred
depending on just how much actual shooting is done. Why Jim
Crow? Only 'good" people will have the money to spend on a
license. Of course if you're a disabled vet, just old and
retired, or black, the high fee is intended to keep you in
line.

Some states issue a permit for less than $10. Alaska has
permits, but doesn't require a permit to carry. Vermont
doesn't require a permit, you just have to carry for some
legal purpose, they don't even offer a permit.

It does say "shall not be infringed" but as my sig note
says, that is seen as a challenge. THEY know I have a gun
because I bought a hunting license 50 years ago and I have
purchased some guns from dealers. And I've written and
published for many years, even got published in COMBAT
HANDGUNS.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:27:20 -0500, Emily
>
| wrote:
| > Hey, I'm *totally* fine with people owning guns. I'd
own one myself if
| > I hadn't just bought a house, car, and checkout in a
Seneca. What I'm
| > not ok with is someone *knowing* that I own a gun.
|
| Awh, come on... This is Texas... It's assumed that
*eveyone* owns a
| gun anyway... Although I keep most of my guns locked up in
a 1600 lb
| gun safe, there's always at least one that I have with me
or *very*
| close to me... If I'm asleep, it's on the nightstand... My
dog wakes
| me up when something comes around that I might need to
kill...
|
| > I don't want to be killed in my house by my own gun.
|
| You would rather be killed by one of your kitchen knives?
That's
| probably more statically likely...
|
| > And with cc permit info out there for everyone, it would
| > be very easy to find those people.
|
| But a significant portion of the gun owners do not get a
CHL for
| whatever reason... Some because they only hunt with their
firearms or
| go to the range... Some because they do not believe that
the
| government has a right to restrict their 2nd Amendment
rights... If we
| didn't have a CHL here in Texas, I would still carry...
|
| > Because let's face it, it's hard for a woman to conceal
a firearm in
| > Texas in the summer.
|
| And it is easier for a guy???
|
| Women are expected to be carrying purses... The best us
guys can do is
| carry it in a fanny pack... Yeah, there are some
briefcases that have
| conceals compartments, but you can't carry them around
with you
| *everywhere*... I'm able to carry an 11-shot .45 around in
a fanny
| pack that is not so large that it screams "CARRYING"...
Not exactly
| something that I could do with a typical M1911 type of
..45...

[Jim Macklin]

Have you seen a 32 Seacamp?



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Grumman-581 wrote:
| <snip>
| >
| > Women are expected to be carrying purses...
|
| That's what everyone says until they see the size of my
purse. TINY.

[Jim Macklin]

Some states do publish such lists, probably to raise another
obstacle to getting a permit.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Grumman-581" >
wrote in message
| ...
| > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:09:50 -0500, Emily
>
| > wrote:
| > > And still...if I own a gun, I don't want criminals
knowing. That makes
| > > you a target.
| >
| > I must disagree... Criminals are going to go after easy
targets... If
| > there is a greater chance that they might get killed by
their intended
| > target, they will go elsewhere... It's all a risk and
reward type of
| > scenario... Pretty much the same reason cops go after
speeders vs real
| > criminals -- low risk, good money vs high risk and
expending money for
| > trial and incarceration...
|
| Even a bigger factor is the likelihood that a crook is
going to take the
| time to look up and see if a potential victim has a gun
registered. Is it
| even possible to look up information like that?
| --
| Jim in NC
|

[Jim Macklin]

Depends on the law, Kansas doesn't allow public access to
personal information, some states do.

I wonder why those states don't publish lists of young women
living alone?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Morgans wrote:
| > "Grumman-581" >
wrote in message
| > ...
| >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:09:50 -0500, Emily
>
| >> wrote:
| >>> And still...if I own a gun, I don't want criminals
knowing. That makes
| >>> you a target.
| >> I must disagree... Criminals are going to go after easy
targets... If
| >> there is a greater chance that they might get killed by
their intended
| >> target, they will go elsewhere... It's all a risk and
reward type of
| >> scenario... Pretty much the same reason cops go after
speeders vs real
| >> criminals -- low risk, good money vs high risk and
expending money for
| >> trial and incarceration...
| >
| > Even a bigger factor is the likelihood that a crook is
going to take the
| > time to look up and see if a potential victim has a gun
registered. Is it
| > even possible to look up information like that?
|
| FOIA request.

[Jim Macklin]

Interesting fact... Between the 1930 and 1960s, airline
pilots were required to carry a gun to protect the mail.
The mailman carried a bag with a holster inside. Then LBJ's
postmaster took the guns away from the mailman and thus the
gun ceased to be required for the pilot. While pilots were
armed, several hijacking attempts were stopped. At the post
office, no worker "went postal" until after the policy
changed and the workers did not have weapons.

Gun free zones and workplaces equal unarmed victims, easy
targets.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Good policy, deny the means to possibly save your life,
but
| > be generous with the benefits after you're dead.
|
| Well, technically they only bury you if you die outside
the US.
|
| And I think the no gun thing has to do with the airport
more than the
| company. Or maybe not. They are a huge corporation and
have huge
| issues with liability. I honestly love my company, it's a
great place
| to work, and most people would back me up on that.
|
| And since in my state, you can't have a gun where alcohol
sales make up
| a certain amount of revenue, it's a moot point.
|

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Morgans wrote:
> > "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:09:50 -0500, Emily >
> >> wrote:
> >>> And still...if I own a gun, I don't want criminals knowing. That
makes
> >>> you a target.
> >> I must disagree... Criminals are going to go after easy targets... If
> >> there is a greater chance that they might get killed by their intended
> >> target, they will go elsewhere... It's all a risk and reward type of
> >> scenario... Pretty much the same reason cops go after speeders vs real
> >> criminals -- low risk, good money vs high risk and expending money for
> >> trial and incarceration...
> >
> > Even a bigger factor is the likelihood that a crook is going to take the
> > time to look up and see if a potential victim has a gun registered. Is
it
> > even possible to look up information like that?
>
> FOIA request.

That only works for a request for one individual person, right? If so, why
do you think a crook would want to single out you?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Grumman-581 wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Women are expected to be carrying purses...
>
> That's what everyone says until they see the size of my purse. TINY.

Purses are cheap. Get as bigger one.
--
Jim in NC

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:23:53 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> Would you like a few? I'd be happy to send some down your way! :-)

Feel free, our gators have been getting rather hungry of late...

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/gators-gotta-eat-too

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:44:37 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:
> Even a bigger factor is the likelihood that a crook is going to take the
> time to look up and see if a potential victim has a gun registered. Is it
> even possible to look up information like that?

Nope, there is no way for that to happen... In some states, it is
possible to see if a person has a CHL, but there is a significant
number of people who own firearms but do not have a CHL... There is
also a pretty good number of people who have bought their firearms
from others and as such, there is no paper trail whatsoever on the
firearms... This is as it should be, of course... The government has
no business knowing who might own a gun... Registration leads to
confiscation...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:29:36 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> And since in my state, you can't have a gun where alcohol sales make up
> a certain amount of revenue, it's a moot point.

It's 51%... Not a problem in most cases unless you are going to a
place that is primarily a bar... Just having a bar in a restaurant is
unlikely to exceed the 51% rule... Of primary importance here though
is that for a problem to occur, they will need to know that you have a
gun... If you keep it concealed like you are *supposed* to, they won't
ever know... If you do not have it concealed, it better be for a
situation in which your life is threatened, and if so, at that time,
do you really care what some liberal ass politician might have decided
should be the law?

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:30:24 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> It is.

With the required 1" letters? In English and Spanish?

If so, then for me at least, it boils down to whether there is a metal
detector / x-ray machine / guard searching packages... If not, then I
would probably carry anyway...

As much as some people like to think that Texas has liberal gun laws,
in fact, we don't... We are still left with a lot of laws due to the
oppression that resulted during Reconstruction after the War of
Northern Aggression... Slowly, we're throwing off this yoke of
oppression, but we're not quite there yet...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:32:09 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> That's what everyone says until they see the size of my purse. TINY.

Grace's started out that way many years ago... And then got bigger...
and bigger... and bigger... Now, I call her a bag lady...
<ducking-and-running>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:14:08 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> Try #4 buck, better pattern.

At a typical defensive range, it doesn't matter... The pattern is less
than the size of a saucer... I want something that can punch through
walls if necessary and still produce a lethal dose of lead
poisoning...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:18:10 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> In Texas you can't legally take a gun to a drinking
> establishment.

Only if they derive 51% of their revenue from the sale of alcohol... I
don't tend to go to those places these days... Usually, there is a
restaurant associated with it and as such, the 51% rule applies...

> There are often reasons why you need to somewhere and taking
> a gun is reasonable. But if all you want to do is proclaim
> your "manliness" stay home. Many DAs will look up your
> blog, public statements and take you to court because you
> were "looking for trouble" and that will cost you $5-10,000
> if the jury finds you innocent.

That's assuming that I'm stupid enough to stay around afterwards... Or
there's not a creek nearby with a friendly gator...

[Jim Macklin]

#4 will shoot through both sides of a car at close range,
has 41 pellets in a 3 inch 12 gauge, 25 in a 2-3/4. The 00
and 000 buck has more energy per pellet, but the smaller
size of #4 give more energy on target because of more hits.
Personally, I use $5 birdshot since I live in an apartment
and don't want to have lots of big pellets going through the
walls that I'm responsible for.

If I lived in the country, I'd have an M4 or SOCOM handy.

I've thought that T steel would be good, lots of penetration
and "non-toxic" so you could say in court, "I did not want
to give him lead poisoning." Besides easier for the surgeon
to remove, with a magnet.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:14:08 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
| > Try #4 buck, better pattern.
|
| At a typical defensive range, it doesn't matter... The
pattern is less
| than the size of a saucer... I want something that can
punch through
| walls if necessary and still produce a lethal dose of lead
| poisoning...

[Jim Macklin]

The 51% rule applies in Kansas too.

BTW, have you read Massod Ayoob's book IN THE GRAVEST
EXTREME ?


"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:18:10 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
| > In Texas you can't legally take a gun to a drinking
| > establishment.
|
| Only if they derive 51% of their revenue from the sale of
alcohol... I
| don't tend to go to those places these days... Usually,
there is a
| restaurant associated with it and as such, the 51% rule
applies...
|
| > There are often reasons why you need to somewhere and
taking
| > a gun is reasonable. But if all you want to do is
proclaim
| > your "manliness" stay home. Many DAs will look up your
| > blog, public statements and take you to court because
you
| > were "looking for trouble" and that will cost you
$5-10,000
| > if the jury finds you innocent.
|
| That's assuming that I'm stupid enough to stay around
afterwards... Or
| there's not a creek nearby with a friendly gator...

[Ken Finney]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:30:17 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
>>> vote
>>> so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>>
>> We used to require land ownership to vote... Personally, I think it
>> was a mistake going away from it...
>
> Yep, those pesky civil rights laws.
>

There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax, then
the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:48:31 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> BTW, have you read Massod Ayoob's book IN THE GRAVEST
> EXTREME ?

Nope... Seems like these days, all I get to read are some sort of
technical manuals or publications... Recreational reading for me of
late is reading the manual on a new GPS...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> wrote:
> There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
> Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax, then
> the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.

If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise" those inner city
warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I don't believe that would
necessarily be a *bad* thing...

[Tom Conner]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> > wrote:
> > There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had
> > to be a landowner. Then many (most? all?) places
> > changed the requirement to a poll tax, then the Civil
> > Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.
>
> If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a
> say in how the country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise"
> those inner city warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I
> don't believe that would necessarily be a *bad* thing...

Property ownership doesn't convey any type of civic responsibility. If we
are going to fantasize I would prefer a voting system similar to what
Heinlien proposed in Starship Troopers. In that society anyone could vote
if they performed a period of service in the military. After their tour of
duty then they were full citizens. I would bring back the Civilian
Conservation Corp and provide that as another option for providing a period
of service to your country in lieu of the military.

[Jose[_1_]]

> If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
> country is run?

I don't see the connection.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Logajan]

Grumman-581 > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:30:17 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership
>> to vote so why should we grant voting rights because of land
>> ownership?
>
> We used to require land ownership to vote... Personally, I think it
> was a mistake going away from it...

As long as the non-land owners don't have to abide by the laws, no problem!
;-)

But since everyone is expected to abide by the law, everyone should get to
vote on the people who make those laws - right?

[Ken Finney]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> > wrote:
>> There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
>> Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax,
>> then
>> the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.
>
> If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
> country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise" those inner city
> warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I don't believe that would
> necessarily be a *bad* thing...

I don't disagree with you. But then the law of unintended consequences
kicks in. Someone subdivides their property into 1 inch square pieces and
sells each piece for $1 so that everyone can participate. If you try to
place limits on the minimum amount of property or the minimum value of
property required, that causes other problems, so they came up with the idea
of a "poll tax" to weed-out those that that didn't have enough of a vested
interest to pay the tax.

[Emily[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
<snip>
>
> That only works for a request for one individual person, right? If so, why
> do you think a crook would want to single out you?

Dunno. The last I heard, someone filed for the entire Texas list.

In any event, you've never seen me drive.

[Emily[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Grumman-581 wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Women are expected to be carrying purses...
>> That's what everyone says until they see the size of my purse. TINY.
>
> Purses are cheap.

Not the ones I carry.


>Get as bigger one.

Used to. I ended up having more in it than my flight bag. Now I'm back
to a tiny one.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:29:36 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> And since in my state, you can't have a gun where alcohol sales make up
>> a certain amount of revenue, it's a moot point.
>
> It's 51%... Not a problem in most cases unless you are going to a
> place that is primarily a bar... Just having a bar in a restaurant is
> unlikely to exceed the 51% rule...

I've been in a lot of restaurants that have 30.06 signs up. In fact,
most places I go do. Maybe that's a statement on me more than anything
else, but I notice them in quite a few places. Hell, the FBO I fly at
has one up. Not sure if that's legal or not, I'm not that up on my
Texas law.

>If you do not have it concealed, it better be for a
> situation in which your life is threatened, and if so, at that time,
> do you really care what some liberal ass politician might have decided
> should be the law?

Yes, I do care. Unfortunately, liberal ass politicians are in charge.
I'd rather be dead than in jail.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:30:24 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> It is.
>
> With the required 1" letters? In English and Spanish?
>
> If so, then for me at least, it boils down to whether there is a metal
> detector / x-ray machine / guard searching packages... If not, then I
> would probably carry anyway...
>
> As much as some people like to think that Texas has liberal gun laws,
> in fact, we don't... We are still left with a lot of laws due to the
> oppression that resulted during Reconstruction after the War of
> Northern Aggression... Slowly, we're throwing off this yoke of
> oppression, but we're not quite there yet...

Yeah, right. Texas is the most regulated state I've ever lived in.
Don't even get me started on auto issues..

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> > wrote:
>> There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
>> Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax, then
>> the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.
>
> If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
> country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise" those inner city
> warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I don't believe that would
> necessarily be a *bad* thing...

Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own property until two
years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to vote than most
landowners.

[Emily[_1_]]

Tom Conner wrote:
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
><snip>I would bring back the Civilian
> Conservation Corp and provide that as another option for providing a period
> of service to your country in lieu of the military.

Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.

[Tom Conner]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Tom Conner wrote:
> > "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ><snip>I would bring back the Civilian
> > Conservation Corp and provide that as another option for
> > providing a period of service to your country in lieu of
> > the military.
>
> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.

Nobody said anything about mandatory military duty.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:30:17 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
>> vote
>> so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>
> We used to require land ownership to vote... Personally, I think it
> was a mistake going away from it...

In many localities, people who own nothing more than a 6'x3' plot of land
get to vote.

Some of them quite frequently.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

(In the 2004 election, 169 counties had higher vote TALLIES than they did
eligible voters. The same was true for the entire state of Maine. That's
what we need -- 110% voter turnout)

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:30:17 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>>> No, actually it wouldn't. We in the US don't require land ownership to
>>> vote
>>> so why should we grant voting rights because of land ownership?
>>
>> We used to require land ownership to vote... Personally, I think it
>> was a mistake going away from it...
>
> Yep, those pesky civil rights laws.
No, the "digging into your neighbors wallet" syndrome.

As for voting "rights" it's sorta like what the Islamists are trying to do
with immigration in Eurabia.

[Skylune[_1_]]

After Katrina, one of the first responses by the NOPD was to confiscate
private citizens' guns. They used the gun registry.

One of the many reasons I live in NH, where we have very, very low crime
(other than routine violations of FARs, which no one polices), and fences
are usually to keep the horses on the property:

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=NH

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> But since everyone is expected to abide by the law, everyone should
>> get to vote on the people who make those laws - right?
>
> No, only club members get to vote on the laws. Both club members and
> guests must abide by those laws.

That philosophy ultimately failed for King George III's club. Curse those
impudent guests! ;-)

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
> One of the many reasons I live in NH, where we have very, very low crime
> (other than routine violations of FARs, which no one polices), and fences
> are usually to keep the horses on the property:
>

Given the option of a high crime rate and the occasional nitwit buzzing
his buddy's house, the choice is obvious.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:V9Cxg.84201$ZW3.81396@dukeread04...
> Parking lots are not sterile areas and guns are allowed,
> even in the checked baggage on the airlines. I carried a
> gun regularly in my flight bag on charter flights. Some of
> my passengers did too, on part 91 flights. We also carried
> hunters and target shooters on 135, and their unloaded guns
> went in the airplane. If we had a nose baggage, they went
> there, but in the King Air, it was all in the cabin.

http://www.njpistol.com/images/perry06/welcome.jpg

..
..
..
..
..
..
..

(Port Clinton OH, near Camp Perry where they're having the
National Matches.)

[Skylune[_1_]]

Your wife can answer that.

[Jay Beckman]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Emily" > wrote
>>
>> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.
>
> Do you kiss you mother with that mouth?
>
> Sheesh. Really lady-like. Turns me on, so.
>
> Not.
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim,

You're taking a pretty good leap of faith that "Emily" is even a female...

This is Usenet after all.

Jay B
(Don't you know who I think I am...?!?)

[Skylune[_1_]]

Yeah. Leaving NY (even though it was MUCH quieter, and I lived even closer
to a GA airport -- FRG) was a great move. The liberal politicians have
created a tax hell in NY. Regulations are ridiculous, taxes are crushing,
and the damned public sector unions are running the place. My Mossberg and
I were no longer welcome in the state where I grew up, so I left.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Ko3yg.84322$ZW3.3470@dukeread04...
> For those not in on Texas law, a 30.06 sign is a sign that
> conforms to the Texas law on such signs, as to wording and
> size and location. 30.06 is the chapter in the law.
>
> .30/06 is the rifle caliber.

Nope.

..30-'06

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Grumman-581 wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > Women are expected to be carrying purses...
>>
>> That's what everyone says until they see the size of my purse. TINY.
>
> Purses are cheap. Get as bigger one.

My wife's purse is a lethal weapon in its own right.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Jose[_1_]]

> That philosophy ultimately failed for King George III's club. Curse those
> impudent guests! ;-)

No, those weren't guests, they were members. They formed their own club.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Godwin]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> You would rather be killed by one of your kitchen knives? That's
> probably more statically likely...
>
It wouldn't surprise me if Senator Dianne Feinstein knew that, she'd
have a bill in congress requiring registering kitchen knives.

--

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote

> We are still left with a lot of laws due to the
> oppression that resulted during Reconstruction after the War of
> Northern Aggression... Slowly, we're throwing off this yoke of
> oppression, but we're not quite there yet...

When, in the H*LL are you going to get off of the Civil War? It has been
over for a long, long time.

If you have not had time to cure _any_ problems resulting from it, there is
not a lot positive to say about your resourcefulness.

It must suck, having to blame all of your shortcomings, on something that
happened so many long years ago.

No, it must just suck to be you, and all that believe like you. Broken
record, broken record.

GET a LIFE!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Emily" > wrote
>
> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.

Do you kiss you mother with that mouth?

Sheesh. Really lady-like. Turns me on, so.

Not.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote
>>
>> You're taking a pretty good leap of faith that "Emily" is even a
>> female...
>>
>> This is Usenet after all.

Since the gender of the person making an argument is not relevant to its
validity, this amounts to an ad hominem.

> It does not matter, now. I already had my finger hovering over the
> I was tired of what seemed to be a willingness to
> argue, just for the sake of argument.

Since not all of Emily's posts have been argumentative, I think you're
seeing something that isn't there. I've been reading Usenet since 1988 and
I hate to say this, since you may vehemently disagree, but Emily appears to
be no more argumentative than you. And IMHO neither of you seem to qualify
for that special group of genuinely argumentative Usenetters.

> The foul mouth kicked me over the edge.

Then unless you've plonked Skywise and Matt Barrow, I think you're engaging
in a case of special pleading. Consider this sampling found via Google's
archives:

"I act like this because I DON'T WANT OT ****ING DIE BECAUSE OF SOME ****
HEAD THAT DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO DRIVE." -- Skywise

"Grow the **** up, America!!" -- Matt Barrow

"I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that." -- Emily

All seem to be using language to make their feelings known. I see nothing
wrong with that per se. She wrote "**** that," not "**** you." In my very
humble opinion that's mild compared to what Matt and Skywise have written.
YMMV.

[Jim Macklin]

Just a guess, your early 20s, 5'6", blonde and have a
cellphone attached at the ear. Some pervert saw you in your
airline uniform and got your tag number. You've just become
a stalking victim and don't even know it yet. But he knows
where you work and live and he will follow you until he gets
up the nerve to make contact. Hope you have more than that
cellphone.


This lady was anti-gun until her best friend was murdered,
now she is 100% pro-gun...
The Paxton Quigley Web Page The 2000 Annie Oakley Award was
presented to noted women's self-defense instructor and
author Paxton Quigley during the Women's Shooting Sports
Foundation's ...
www.paxtonquigley.com/ - 16k - Cached - Similar pages


Also...
Massad ayoob, lethal force institute, ammunition sales,
handgun ... massad ayoob, lethal force institute, ammunition
sales, handgun ammunition, rifle ammunition, discount
ammunition, wholesale ammunition, cheap ammunition, ...
www.ayoob.com/ - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Morgans wrote:
| <snip>
| >
| > That only works for a request for one individual person,
right? If so, why
| > do you think a crook would want to single out you?
|
| Dunno. The last I heard, someone filed for the entire
Texas list.
|
| In any event, you've never seen me drive.

[Jim Macklin]

It is worth reading for anyone who has or is thinking about
buy or using a gun for self-defense [Massad Ayoob's book IN
THE GRAVEST EXTREME ].
Massad ayoob, lethal force institute, ammunition sales,
handgun ... massad ayoob, lethal force institute, ammunition
sales, handgun ammunition, rifle ammunition, discount
ammunition, wholesale ammunition, cheap ammunition, ...
www.ayoob.com/ - 6k - Cached - Similar pages


All work and no play make Jack a dull boy. Take time to
read Dilbert daily.



"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:48:31 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
| > BTW, have you read Massad Ayoob's book IN THE GRAVEST
| > EXTREME ?
|
| Nope... Seems like these days, all I get to read are some
sort of
| technical manuals or publications... Recreational reading
for me of
| late is reading the manual on a new GPS...

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote
>
> You're taking a pretty good leap of faith that "Emily" is even a female...
>
> This is Usenet after all.
>
Chuckle. Yeah, that's true.

I was about to think that Emilie is really another one of Lynne's names.
She has said she has been around for a while.

It does not matter, now. I already had my finger hovering over the <plonk>
button. I was tired of what seemed to be a willingness to argue, just for
the sake of argument. The foul mouth kicked me over the edge.

You know, I've been a construction worker for many years. I can cuss with
the best of them. Foul language does not really offend me.

What offends me is people that do not know, and respect,t the proper place
to use a little more discretion in the words they choose to use, and not
use.
--
Jim in NC

[Ash Wyllie]

Jim Macklin opined

>Interesting fact... Between the 1930 and 1960s, airline
>pilots were required to carry a gun to protect the mail.
>The mailman carried a bag with a holster inside. Then LBJ's
>postmaster took the guns away from the mailman and thus the
>gun ceased to be required for the pilot. While pilots were
>armed, several hijacking attempts were stopped. At the post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you have any documentation on this? I would love to be able to use this fact!


>office, no worker "went postal" until after the policy
>changed and the workers did not have weapons.

>Gun free zones and workplaces equal unarmed victims, easy
>targets.




-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Have you seen a 32 Seacamp?

I'm not sure that simply making an attacker mad is a good self-defense
strategy. :-)

Or did you mean to throw the weapon at the attacker?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The 51% rule applies in Kansas too.
>
> BTW, have you read Massod Ayoob's book IN THE GRAVEST
> EXTREME ?

I can't even pronounce his name... :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The 51% rule applies in Kansas too.
>
> BTW, have you read Massod Ayoob's book IN THE GRAVEST
> EXTREME ?

Is it good? I did read Bill Jordan's book "No Second Place Winner."
Excellent read if you are so inclined.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> > wrote:
>
>>There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
>>Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax, then
>>the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.
>
>
> If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
> country is run? Yeah, it might "disenfranchise" those inner city
> warren inhabitants in the northeast, but I don't believe that would
> necessarily be a *bad* thing...

I guess I'd be OK with this as long as only those who vote had to pay
taxes. After all, if I have no say in the country's governance, then I
shouldn't have to pay for it either.

Matt

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:08:40 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:
> As long as the non-land owners don't have to abide by the laws, no problem!
> ;-)
>
> But since everyone is expected to abide by the law, everyone should get to
> vote on the people who make those laws - right?

If they're too cheap to buy some land, they don't deserve to vote...
Hell, all they have to do is buy a piece of West Texas land... I
recently saw some going for $175 per acre... Yeah, you had to buy
1,280 acres of it to get it at that price...

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:Ko3yg.84322$ZW3.3470@dukeread04...
>
>>For those not in on Texas law, a 30.06 sign is a sign that
>>conforms to the Texas law on such signs, as to wording and
>>size and location. 30.06 is the chapter in the law.
>>
>>.30/06 is the rifle caliber.
>
>
> Nope.
>
> .30-'06

Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.

Matt

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:47:28 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own property until two
> years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to vote than most
> landowners.

Well, I guess I've owned land all my life... Family ranch that has
been in the family for over 100 years... Started out originally as 1
section (i.e. 640 acres), but thanks to government theft when they
decided to dam a river and make a lake, only about 100 acres is left
now...

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>>"Jay Beckman" > wrote
>>
>>>You're taking a pretty good leap of faith that "Emily" is even a
>>>female...
>>>
>>>This is Usenet after all.
>
>
> Since the gender of the person making an argument is not relevant to its
> validity, this amounts to an ad hominem.

Baloney. If you are talking about PMS, women are much more qualified to
argue about it. Lots of things are gender related including
credibility in arguing certain topics.

Matt

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:48:10 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.

Well, I did my time, so I don't have a problem with them requiring
it... All in all, as much as I bitched about it at the time, I would
have to say that it definitely builds character... Then again, as we
used to say, "A happy sailor is a bitching sailor"...

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:47:28 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own property until two
>>years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to vote than most
>>landowners.
>
>
> Well, I guess I've owned land all my life... Family ranch that has
> been in the family for over 100 years... Started out originally as 1
> section (i.e. 640 acres), but thanks to government theft when they
> decided to dam a river and make a lake, only about 100 acres is left
> now...

Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the native Americans.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

>>> .30/06 is the rifle caliber.
>> Nope.
>> .30-'06
> Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.

Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six"
referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers to
the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Emily" > wrote
>>> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.
>> Do you kiss you mother with that mouth?
>>
>> Sheesh. Really lady-like. Turns me on, so.
>>
>> Not.

Thankfully, I don't need to turn you on.

[Emily[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Grumman-581" > wrote
>
>> We are still left with a lot of laws due to the
>> oppression that resulted during Reconstruction after the War of
>> Northern Aggression... Slowly, we're throwing off this yoke of
>> oppression, but we're not quite there yet...
>
> When, in the H*LL are you going to get off of the Civil War? It has been
> over for a long, long time.

Not really.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Just a guess, your early 20s, 5'6", blonde and have a
> cellphone attached at the ear. Some pervert saw you in your
> airline uniform and got your tag number. You've just become
> a stalking victim and don't even know it yet. But he knows
> where you work and live and he will follow you until he gets
> up the nerve to make contact. Hope you have more than that
> cellphone.

Well, I'm driving a new car without a license plate, don't work for an
airline, am brunette, and in my mid 20's, but you got the height right.

Believe me, I'm not anti-gun, it's just something that's not high on my
list of things to do right now. I'm doing what I can (and what I've
done falls under the "I'm not going to say because I want it to be a
surprise to anyone who tries to screw with me" thing).

[Emily[_1_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote

> What offends me is people that do not know, and respect,t the proper place
> to use a little more discretion in the words they choose to use, and not
> use.

Oh, so he doesn't like the fact that I used a swear word in connection
with the military? Whatever.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:48:10 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.
>
> Well, I did my time, so I don't have a problem with them requiring
> it... All in all, as much as I bitched about it at the time, I would
> have to say that it definitely builds character... Then again, as we
> used to say, "A happy sailor is a bitching sailor"...

My problem with requiring military service is that when people talk
about mandatory service, they talk about mandatory enlisted service. I
have a HUGE problem with being forced to enlist.

And although I think I'm too old for the draft now, if they started
drafting women, I'd be in OCS so fast my current employer wouldn't know
what hit them. THAT'S how I really feel about mandatory military service.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

> Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the native Americans.

who stole it from other native americans, who stole it from ....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> Then unless you've plonked Skywise and Matt Barrow, I think you're
engaging
> in a case of special pleading. Consider this sampling found via Google's
> archives:

Snipped

Skywise is not worth reading, IMHO, and is in the round file. Matt Barrow
has been there before, but is currently out on "good behavior." We'll see
how long that lasts, but my bet is he'll earn his way back in, again. Last
time he was in, it was because of his stand about "all public schools suck,"
or some such line.

Periodically, I take everyone out, and see how it goes. Some are put right
back in, and some get to stay out.

I read these groups for enjoyment, and the chance that I might learn
something, by accident. <g> I don't feel the need to read people that tick
me off, for what ever reason.

It is kinda' like telephone sales calls. They have no right that says I
must listen to them, and the phone has no right to be answered. It is there
for MY convenience. I answer it when I feel like it, and don't when it is
not. I do answer it "most" all of the time, by the way.

So there you have it; my usenet philosophy. You may or may not agree, but
there it is. I respect your right to your views, and I trust you respect
mine.

See ya-
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>>>> .30/06 is the rifle caliber.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>> .30-'06
>>
>> Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.
>
>
> Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six"
> referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers to
> the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?

The year, 1906.

[Jim Logajan]

"Morgans" > wrote:
[ Elided for brevity. ]
> So there you have it; my usenet philosophy. You may or may not agree,
> but there it is. I respect your right to your views, and I trust you
> respect mine.

Fair enough. Since I've moderated and co-moderated several moderated groups
I've sometimes have had no choice in reading through all posts to a group.
It's a fascinating experience to try to learn how to diplomatically reject
posts that are inflammatory, off topic, or otherwise outside the group's
charter. I always took it as a challenge to see if I could get a reasonable
re-write or understanding response to rejections. Obviously it wasn't
always possible (but gratifying when things worked out). I like to think I
learned something from the experience, but some days I feel I haven't.

[Jim Macklin]

A 32 Seacamp with the recommended ammo is more effective
than the standard 38 Special 158 grain RN. It is reliable,
lethal on a headshot, lethal on a heart shot, and it is
available when nothing else might be.

My choice is a Colt Officer's ACP .45 ACP with 200 grain +P
HP, carried behind the hip in a holster of my own design.
But since most people do not have unlimited funds, people
carry what they have. Any gun, in any caliber is better
than a big gun locked away at home.

There are several small .45s on the market,
http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ultracarry/ are not
much bigger than the Seacamp. Dirty Harry not withstanding,
really big handguns are not first choice for self-defense,
except where there are large bears, lions or other 1,000
pound monsters. Ruger makes the 480 and 454 Alaskan and S&W
has the snubby versions of the .500, but these are just too
big and powerful for anti-personnel use. Too much power
delays repeat shots and if there are two or more attackers
you need repeat shots.

The 40 S&W and 45 ACP are about ideal, the 9 mm [9x19
Luger/Parabellum/NATO] is a good minimum unless some other
factor, such as physical weakness in the hands, or just no
way to carry or control something bigger. But remember the
point is to protect yourself, a gun may scare the attacker
into flight without a shot being fired. A shot fired that
hits the right place is better than a miss with a 44 Magnum.
The .22 LT HP is pretty effective at killing but it is not a
stopper. The bigger bullet has a better chance of stopping
the attacker and may not be as lethal as some smaller
calibers. But ideally, an attacker will never attack
because they will be worried that you may be armed. If they
do attack, the sight of your gun may scare them away [this
is very common]. If you have to shoot, you want to make
them stop their attack, you want to stun them into complete
inaction instantaneously. Bottom-line, you want to go home.

If you have to shoot someone with justification, call the
police as soon as you can, request an ambulance, tell the
911 operator the basic facts. Don't alter any part of the
crime scene or nothing you say will be believed. Don't move
the body, except as needed to provide first aid. Don't
decide that you need more "justification" and drop a knife
or gun if you don't see one after the shooting. Try to keep
his buddies away, they will take his gun or knife and hide
it. If you have a camera phone, take pictures while you're
calling. Don't say too much... have your lawyers 24/7
contact number.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Have you seen a 32 Seacamp?
|
| I'm not sure that simply making an attacker mad is a good
self-defense
| strategy. :-)
|
| Or did you mean to throw the weapon at the attacker?
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

Mas A yob, nice guy as long as he's on your side.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The 51% rule applies in Kansas too.
| >
| > BTW, have you read Massod Ayoob's book IN THE GRAVEST
| > EXTREME ?
|
| I can't even pronounce his name... :-)
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

I meet Jordan a couple of times. Ayoob's book is far more
useful, it is a must read, covers training, mind set, what
to do if attacked and what to do afterward.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The 51% rule applies in Kansas too.
| >
| > BTW, have you read Massod Ayoob's book IN THE GRAVEST
| > EXTREME ?
|
| Is it good? I did read Bill Jordan's book "No Second
Place Winner."
| Excellent read if you are so inclined.
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

The new round for the M1903 Springfield rifle was modified
in 1906 with a lighter weight spire point bullet, replacing
the 220 grain round nose. The barrels on rifles already in
service were removed, shortened one thread at the rear and
rechambered for the slightly different requirements. It was
used in the 1903 Springfield, the 1917 Enfield, the Johnson
and Garand rifles, the BAR, and 1917 machinegun. It is
still always in the top calibers sold and ammo purchased.

The 7.62x51 NATO [aka .308 Winchester] has the same power in
a shorter case due to improved powders, which allowed the
case to be 1/2 inch 12 mm shorter.

dates are done with a slash, .30/06 is correct. If you use
a hyphen it still means the same.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Matt Barrow wrote:
|
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > news:Ko3yg.84322$ZW3.3470@dukeread04...
| >
| >>For those not in on Texas law, a 30.06 sign is a sign
that
| >>conforms to the Texas law on such signs, as to wording
and
| >>size and location. 30.06 is the chapter in the law.
| >>
| >>.30/06 is the rifle caliber.
| >
| >
| > Nope.
| >
| > .30-'06
|
| Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

You sound too nice to have your face smashed by some thug,
recheck your priorities. The point is anybody can become a
target at a time chosen by the attackers.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Just a guess, your early 20s, 5'6", blonde and have a
| > cellphone attached at the ear. Some pervert saw you in
your
| > airline uniform and got your tag number. You've just
become
| > a stalking victim and don't even know it yet. But he
knows
| > where you work and live and he will follow you until he
gets
| > up the nerve to make contact. Hope you have more than
that
| > cellphone.
|
| Well, I'm driving a new car without a license plate, don't
work for an
| airline, am brunette, and in my mid 20's, but you got the
height right.
|
| Believe me, I'm not anti-gun, it's just something that's
not high on my
| list of things to do right now. I'm doing what I can (and
what I've
| done falls under the "I'm not going to say because I want
it to be a
| surprise to anyone who tries to screw with me" thing).

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> You sound too nice to have your face smashed by some thug,
> recheck your priorities. The point is anybody can become a
> target at a time chosen by the attackers.

Unfortunately, my priorities at this point are dictated by my employer
(as it should be). And that means too much traveling at the moment to
even think about a gun.

[Jim Macklin]

I think the Dutch paid the Indians $32 in junk jewelry and
beads.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Grumman-581 wrote:
|
| > On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:47:28 -0500, Emily
>
| > wrote:
| >
| >>Sorry, disagree with you on this one. I didn't own
property until two
| >>years ago, and I was a hell of a lot more competent to
vote than most
| >>landowners.
| >
| >
| > Well, I guess I've owned land all my life... Family
ranch that has
| > been in the family for over 100 years... Started out
originally as 1
| > section (i.e. 640 acres), but thanks to government theft
when they
| > decided to dam a river and make a lake, only about 100
acres is left
| > now...
|
| Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the
native Americans.
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

The King of Spain gave a few people most of southern Texas.


"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article >, Matt
Whiting >
| wrote:
|
| > Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the
native Americans.
|
| who stole it from other native americans, who stole it
from ....
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

[Jim Macklin]

STARSHIP TROOPERS, Service equals Citizenship. You have all
the rights, except the right to vote unless your risked your
life. When your discharged, you get to vote.

The movie sucked, the books was very good.

If I ruled the USA, voters would have to pass a test run by
a machine, identify certain people by their picture, pick
the correct answer to a few questions on the Constitution.
Which people you ask? Public figures from history; Lincoln,
Grant, Lee, Henry, Washington, Ike, Reagan, their current
Congressman and Senators, maybe some Supreme Court members.
What history? Random questions, anything, Civil War, WWI
and WWII, Mexican War 1 and 2, Bill of Rights, enough to
show they have some interest and are aware of the issues.

But that isn't likely to happen. politicians prefer stupid
voters who will keep returning them to office.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Grumman-581 wrote:
| > On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:48:10 -0500, Emily
>
| > wrote:
| >> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty.
**** that.
| >
| > Well, I did my time, so I don't have a problem with them
requiring
| > it... All in all, as much as I bitched about it at the
time, I would
| > have to say that it definitely builds character... Then
again, as we
| > used to say, "A happy sailor is a bitching sailor"...
|
| My problem with requiring military service is that when
people talk
| about mandatory service, they talk about mandatory
enlisted service. I
| have a HUGE problem with being forced to enlist.
|
| And although I think I'm too old for the draft now, if
they started
| drafting women, I'd be in OCS so fast my current employer
wouldn't know
| what hit them. THAT'S how I really feel about mandatory
military service.

[Jim Macklin]

Sticks and stone will break my bones, but a woman who can
cuss can't object to my using those words sometimes.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jay Beckman wrote:
| > "Morgans" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >> "Emily" > wrote
| >>> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty.
**** that.
| >> Do you kiss you mother with that mouth?
| >>
| >> Sheesh. Really lady-like. Turns me on, so.
| >>
| >> Not.
|
| Thankfully, I don't need to turn you on.

[Jim Macklin]

Then you need a different job, start looking.



"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > You sound too nice to have your face smashed by some
thug,
| > recheck your priorities. The point is anybody can
become a
| > target at a time chosen by the attackers.
|
| Unfortunately, my priorities at this point are dictated by
my employer
| (as it should be). And that means too much traveling at
the moment to
| even think about a gun.

[newsgroups.comcast.net]

Like Chicago, for example. So I hear. ;)

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> In many localities, people who own nothing more than a 6'x3' plot of land
> get to vote.
>
> Some of them quite frequently.
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO (MTJ)
>
> (In the 2004 election, 169 counties had higher vote TALLIES than they did
> eligible voters. The same was true for the entire state of Maine. That's
> what we need -- 110% voter turnout)
>
>

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> STARSHIP TROOPERS, Service equals Citizenship. You have all
> the rights, except the right to vote unless your risked your
> life.
There are other ways to serve a country besides military service.
You're honestly telling me your average 18 year old Army recruit is
remotely intelligent about politics? I don't think so. For that
matter, my brother's OCS class wasn't exactly full of political scholars
(or any other kind of scholar)

> If I ruled the USA, voters would have to pass a test run by
> a machine, identify certain people by their picture, pick
> the correct answer to a few questions on the Constitution.
> Which people you ask? Public figures from history; Lincoln,
> Grant, Lee, Henry, Washington, Ike, Reagan, their current
> Congressman and Senators, maybe some Supreme Court members.
> What history? Random questions, anything, Civil War, WWI
> and WWII, Mexican War 1 and 2, Bill of Rights, enough to
> show they have some interest and are aware of the issues.
Good luck with that. Unfortunately, you can't legislate intelligence
(but it would make my life easier!)

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Then you need a different job, start looking.

Are you *kidding*? I work for one of the best companies in the world.
No one's ever been jealous of my job until this one.

[Jim Macklin]

But this job expects you to die undefended because they
decided that you are either incompetent, dangerous or
stupid.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Then you need a different job, start looking.
|
| Are you *kidding*? I work for one of the best companies
in the world.
| No one's ever been jealous of my job until this one.

[Jim Macklin]

Those may just be rentals.


"newsgroups.comcast.net" > wrote in
message . ..
| Like Chicago, for example. So I hear. ;)
|
| "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
| ...
|
| > In many localities, people who own nothing more than a
6'x3' plot of land
| > get to vote.
| >
| > Some of them quite frequently.
| >
| >
| > --
| > Matt
| > ---------------------
| > Matthew W. Barrow
| > Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| > Montrose, CO (MTJ)
| >
| > (In the 2004 election, 169 counties had higher vote
TALLIES than they did
| > eligible voters. The same was true for the entire state
of Maine. That's
| > what we need -- 110% voter turnout)
| >
| >
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

It was a book written by a good author, in response to the
actions of our POWs in Korea.

The point is that service at risk of life shows a level of
dedication. This is reflected by the path to citizenship
open to military volunteers.

Owning land is a means to display dedication to the society.
The founding fathers were in favor of unorganized militia
and were against standing armies. But service was
encouraged, even if it meant that a rich person might hire a
substitute for his service.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > STARSHIP TROOPERS, Service equals Citizenship. You have
all
| > the rights, except the right to vote unless your risked
your
| > life.
| There are other ways to serve a country besides military
service.
| You're honestly telling me your average 18 year old Army
recruit is
| remotely intelligent about politics? I don't think so.
For that
| matter, my brother's OCS class wasn't exactly full of
political scholars
| (or any other kind of scholar)
|
| > If I ruled the USA, voters would have to pass a test run
by
| > a machine, identify certain people by their picture,
pick
| > the correct answer to a few questions on the
Constitution.
| > Which people you ask? Public figures from history;
Lincoln,
| > Grant, Lee, Henry, Washington, Ike, Reagan, their
current
| > Congressman and Senators, maybe some Supreme Court
members.
| > What history? Random questions, anything, Civil War,
WWI
| > and WWII, Mexican War 1 and 2, Bill of Rights, enough to
| > show they have some interest and are aware of the
issues.
| Good luck with that. Unfortunately, you can't legislate
intelligence
| (but it would make my life easier!)

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> But this job expects you to die undefended because they
> decided that you are either incompetent, dangerous or
> stupid.

It's not a company rule, it's the airport authority's rule. My
goodness, get over it.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Jose wrote:
> >>>> .30/06 is the rifle caliber.
> >>>
> >>> Nope.
> >>> .30-'06
> >>
> >> Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.
> >
> >
> > Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six"
> > referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers to
> > the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?
>
> The year, 1906.

Actually, the .30-06 was came out in 1903 -- hence, the 03-A3
Springfield. IIRC, it was adopted as a military standard round in 1906.

[Jim Macklin]

Wrong, the 1903 Springfield rifle was adopted in 1903 along
with the 1903 ball ammo, that used a 220 grain round nose
bullet. Ballistic advancements resulted in the spitzer
pointed bullet being adopted in 1906.

The 1903A3 was a WWII substitute standard rifle made with
several modifications to speed production, including a two
groove instead of a four groove rifled barrel. The sights
were changed to a stamped steel aperture sight mounted on
the read receiver bridge. The production of M1 Garand
rifles was slow at the start of the war in 1939 [Europe] and
training and the Marine Corps made do with WWI stock on hand
and several companies contracted to make both the 1903A3
Springfield and M1 Garand rifles.

During WWI the British had Remington manufacture their new
design Pattern 14 Enfield rifle in caliber .303 British
[although it was first intended to be a .27 caliber rifle,
but the war caused the design change to allow use of
existing ammunition being used by the SMLE, a rifle used
until after the Korean war by the British and the colonies.
When the USA entered WWI, the Army contracted to have
Remington alter the P14 to shoot the .30/06 and adopted it
as the M1917.

The M1917 was the best bolt action battle rifle ever
designed. The Springfield was a target rifle and the Garand
was the best combat rifle of the 20th Century based on its
use in combat. The M14 is just a modified Garand.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
message
...
| In article >,
| Newps > wrote:
|
| > Jose wrote:
| > >>>> .30/06 is the rifle caliber.
| > >>>
| > >>> Nope.
| > >>> .30-'06
| > >>
| > >> Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.
| > >
| > >
| > > Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty
ought six"
| > > referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30
inches?) refers to
| > > the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?
| >
| > The year, 1906.
|
| Actually, the .30-06 was came out in 1903 -- hence, the
03-A3
| Springfield. IIRC, it was adopted as a military standard
round in 1906.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:29:48 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> If you have to shoot someone with justification, call the
> police as soon as you can, request an ambulance, tell the
> 911 operator the basic facts. Don't alter any part of the
> crime scene or nothing you say will be believed. Don't move
> the body, except as needed to provide first aid. Don't
> decide that you need more "justification" and drop a knife
> or gun if you don't see one after the shooting. Try to keep
> his buddies away, they will take his gun or knife and hide
> it. If you have a camera phone, take pictures while you're
> calling. Don't say too much... have your lawyers 24/7
> contact number.

She lives in Texas... All she needs is a pickup and a chain...
Personally, I believe that one should be ecological... If you kill it,
you should try to dispose of it if at all possible... Personally, I
have a fondness for larger reptiles... Gators gotta eat too, ya'
know...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:35:16 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> I guess I'd be OK with this as long as only those who vote had to pay
> taxes. After all, if I have no say in the country's governance, then I
> shouldn't have to pay for it either.

Best I remember, we didn't have an income tax back then... Probably
just a property tax...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:47:20 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the native Americans.

Perhaps... Perhaps they stole it from the Neanderthals or whomever was
around before them... Or perhaps they just stole it from other native
Americans... Don't try judging our ancestors by the standards of
today...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:14:22 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> And although I think I'm too old for the draft now, if they started
> drafting women, I'd be in OCS so fast my current employer wouldn't know
> what hit them. THAT'S how I really feel about mandatory military service.

You would probably not have a problem being an office... Hell, you
already got the first prerequisite -- you have to squat to ****...

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>>>> .30/06 is the rifle caliber.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>> .30-'06
>>
>> Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.
>
>
> Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six"
> referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers to
> the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?

Short-hand for 1906, the year it was adopted.

http://www.gmdr.com/lever/3006stext.htm

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:14:22 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> And although I think I'm too old for the draft now, if they started
>> drafting women, I'd be in OCS so fast my current employer wouldn't know
>> what hit them. THAT'S how I really feel about mandatory military service.
>
> You would probably not have a problem being an office... Hell, you
> already got the first prerequisite -- you have to squat to ****...

No, I wouldn't have a problem being an officer....if it came down to
being an officer or enlisting. But, since I was accepted to OCS a few
years ago and decided not to go, I think my decision on that is made.

And cool it with the officer jokes!

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> A 32 Seacamp with the recommended ammo is more effective
> than the standard 38 Special 158 grain RN. It is reliable,
> lethal on a headshot, lethal on a heart shot, and it is
> available when nothing else might be.

I think it is Seecamp, but comparing one inadequate cartridge to another
doesn't really make a meaningful point. A .22 is lethal with perfect
bullet placement, no heavy clothing, etc., but it certainly wouldn't be
on my list for self-defense against anything larger than a cat.


> My choice is a Colt Officer's ACP .45 ACP with 200 grain +P
> HP, carried behind the hip in a holster of my own design.
> But since most people do not have unlimited funds, people
> carry what they have. Any gun, in any caliber is better
> than a big gun locked away at home.

Yes, that is my preferred sidearm also, although mine isn't the
officer's model.


> There are several small .45s on the market,
> http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ultracarry/ are not
> much bigger than the Seacamp. Dirty Harry not withstanding,
> really big handguns are not first choice for self-defense,
> except where there are large bears, lions or other 1,000
> pound monsters. Ruger makes the 480 and 454 Alaskan and S&W
> has the snubby versions of the .500, but these are just too
> big and powerful for anti-personnel use. Too much power
> delays repeat shots and if there are two or more attackers
> you need repeat shots.

Yes, don't need something quite that big, but I like at least a .45 ACP
as that is well proven. Personally, I like a .41 or .44 magnum, but it
is hard to find them in autoloaders and the 10mm isn't that popular
either. I can get repeat shots with my .45 nearly as fast as with my
Ruger .22/44. I've never had a problem with recoil as my dad had me
shooting .357 single actions at age 8 and .44 mags by age 10. However,
I wouldn't recommend them to everyone. A 9mm is controllable by almost
anyone and has a lot more stopping power than a .32 or .38. I consider
a 9mm to be marginal and I laugh at this whole "fire power" argument.
Personally, I'd rather have 6 or 8 rounds that count, than 15 peas to lob.


> The 40 S&W and 45 ACP are about ideal, the 9 mm [9x19
> Luger/Parabellum/NATO] is a good minimum unless some other
> factor, such as physical weakness in the hands, or just no
> way to carry or control something bigger. But remember the
> point is to protect yourself, a gun may scare the attacker
> into flight without a shot being fired. A shot fired that
> hits the right place is better than a miss with a 44 Magnum.
> The .22 LT HP is pretty effective at killing but it is not a
> stopper. The bigger bullet has a better chance of stopping
> the attacker and may not be as lethal as some smaller
> calibers. But ideally, an attacker will never attack
> because they will be worried that you may be armed. If they
> do attack, the sight of your gun may scare them away [this
> is very common]. If you have to shoot, you want to make
> them stop their attack, you want to stun them into complete
> inaction instantaneously. Bottom-line, you want to go home.

I generally agree with you here.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Mas A yob, nice guy as long as he's on your side.

I've never met him. I've read a few articles he's written in the gun
mags, but he doesn't write for the two (American Rifleman and Shooting
Times) which I get by subscription. I occasionally pick up one of those
he writes for on the newstand when traveling.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The King of Spain gave a few people most of southern Texas.
>
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in
> message
> ...
> | In article >, Matt
> Whiting >
> | wrote:
> |
> | > Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from the
> native Americans.
> |
> | who stole it from other native americans, who stole it
> from ....
> |
> | --
> | Bob Noel
> | Looking for a sig the
> | lawyers will hate
> |
>
>

It wasn't his to give.

Matt

[Jim Macklin]

Speed without accuracy, power without accuracy, too much
power may kill your neighbor... If you want to see speed,
have you seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6rEnEQkYaQ&search=bond


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > A 32 Seacamp with the recommended ammo is more effective
| > than the standard 38 Special 158 grain RN. It is
reliable,
| > lethal on a headshot, lethal on a heart shot, and it is
| > available when nothing else might be.
|
| I think it is Seecamp, but comparing one inadequate
cartridge to another
| doesn't really make a meaningful point. A .22 is lethal
with perfect
| bullet placement, no heavy clothing, etc., but it
certainly wouldn't be
| on my list for self-defense against anything larger than a
cat.
|
|
| > My choice is a Colt Officer's ACP .45 ACP with 200 grain
+P
| > HP, carried behind the hip in a holster of my own
design.
| > But since most people do not have unlimited funds,
people
| > carry what they have. Any gun, in any caliber is better
| > than a big gun locked away at home.
|
| Yes, that is my preferred sidearm also, although mine
isn't the
| officer's model.
|
|
| > There are several small .45s on the market,
| > http://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/ultracarry/ are not
| > much bigger than the Seacamp. Dirty Harry not
withstanding,
| > really big handguns are not first choice for
self-defense,
| > except where there are large bears, lions or other 1,000
| > pound monsters. Ruger makes the 480 and 454 Alaskan and
S&W
| > has the snubby versions of the .500, but these are just
too
| > big and powerful for anti-personnel use. Too much power
| > delays repeat shots and if there are two or more
attackers
| > you need repeat shots.
|
| Yes, don't need something quite that big, but I like at
least a .45 ACP
| as that is well proven. Personally, I like a .41 or .44
magnum, but it
| is hard to find them in autoloaders and the 10mm isn't
that popular
| either. I can get repeat shots with my .45 nearly as fast
as with my
| Ruger .22/44. I've never had a problem with recoil as my
dad had me
| shooting .357 single actions at age 8 and .44 mags by age
10. However,
| I wouldn't recommend them to everyone. A 9mm is
controllable by almost
| anyone and has a lot more stopping power than a .32 or
..38. I consider
| a 9mm to be marginal and I laugh at this whole "fire
power" argument.
| Personally, I'd rather have 6 or 8 rounds that count, than
15 peas to lob.
|
|
| > The 40 S&W and 45 ACP are about ideal, the 9 mm [9x19
| > Luger/Parabellum/NATO] is a good minimum unless some
other
| > factor, such as physical weakness in the hands, or just
no
| > way to carry or control something bigger. But remember
the
| > point is to protect yourself, a gun may scare the
attacker
| > into flight without a shot being fired. A shot fired
that
| > hits the right place is better than a miss with a 44
Magnum.
| > The .22 LT HP is pretty effective at killing but it is
not a
| > stopper. The bigger bullet has a better chance of
stopping
| > the attacker and may not be as lethal as some smaller
| > calibers. But ideally, an attacker will never attack
| > because they will be worried that you may be armed. If
they
| > do attack, the sight of your gun may scare them away
[this
| > is very common]. If you have to shoot, you want to make
| > them stop their attack, you want to stun them into
complete
| > inaction instantaneously. Bottom-line, you want to go
home.
|
| I generally agree with you here.
|
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

Get the book, it isn't expensive and is very well written.
He has a column in the American Handgunner that is always
thought provoking.

I have a friend who took his LFI classes years ago.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Mas A yob, nice guy as long as he's on your side.
|
| I've never met him. I've read a few articles he's written
in the gun
| mags, but he doesn't write for the two (American Rifleman
and Shooting
| Times) which I get by subscription. I occasionally pick
up one of those
| he writes for on the newstand when traveling.
|
|
| Matt

[Jim Macklin]

At the time, he thought it was. The issue should be moot.



"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > The King of Spain gave a few people most of southern
Texas.
| >
| >
| > "Bob Noel" > wrote in
| > message
| >
...
| > | In article >, Matt
| > Whiting >
| > | wrote:
| > |
| > | > Yes, but it isn't yours as your family stole it from
the
| > native Americans.
| > |
| > | who stole it from other native americans, who stole it
| > from ....
| > |
| > | --
| > | Bob Noel
| > | Looking for a sig the
| > | lawyers will hate
| > |
| >
| >
|
| It wasn't his to give.
|
| Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six" referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers to the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?
>
> The year, 1906.

Interesting. Can you name any other bullets with this name format that
are as well known as the thirty ought six? What's so special about this
one?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

It was the official cartridge of the US military and tens of
thousands of surplus military rifles were sold and millions
of commercial rifles world-wide in the same caliber
[European call it the 7.62x63]

Military designations are often simple, to a supply officer
in procurement. Every nation had its own system and
commercial makers would alter names so they could be
copyrighted.

So the 7.62x51 NATO was released by Winchester as the .308
Winchester.
The Krag rifle which was adopted in the late 1890 period
used smokeless powder and the old black powder designation
system... .30-40-220 Krag 30 caliber, 40 grains of powder
and a 220 grain bullet. Just after the Civil War the Army
adopted the 1873 Springfield rifle in caliber .45-70-405
which was a 45 caliber bullet weighing 405 grain [almost a
full ounce of lead] and 70 grains of black powder.

The .38 Special uses a 35 caliber bullet and the 44 Special
and Magnum use a 43 caliber bullet. The need to have a
unique name is often more important than precise accuracy.
Some cartridges are named according to the bullet diameter
and some according to the bore diameter not counting the
depth of the rifling grooves. A .270 uses .277 bullets and
might be called 6.8 mm. The 5.56x45 is the 5.56 NATO or the
commercial .223 Remington and is chambered in the M16, Ruger
Mini-14 and a lot of other rifles and some handguns.

Of hand I can't think of any other cartridge that uses a
date, but there probably is more than one. You can look up
just about every cartridge in a book from Gun Digest
CARTRIDGES of the WORLD.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
| >> Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty
ought six" referring to a gun, and think I know one of them
(.30 inches?) refers to the gauge (width of the bullet).
What's the other?
| >
| > The year, 1906.
|
| Interesting. Can you name any other bullets with this
name format that
| are as well known as the thirty ought six? What's so
special about this
| one?
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:56:46 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> > wrote:
>> There was a step in the middle. Originally, you had to be a landowner.
>> Then many (most? all?) places changed the requirement to a poll tax,
>> then
>> the Civil Rights Act outlawed poll taxes.
>
> If someone doesn't own property, why should they have a say in how the
> country is run?


Well, I pay a hell of a lot more in income taxes than I do in property
taxes. I think that ought to give me some say in how my money is spent.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:48:10 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> Barf. I HATE the idea of mandatory military duty. **** that.
>
> Well, I did my time, so I don't have a problem with them requiring
> it... All in all, as much as I bitched about it at the time, I would
> have to say that it definitely builds character...

Yeah...the cahracter of servant and pawns -- somre measure of liberty you
got there!

>Then again, as we
> used to say, "A happy sailor is a bitching sailor"...

If they ain't bitchin', they ain't happy!

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:u_cyg.84380$ZW3.79551@dukeread04...
> STARSHIP TROOPERS, Service equals Citizenship. You have all
> the rights, except the right to vote unless your risked your
> life. When your discharged, you get to vote.
>
> The movie sucked, the books was very good.
>
> If I ruled the USA, voters would have to pass a test run by
> a machine, identify certain people by their picture, pick
> the correct answer to a few questions on the Constitution.
> Which people you ask? Public figures from history; Lincoln,
> Grant, Lee, Henry, Washington, Ike, Reagan, their current
> Congressman and Senators, maybe some Supreme Court members.
> What history? Random questions, anything, Civil War, WWI
> and WWII, Mexican War 1 and 2, Bill of Rights, enough to
> show they have some interest and are aware of the issues.
>
> But that isn't likely to happen. politicians prefer stupid
> voters who will keep returning them to office.
>
Maybe they'll ask questions about sports or entertainment.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:u_cyg.84380$ZW3.79551@dukeread04...
> STARSHIP TROOPERS, Service equals Citizenship. You have all
> the rights, except the right to vote unless your risked your
> life. When your discharged, you get to vote.
>
> The movie sucked, the books was very good.

The book was almost 180 degrees opposed to the movie.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:CBdyg.84393$ZW3.45528@dukeread04...
> Those may just be rentals.
>

What plot of ground is 6'x3'? :~)


>
> "newsgroups.comcast.net" > wrote in
> message . ..
> | Like Chicago, for example. So I hear. ;)
> |
> | "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> | ...
> |
> | > In many localities, people who own nothing more than a
> 6'x3' plot of land
> | > get to vote.
> | >
> | > Some of them quite frequently.
> | >
> | >
> | > --
> | > Matt
> | > ---------------------
> | > Matthew W. Barrow
> | > Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> | > Montrose, CO (MTJ)
> | >
> | > (In the 2004 election, 169 counties had higher vote
> TALLIES than they did
> | > eligible voters. The same was true for the entire state
> of Maine. That's
> | > what we need -- 110% voter turnout)
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:35:16 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> I guess I'd be OK with this as long as only those who vote had to pay
> taxes.

I'd say only those who pay taxes (about a certain, though relatively
minimal, amount) got to vote. Keeps parasites from voting themselves into
someone else's wallet.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jose wrote:
>>>>> .30/06 is the rifle caliber.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>> .30-'06
>>>
>>> Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.
>>
>>
>> Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six"
>> referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers to
>> the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?
>
> The year, 1906.

1906 is the years adopted by the military -- 100 years young.

Waiting for the 1911's centennial in five years.

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:

>> >>> Nope.
>> >>> .30-'06
>> >>
>> >> Yep, caliber and year, not a fraction.
>> >
>> >
>> > Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six"
>> > referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers
>> > to
>> > the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?
>>
>> The year, 1906.
>
> Actually, the .30-06 was came out in 1903 -- hence, the 03-A3
> Springfield. IIRC, it was adopted as a military standard round in 1906.

Nope! The '03 was slightly different and when modified, was put in final
production as the '06.

From the 1903 Springfield Tribute Page:

"The round developed for the 1903 was a Mauser-style rimless cartridge that
fired a 220-grain cupro-nickel-jacketed roundnose .30 bullet at some 2,300
feet per second (fps). Following the adoption by the Germans of a 154-grain
spitzer bullet that had a muzzle velocity of 2,880 fps, U.S. Ordnance
officials began rethinking our 1903 round and came up with an improved
version with a 150-grain spitzer bullet and MV of 2,700. The new "Model
1906" (or .30-'06) case was .070 inch longer than its predecessor and more
than lived up to its promise as a military round. With various loadings it
became one of the world’s preeminent hunting rounds and a not too bad
targeteer. "

[Matt Barrow[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:q_cyg.84378$ZW3.20173@dukeread04...
>I think the Dutch paid the Indians $32 in junk jewelry and
> beads.
>

$26 for Manhattan.

It wasn't their's to sell.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:23:35 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> And cool it with the officer jokes!

The story behind it is this:

If you're in boot camp and you make the mistake of calling you drill
instructor "sir", you usually got a response like this:

"SIR? I'M NOT A ****IN' OFFICER! I DON'T HAVE TO SQUAT TO ****!"

Usually yelled at you a couple of inches from your face...

More often than not, the officers just end up being the equivalent of
management types in the civilian sector... Sometimes you get one who
is competent on technical matters, but that often seems to be the
exception...

After I did my hitch as an enlisted, I went back to college and after
getting my BS, I thought about going back in and being an officer...
At that time, the Navy had quit allowing personnel to have beards... I
*hate* shaving... So, I went to graduate school instead and got my
MS...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:49:23 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> Well, I pay a hell of a lot more in income taxes than I do in property
> taxes. I think that ought to give me some say in how my money is spent.

No, that just says that we should do away with the income taxes...

[Jim Macklin]

A Calico?


"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:35:10 GMT, Matt Whiting
>
| wrote:
| > I consider a 9mm to be marginal and I laugh at this
| > whole "fire power" argument. Personally, I'd rather
| > have 6 or 8 rounds that count, than 15 peas to lob
|
| I've got two 9mms... One was for compact carry, but it got
relegated
| to the gun safe after I found the exact same model in
..40SW and .45
| with the same number of rounds and still basically the
same size
| weapon... The other 9mm has 50 round magazines for it...
It might be
| lobbing peas, but it's lobbing *a lot* of peas... One
could consider
| it good for suppressive fire...

[Emily[_1_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> But that isn't likely to happen. politicians prefer stupid
>> voters who will keep returning them to office.
>>
> Maybe they'll ask questions about sports or entertainment.

That rules me out.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:23:35 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> And cool it with the officer jokes!
>
> The story behind it is this:
>
> If you're in boot camp and you make the mistake of calling you drill
> instructor "sir", you usually got a response like this:
>
> "SIR? I'M NOT A ****IN' OFFICER! I DON'T HAVE TO SQUAT TO ****!"
>
> Usually yelled at you a couple of inches from your face...
>
> More often than not, the officers just end up being the equivalent of
> management types in the civilian sector... Sometimes you get one who
> is competent on technical matters, but that often seems to be the
> exception...

Dunno, no one in my family is an actual line officer, so at least two of
them were/are out in the field with everyone else.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:46:12 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> A Calico?

Nawh, a TEC-9... I figure that if it was worth being mentioned on the
Brady Bill, I needed to buy one... It's accurate enough at typical
defensive ranges, but it's main advantage would be the ability to
quickly put down a field of suppressive fire... It would make your
typical home invasion thugs think twice... Of course, you're going to
patching holes in your sheetrock for the next couple of weeks...
<grin>

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Speed without accuracy, power without accuracy, too much
> power may kill your neighbor... If you want to see speed,
> have you seen
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6rEnEQkYaQ&search=bond

Yes, I've seen that. Have you seen the video of Bill Jordan drawing and
hitting a target in something like .25 second?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>>> Ok, what do the numbers mean? I've heard of a "thirty ought six"
>>> referring to a gun, and think I know one of them (.30 inches?) refers
>>> to the gauge (width of the bullet). What's the other?
>>
>>
>> The year, 1906.
>
>
> Interesting. Can you name any other bullets with this name format that
> are as well known as the thirty ought six? What's so special about this
> one?

To be correct, it is a cartridge, not a bullet. No, I know of no others
this famous with this name convention. The main thing that is special
is that the government used it so widely for so long and it was a pretty
versatile round for hunting as well. Large enough for all but the
nastiest game on most continents, yet small enough to be shot
comfortably by almost anyone.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:35:10 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>>I consider a 9mm to be marginal and I laugh at this
>>whole "fire power" argument. Personally, I'd rather
>>have 6 or 8 rounds that count, than 15 peas to lob
>
>
> I've got two 9mms... One was for compact carry, but it got relegated
> to the gun safe after I found the exact same model in .40SW and .45
> with the same number of rounds and still basically the same size
> weapon... The other 9mm has 50 round magazines for it... It might be
> lobbing peas, but it's lobbing *a lot* of peas... One could consider
> it good for suppressive fire...

I'd rather have a Thompson for suppressive fire. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:46:12 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>
>>A Calico?
>
>
> Nawh, a TEC-9... I figure that if it was worth being mentioned on the
> Brady Bill, I needed to buy one... It's accurate enough at typical
> defensive ranges, but it's main advantage would be the ability to
> quickly put down a field of suppressive fire... It would make your
> typical home invasion thugs think twice... Of course, you're going to
> patching holes in your sheetrock for the next couple of weeks...
> <grin>

With my .45 or .44 mag, the thugs won't be thinking at all...

Matt

[Jim Macklin]

Seen him do it. In his day they had gunfights on the
Mexican border , several times a night. He was a cool
customer. Last time I talked to him he was living in
Louisiana.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Speed without accuracy, power without accuracy, too much
| > power may kill your neighbor... If you want to see
speed,
| > have you seen
| > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6rEnEQkYaQ&search=bond
|
| Yes, I've seen that. Have you seen the video of Bill
Jordan drawing and
| hitting a target in something like .25 second?
|
| Matt

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:30:35 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> Large enough for all but the nastiest game on most
> continents, yet small enough to be shot comfortably
> by almost anyone.

My next door neighbor asked me today if I wanted some 30-06 shells
since he doesn't own one anymore and doesn't hut... I thought for a
second and realized that it was one caliber that for whatever reason,
I don't own anymore... Come to think of it, I'm not sure if I ever
owned one... Owned a .308 at one time, but I can't remember ever
owning a 30-06... If I did, it was so many years ago that I've
forgotten abou it...

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Seen him do it. In his day they had gunfights on the
> Mexican border , several times a night. He was a cool
> customer. Last time I talked to him he was living in
> Louisiana.

I never got the chance to meet either Bill or Skeeter before him. It
would have been very interesting in both cases. I think it has been
several years now since Bill died and many more since Skeeter died.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:30:35 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>>Large enough for all but the nastiest game on most
>>continents, yet small enough to be shot comfortably
>>by almost anyone.
>
>
> My next door neighbor asked me today if I wanted some 30-06 shells
> since he doesn't own one anymore and doesn't hut... I thought for a
> second and realized that it was one caliber that for whatever reason,
> I don't own anymore... Come to think of it, I'm not sure if I ever
> owned one... Owned a .308 at one time, but I can't remember ever
> owning a 30-06... If I did, it was so many years ago that I've
> forgotten abou it...

I never owned one either. I bought a 7mm Magnum when I was 14 and never
looked back. Nothing against the '06, I just liked the 7mm ... and
still have that rifle 30 some years later and like it just as much now
as then. It is a one-shot kill no matter what I shoot with it. I used
it on woodchucks for years, but finally bought a .220 Swift a few years
ago as the 7mm is a little heavy for chucks.

Matt

[Jim Macklin]

I meet Bill at the NRA convention in Chicago back about
1966, he was very much alive then. I talked to him on the
phone, at his home in Louisiana at least 10-15 years ago.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Seen him do it. In his day they had gunfights on the
| > Mexican border , several times a night. He was a cool
| > customer. Last time I talked to him he was living in
| > Louisiana.
|
| I never got the chance to meet either Bill or Skeeter
before him. It
| would have been very interesting in both cases. I think
it has been
| several years now since Bill died and many more since
Skeeter died.
|
| Matt

[gatt]

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> Give an example of a freedom you had 10 years ago that you do not have
>> now.
>
> The freedom to fly myself into an airport near DC to visit a friend who
> lives there. The freedom to carry a thin, large diameter steel disk onto
> an airliner as hand luggage.

LOL!

Coming back into the US from England, via BC, the security folks confiscated
our red electric tape but let us keep our black electric tape (We were in
England filming Robot Wars, and the tape was among the miscellanea that got
shoved in the camera bag at the last minute.)

I demand my freedom to carry multi-colored friggin' electric tape!

-c

[gatt]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .

> In Oregon, I am no longer free to buy cold medicines containing
> pseudoephedrine without a prescription

SERIOUSLY! GOOD EXAMPLE!

The indians called the Willamette Valley the "Valley of sickness" because of
the pollen, which because of the grass seed farms is among the worst and
most concentrated in the world. Along comes a medication with almost no
side-effects, no drowsiness...something you could actually take and then fly
a plane.

Now you need a prescription to take a perfectly useful
medication....remember when they pulled Primatene too? That means only
folks with enough money to get to a physician and then get a prescription
can afford it. Isn't a problem for me (I work right across the river, where
it's legal over the counter.)

Why? 'Cause it's used in meth. So friggin' WHAT?! Meth manufactures
have been known to use crap like linoleum. You should need a prescription
to install a kitchen floor! The druggies are just going to order the crap
over the internet from Singapore or Canada anyway.

-c
(Portland)

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:53:06 GMT, "gatt"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> In Oregon, I am no longer free to buy cold medicines containing
>> pseudoephedrine without a prescription
>
>SERIOUSLY! GOOD EXAMPLE!
>
>The indians called the Willamette Valley the "Valley of sickness" because of
>the pollen, which because of the grass seed farms is among the worst and
>most concentrated in the world. Along comes a medication with almost no
>side-effects, no drowsiness...something you could actually take and then fly
>a plane.

I'm with you on the drugs, but I think there's an anachronism in the
indian/grass thing. Sort of like John Gray learning to make chainsaws
from the Calapooia. (Oh, right. He learned it from termites or
beavers or something. Maybe I should have said the Multnomah taught
Howard Vollum about oscilloscopes.)

I'm so allergic to grass pollen that the only thing that got me
through June and July, even way up in Aloha, were steroids.

Don