Cold Dead Hands
Weatherlawyer
gentle grandfather, with an infectious sense of humour. He served
these far greater roles with tremendous faith, courage and dignity. He
loved deeply, and he was deeply loved.
No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given
more to his family, to his profession, and to his country. And now
that they are cooling off, we can prise that bloody gun from his cold
dead hands and screw the damn lid down.
Charleton Heston, Rifello Inveteratae Pissum.
Ray O'Hara
"Weatherlawyer" <Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3f7a1c1-4a8c-4699...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
he was exploited by the rightwing in his senility.
Weatherlawyer
> "Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Charleton Heston, Rifello Inveteratae Pissum.
>
> he was exploited by the rightwing in his senility.
No more his backers he shall hear
NRA's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts where once the lead did fly.
Thy beauty shall no more be found,
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound my echoing song;
Then worms shall try the gunsmith's valiant battle-cry,
And thus quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all his trust.
The grave's a fine and private place,
No rifles he doth there embrace.
Roger Conroy
"Weatherlawyer" <Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3f7a1c1-4a8c-4699...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
No.
Thus it follows:
As long as it was in his hands it was not available to the hands of those
who would use it to do harm.
Weatherlawyer
wrote:
> "Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e3f7a1c1-4a8c-4699...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > We knew him as an adoring husband, a kind and devoted father, and a
> > gentle grandfather, with an infectious sense of humour. He served
> > these far greater roles with tremendous faith, courage and dignity. He
> > loved deeply, and he was deeply loved.
>
> > No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given
> > more to his family, to his profession, and to his country. And now
> > that they are cooling off, we can prise that bloody gun from his cold
> > dead hands and screw the damn lid down.
>
> > Charleton Heston, Rifello Inveteratae Pissum.
>
> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
I don't know. That's the problem with guns they are pretty good at
hitting and running. So, did he?
> No.
You are dead sure?
> Thus it follows:
> As long as it was in his hands it was not available to the hands of those
> who would use it to do harm.
Having strict gun laws doesn't stop gun crime. Stopping gun crime,
even if that were possible, is unlikely to stop lunatics killing.
The US and other countries has it's own rules and ways. None of it
likely to be my business. In an age where a mother can allow her
daughter free access to perverts, I think there are deeper things that
politicians should be looking at.
But never will.
We can stop political crime.
Shoot the buggers.
Roger Conroy
> On Apr 7, 7:30 am, "Roger Conroy" <rogerconroy.nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Weatherlawyer" <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e3f7a1c1-4a8c-4699...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > We knew him as an adoring husband, a kind and devoted father, and a
>> > gentle grandfather, with an infectious sense of humour. He served
>> > these far greater roles with tremendous faith, courage and dignity. He
>> > loved deeply, and he was deeply loved.
>>
>> > No one could ask for a fuller life than his. No man could have given
>> > more to his family, to his profession, and to his country. And now
>> > that they are cooling off, we can prise that bloody gun from his cold
>> > dead hands and screw the damn lid down.
>>
>> > Charleton Heston, Rifello Inveteratae Pissum.
>>
>> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
>
> I don't know. That's the problem with guns they are pretty good at
> hitting and running. So, did he?
>
>> No.
>
> You are dead sure?
>
He is not known to ever have been convicted of a crime involving abuse of a
firearm.
>> Thus it follows:
>> As long as it was in his hands it was not available to the hands of those
>> who would use it to do harm.
>
> Having strict gun laws doesn't stop gun crime. Stopping gun crime,
> even if that were possible, is unlikely to stop lunatics killing.
>
Exactly my point - "Gun control" is entirely irrelevant to crime prevention.
The rate of homocide by firearm (particularly handguns) has in fact gone up
since the UK handgun ban.
Of course there is no excuse for laxity in keeping guns out of the hands of
people who are known to be irresponsible/criminal.
"Background checks" need to REAL.
> The US and other countries has it's own rules and ways. None of it
> likely to be my business. In an age where a mother can allow her
> daughter free access to perverts, I think there are deeper things that
> politicians should be looking at.
>
> But never will.
>
> We can stop political crime.
> Shoot the buggers.
Do unto others as they would do unto you... first!
Weatherlawyer
> > Shoot the buggers.
>
> Do unto others as they would do unto you... first!
Spot the deliberate mistake:
I suppose nothing can be done about the erroneous assumption that hand
held fully automatic fire is somehow more efficient than aimed fire.
As I used to demonstrate, when I had a teaching job, quick semi-
automatic fire is far more likely to produce results than bursts. Thus
the preoccupation of the Feds with the idea that is it somehow an
offence against God and man to convert a semi-automatic weapon to a
fully automatic capacity is simply a manifestation of ignorance.
If a man is shooting at me, I would much prefer that he were on full
auto than carefully holding and squeezing. The automatic option is the
greatest encourager of the spray-and-pray technique, which I have long
done my best to discourage.
David Phillips
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
>
>The one he held over his head during the famous speech?
>
>Doubtfull, AFAIK it was a fake...
I'm somewhat sure, but too lazy to look it up, that it was a
functioning flintlock. IIRC, it was a recently built replica.
Many folks were angry at him for using a flintlock in that speech.
Should have been a main battle rifle :-)
Fred J. McCall
:On 8 Apr 2008 07:04:09 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
What the hell is a "main battle rifle"?
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Weatherlawyer
> David Phillips <david.phill...@sas.com> wrote:
>
> :On 8 Apr 2008 07:04:09 GMT, Juergen Nieveler:<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> ::>"Roger Conroy" <rogerconroy.nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>
> :>> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
> :>
> :>The one he held over his head during the famous speech?
> :>
> :>Doubtfull, AFAIK it was a fake...
> :
> :I'm somewhat sure, but too lazy to look it up, that it was a
> :functioning flintlock. IIRC, it was a recently built replica.
> :
> :Many folks were angry at him for using a flintlock in that speech.
> :Should have been a main battle rifle :-)
>
> What the hell is a "main battle rifle"?
It's the one you are supposed to righteously have about your person
when the British invade Main.
David Phillips
Yep, that's basically it. A loose term for the standard issue
infantry weapon. Could be an M-1, M-14, M-16 for the USAians
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9A7ADEA7D7F6...@nieveler.org:
> David Phillips <david.p...@sas.com> wrote:
>
>> Many folks were angry at him for using a flintlock in that speech.
>> Should have been a main battle rifle :-)
>
> If he'd tried to make THOSE guys happy, he'd have to lift a Ma Deuce
> over his head - which would have been a tad bit difficult for him ;-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
did you know you can buy(in the US) a semi-auto only M2 now?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
:
If you make up phrases, you should expect people to think you're
silly.
You're silly, David.
--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Weatherlawyer
wrote:
> Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> >> If he'd tried to make THOSE guys happy, he'd have to lift a Ma Deuce
> >> over his head - which would have been a tad bit difficult for him ;-)
>
>
> castrated machinegun.
>
> But as I live in .de that will always stay a dream - we're not even
> allowed to carry pocket knives that can be opened single-handedly
> (although we ARE allowed to carry fixed blades of up to 12cm...)
>
> To get a gun permit you have to jump through all kinds of bureaucratic
> hoops, and that's just to buy a gun and fire it at licensed gun ranges.
> Concealed-carry permit? Only if your bodyguards come in and check the
> office of the guy who has to sign the license form for terrorists,
> otherwise you're considered not to be endangered enough to require a
> gun.
In Britain only criminals have guns. And if you count the police,
that's quite a crowd. (Tip: If you look Brazillianish and you see a
policeman with a gun, get off the train. If you see more than one,
take all your clothes off, quick!)
William Black
>
> In Britain only criminals have guns.
I have a couple and I'm not a criminal.
It's not hard to get a license if you want to shoot.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
William Black
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7B78EB2D9E...@nieveler.org...> Knives, too, of course. I suppose swords and bows are banned as well,
> despite the legal requirement to carry them? ;-)
1. The legal requirement is no longer there. It was abolished by Thatcher
2. The requirement was for ownership and practise, not the carriage, of
arms.
3. Restrictions on the carriage of arms are as ancient as the requirement
for ownership.
4. Restrictions on the purchase of edged weapons only apply to those under
sixteen years of age and to a few defined weapons. Selling Samurai swords
for £20 to idiots caused problems, if you want a bastard sword or a rapier
you can still buy one...
Roger Conroy
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7BD820781E...@nieveler.org...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> In Britain only criminals have guns.
>>
>> I have a couple and I'm not a criminal.
>>
>> It's not hard to get a license if you want to shoot.
>
> people who vouch for you, and a visit to them as well.
>
> Even Germany is better off - the Inquisitors only visit us, not our
> friends.
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> The best way to handle DOS is... wiping it off your HD!
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
William Black
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7BD820781E...@nieveler.org...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> In Britain only criminals have guns.
>>
>> I have a couple and I'm not a criminal.
>>
>> It's not hard to get a license if you want to shoot.
>
> IIRC it involves a visit by the Spanish inquisition, naming several
> people who vouch for you, and a visit to them as well.
Nope.
One reference.
They usually get a phone call.
A visit by the local 'firearms' cop to make sure your store conforms to the
requirement and to check that you're reasonably normal.
That's about it.
Mind you, I live in the area in the UK where there are more firearms per
dwelling than any other in the country. I am informed that getting a
license in big cities can be more complicated and getting one in London can
be a nightmare.
Brian Sharrock
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ftll2i$koj$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A7BD820781E...@nieveler.org...
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> In Britain only criminals have guns.
>>>
>>> I have a couple and I'm not a criminal.
>>>
>>> It's not hard to get a license if you want to shoot.
>>
>> IIRC it involves a visit by the Spanish inquisition, naming several
>> people who vouch for you, and a visit to them as well.
>
> Nope.
>
> One reference.
>
> They usually get a phone call.
>
> A visit by the local 'firearms' cop to make sure your store conforms to
> the requirement and to check that you're reasonably normal.
>
> That's about it.
>
> Mind you, I live in the area in the UK where there are more firearms per
> dwelling than any other in the country. I am informed that getting a
> license in big cities can be more complicated and getting one in London
> can be a nightmare.
>
I've held firearms licenses off the Metropolitan Police -albeit in 1992/3.
The process wasn't any more difficult than in other Constabularies. The
applications and licenses and telephone contacts were to/from Central London
while the physical inspections were 'farmed out' to the Surrey Constabulary
as the premise was a 'stone's throw' from the Kingston nick!
> --
> William Black
>
--
Brian
William Black
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> IIRC it involves a visit by the Spanish inquisition, naming several
>>> people who vouch for you, and a visit to them as well.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> One reference.
>>
>> They usually get a phone call.
>
>
> Over here, you have to prove membership in a gun club for at least 12
> months, prove that you went to training and competions regularly during
> that time, take an exam, prove that your gun storage provisions are
> safe...
Different rules for shotguns and rifles here.
Shotguns need secure storage and there's a requirement to prove that you
have somewhere to shoot, but that's about it.
What are usually refer to as 'firearms' but include all rifled weapons and
shotguns with barrels under 24" and things like cannon do require club
membership for at last six months and a 'tick in the box' from the club to
show you have shot regularly and done the appropriate training.
Some groups, such as re-enactors and training organisations, get special
privileges under the law.
Paul J. Adam
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>What are usually refer to as 'firearms' but include all rifled weapons and
>shotguns with barrels under 24" and things like cannon do require club
>membership for at last six months and a 'tick in the box' from the club to
>show you have shot regularly and done the appropriate training.
Worth remembering that you can still have a repeating handgun in the UK:
just decide to shoot blackpowder revolver. Get yourself a modern LeMat
replica and have nine rounds of .357 with a shotgun for backup :)
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
Jim Yanik
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> IIRC it involves a visit by the Spanish inquisition, naming several
>>> people who vouch for you, and a visit to them as well.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> One reference.
>>
>> They usually get a phone call.
>
> That sounds a bit more reasonable, indeed :-)
>
> Over here, you have to prove membership in a gun club for at least 12
> months,
having NO gun?
> prove that you went to training and competions regularly during
> that time, take an exam, prove that your gun storage provisions are
> safe...
>
> Juergen Nieveler
Yes,you're considered a criminal until you prove you aren't.
I suspect your criminals still get guns,too.
Jim Yanik
news:qerA9bDG1+$HF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:
> In message <ftoht8$ndg$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, William Black
><willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>What are usually refer to as 'firearms' but include all rifled weapons
>>and shotguns with barrels under 24" and things like cannon do require
>>club membership for at last six months and a 'tick in the box' from
>>the club to show you have shot regularly and done the appropriate
>>training.
>
> Worth remembering that you can still have a repeating handgun in the
> UK: just decide to shoot blackpowder revolver. Get yourself a modern
> LeMat replica and have nine rounds of .357 with a shotgun for backup
> :)
>
but you would still have to keep them in "secure storage",wouldn't you?
BTW,the LeMat BP replicas I Googled were .44 caliber.(even better!)
Paul J. Adam
<jya...@abuse.gov> writes
>> UK: just decide to shoot blackpowder revolver. Get yourself a modern
>> LeMat replica and have nine rounds of .357 with a shotgun for backup
>> :)
>>
>
>but you would still have to keep them in "secure storage",wouldn't you?
When not in use, sure. My Army training means I get _really_ upset about
leaving unsecured firearms lying about. Unexpected people pick them up.
(Like the RSM if you're lucky. Having a brigadier ask "Whose rifle was
this?" in the middle of an exercise gets career-endingly _nasty_)
Don't you look after your weapons? "Secure storage" just meant a decent
lockable cabinet that couldn't be easily picked up and carried away. No
big deal, mine cost about $100 in 1994 money. If you're not holding and
using it, take basic steps to keep it safe. I lock my car when I leave
it, I locked my handgun in a safe when I was done with it.
>
>BTW,the LeMat BP replicas I Googled were .44 caliber.(even better!)
Nice. And if I really wanted one I could have one.
Jim Yanik
> In message <Xns9A7DCFED528...@64.209.0.84>, Jim Yanik
><jya...@abuse.gov> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>news:qerA9bDG1+$HF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:
>>> Worth remembering that you can still have a repeating handgun in the
>>> UK: just decide to shoot blackpowder revolver. Get yourself a modern
>>> LeMat replica and have nine rounds of .357 with a shotgun for backup
>>> :)
>>>
>>
>>but you would still have to keep them in "secure storage",wouldn't you?
>
> When not in use, sure. My Army training means I get _really_ upset about
> leaving unsecured firearms lying about. Unexpected people pick them up.
> (Like the RSM if you're lucky. Having a brigadier ask "Whose rifle was
> this?" in the middle of an exercise gets career-endingly _nasty_)
>
> Don't you look after your weapons?
I usually have it with me.I have a concealed weapons permit.
I also live alone,no one to handle my weapon without my knowledge.
> "Secure storage" just meant a decent
> lockable cabinet that couldn't be easily picked up and carried away.
Your UK laws,perhaps.
Other places like to use "secure storage" law to deny people gun
ownership,or to make it onerous enough that many shy away from it.
> No
> big deal, mine cost about $100 in 1994 money. If you're not holding and
> using it, take basic steps to keep it safe. I lock my car when I leave
> it, I locked my handgun in a safe when I was done with it.
>
>>
>>BTW,the LeMat BP replicas I Googled were .44 caliber.(even better!)
>
> Nice. And if I really wanted one I could have one.
Great,but I can have a far greater range of firearms if I choose.
(and can afford them..)
even full-auto rifles. B-)
I have a nice list of arms that I'd like to acquire.
I'd also need a big gunsafe to store them all.Maybe more than one.
Maybe I'd just build a "safe room"/vault.
Fred J. McCall
:In message <Xns9A7DCFED528...@64.209.0.84>, Jim Yanik
:<jya...@abuse.gov> writes
:>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in
:>news:qerA9bDG1+$HF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:
:>> Worth remembering that you can still have a repeating handgun in the
:>> UK: just decide to shoot blackpowder revolver. Get yourself a modern
:>> LeMat replica and have nine rounds of .357 with a shotgun for backup
:>> :)
:>>
:>
:>but you would still have to keep them in "secure storage",wouldn't you?
:
:When not in use, sure. My Army training means I get _really_ upset about
:leaving unsecured firearms lying about. Unexpected people pick them up.
:(Like the RSM if you're lucky. Having a brigadier ask "Whose rifle was
:this?" in the middle of an exercise gets career-endingly _nasty_)
:
:Don't you look after your weapons? "Secure storage" just meant a decent
:lockable cabinet that couldn't be easily picked up and carried away. No
:big deal, mine cost about $100 in 1994 money. If you're not holding and
:using it, take basic steps to keep it safe. I lock my car when I leave
:it, I locked my handgun in a safe when I was done with it.
:
I'm the only person in my domicile. I have no compunctions about
shooting anyone who enters uninvited. Why do I need to lock up a
weapon?
--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."
-- Buffy the vampire
William Black
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:im010499alchh7673...@4ax.com...
> I'm the only person in my domicile. I have no compunctions about
> shooting anyone who enters uninvited. Why do I need to lock up a
> weapon?
I'll bet its fun at your house if someone reports a gas leak...
Why am I not surprised you live alone...
William Black
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9A7DD8F6350...@64.209.0.85...
> I usually have it with me.I have a concealed weapons permit.
> I also live alone,no one to handle my weapon without my knowledge.
Why do the wingnuts always live alone...
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:im010499alchh7673...@4ax.com...
:
:> I'm the only person in my domicile. I have no compunctions about
:> shooting anyone who enters uninvited. Why do I need to lock up a
:> weapon?
:
:I'll bet its fun at your house if someone reports a gas leak...
:
Here in the States the gas man doesn't break into occupied homes. They
knock.
:
:Why am I not surprised you live alone...
:
No doubt it's because you're stupid.
--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
:
:> I usually have it with me.I have a concealed weapons permit.
:> I also live alone,no one to handle my weapon without my knowledge.
:
:Why do the wingnuts always live alone...
Because, unlike you commies, we believe in private property.
Why is it that Lefty Loons can never intellectually support their
positions and so they always must engage in the personal swipe, as
above?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
tankfixer
david.p...@sas.com says...
> On 8 Apr 2008 07:04:09 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
>
> >"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
> >
> >The one he held over his head during the famous speech?
> >
> >Doubtfull, AFAIK it was a fake...
>
> I'm somewhat sure, but too lazy to look it up, that it was a
> functioning flintlock. IIRC, it was a recently built replica.
>
> Many folks were angry at him for using a flintlock in that speech.
> Should have been a main battle rifle :-)
That was an assault weapon...
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"
tankfixer
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
> David Phillips <david.p...@sas.com> wrote:
>
> > Yep, that's basically it. A loose term for the standard issue
> > infantry weapon. Could be an M-1, M-14, M-16 for the USAians
>
> ISTR that the M16/M4 was supposed to be replaced soon, originally by
> some fancy high-tech stuff like OICW, later cut back to the XM-8, then
> the HK416 was discussed... any news on that project?
Dead as a doornail.
SOCOM even has had to turn in the HK416 they were using.
Fred J. McCall
:In article <vh3nv3lr6ifenlto0...@4ax.com>,
:david.p...@sas.com says...
:> On 8 Apr 2008 07:04:09 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
:> <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
:>
:> >"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> >
:> >> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
:> >
:> >The one he held over his head during the famous speech?
:> >
:> >Doubtfull, AFAIK it was a fake...
:>
:> I'm somewhat sure, but too lazy to look it up, that it was a
:> functioning flintlock. IIRC, it was a recently built replica.
:>
:> Many folks were angry at him for using a flintlock in that speech.
:> Should have been a main battle rifle :-)
:
:That was an assault weapon...
:
No such thing as 'assault weapon', either, except as a made up class
used by anti-gun loons.
There are 'assault rifles', right enough. By the definitions of
anti-gunners my HANDGUN is an 'assault weapon' because it holds more
than 10 rounds. I actually heard Bill Clinton use the phrase 'assault
pistol' in a speech while he was President. People that ignorant on
the subject shouldn't be entitled to an opinion.
Zomby...@cox.net
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>tankfixer <paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote:
>
>:In article <vh3nv3lr6ifenlto0...@4ax.com>,
>:david.p...@sas.com says...
>:> On 8 Apr 2008 07:04:09 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
>:> <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>:>
>:> >"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:> >
>:> >> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
>:> >
>:> >The one he held over his head during the famous speech?
>:> >
>:> >Doubtfull, AFAIK it was a fake...
>:>
>:> I'm somewhat sure, but too lazy to look it up, that it was a
>:> functioning flintlock. IIRC, it was a recently built replica.
>:>
>:> Many folks were angry at him for using a flintlock in that speech.
>:> Should have been a main battle rifle :-)
>:
>:That was an assault weapon...
>:
>
>No such thing as 'assault weapon', either, except as a made up class
>used by anti-gun loons.
>
>There are 'assault rifles', right enough. By the definitions of
>anti-gunners my HANDGUN is an 'assault weapon' because it holds more
>than 10 rounds. I actually heard Bill Clinton use the phrase 'assault
>pistol' in a speech while he was President. People that ignorant on
>the subject shouldn't be entitled to an opinion.
>
There is a fairly funny You Tube clip where McCarthy (the
Congresschick who proposes anti-gun legislation every session) is
asked to explain what some of the features she wants banned do or make
a weapon more dangerous. All she can do is stumble & spit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
--
"Before all else, be armed" -- Machiavelli
tankfixer
fmc...@earthlink.net says...
> tankfixer <paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote:
>
> :In article <vh3nv3lr6ifenlto0...@4ax.com>,
> :david.p...@sas.com says...
> :> On 8 Apr 2008 07:04:09 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> :> <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
> :>
> :> >"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> >
> :> >> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
> :> >
> :> >The one he held over his head during the famous speech?
> :> >
> :> >Doubtfull, AFAIK it was a fake...
> :>
> :> I'm somewhat sure, but too lazy to look it up, that it was a
> :> functioning flintlock. IIRC, it was a recently built replica.
> :>
> :> Many folks were angry at him for using a flintlock in that speech.
> :> Should have been a main battle rifle :-)
> :
> :That was an assault weapon...
> :
>
> No such thing as 'assault weapon', either, except as a made up class
> used by anti-gun loons.
>
Anything is an assault weapon...
> There are 'assault rifles', right enough. By the definitions of
> anti-gunners my HANDGUN is an 'assault weapon' because it holds more
> than 10 rounds. I actually heard Bill Clinton use the phrase 'assault
> pistol' in a speech while he was President. People that ignorant on
> the subject shouldn't be entitled to an opinion.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
Jack Linthicum
<juergen.nieveler.nos...@arcor.de> wrote:
> Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >:> I'm the only person in my domicile. I have no compunctions about
> >:> shooting anyone who enters uninvited. Why do I need to lock up a
> >:> weapon?
> >:
> >:I'll bet its fun at your house if someone reports a gas leak...
> >:
>
> > Here in the States the gas man doesn't break into occupied homes. They
> > knock.
>
>
> At least you didn't say "They ring the bell" ;-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> A slipping gear could let your M203 grenade launcher fire when you least
> expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your
> unit. - the Army's magazine of preventive maintenance.
Usually, that sort has a reputation and the gas people go around and
tell their neighbors what is about to happen. If they are lucky they
can get the local TV people there to record the explosion.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>:> I'm the only person in my domicile. I have no compunctions about
:>:> shooting anyone who enters uninvited. Why do I need to lock up a
:>:> weapon?
:>:
:>:I'll bet its fun at your house if someone reports a gas leak...
:>:
:>
:> Here in the States the gas man doesn't break into occupied homes. They
:> knock.
:
:And if there's no one home, they just go back to the fire station?
:
If there's no one home there is nothing to get 'interesting'. In
point of fact, they probably don't bother to enter at all.
[Explain how someone can 'report a gas leak' INSIDE an unoccupied
home...]
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Zomby...@cox.net
<paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote:
>In article <pt5304hnt8po8k4om...@4ax.com>,
>fmc...@earthlink.net says...
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote:
>>
>> :In article <vh3nv3lr6ifenlto0...@4ax.com>,
>> :david.p...@sas.com says...
>> :> On 8 Apr 2008 07:04:09 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
>> :> <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> :>
>> :> >"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> :> >
>> :> >> Did he ever harm anyone with that gun?
>> :> >
>> :> >The one he held over his head during the famous speech?
>> :> >
>> :> >Doubtfull, AFAIK it was a fake...
>> :>
>> :> I'm somewhat sure, but too lazy to look it up, that it was a
>> :> functioning flintlock. IIRC, it was a recently built replica.
>> :>
>> :> Many folks were angry at him for using a flintlock in that speech.
>> :> Should have been a main battle rifle :-)
>> :
>> :That was an assault weapon...
>> :
>>
>> No such thing as 'assault weapon', either, except as a made up class
>> used by anti-gun loons.
>>
>
>Anything is an assault weapon...
>
If one assaults another with it, then I guess so. However, up until
the time I beat your brains in with a Chair Leg -- it is still a Chair
Leg. It is my actions, not the actions of the Chair Leg though.
>
However, like most things there is a "true" definition for " assault
weapon", or more to the point "Assault Rifle". Certain people have
just perverted it for their own means. After all a Faggot really is a
bundle of sticks.
tankfixer
Wo...@cox.net says...
Until I beat you with them.... ;')
Jim Yanik
> Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> [Explain how someone can 'report a gas leak' INSIDE an unoccupied
>> home...]
>
> "There's a funny smell inside our house - smells like gas - neither us
> nor the people on 3rd floor can find any leak - the guy on 2nd floor
> doesn't answer our knocks..." should do the trick.
sounds like an APARTMENT,where the landlord has entry priveleges in case of
emergency or problems that could cause damage to his property.
>
> If there's a report of gas smells inside a building the fire brigade
> will show up FAST. And if they think it realls smells of gas, they'll
> enter ANY room in that building.
>
> And rightly so - the cause of that smell might be somebody doing a very
> thorough inspection of the inside of his gas oven...
>
> Mind you, I regularly spread largish amounts of Butane and Propane in
> rooms... it's not my fault they don't allow Freon as power source for
> my guns anymore ;-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
I used to have one of those freon powered BB-guns! It was a gas!
Jim Yanik
news:MPG.226c2242c...@nntp.earthlink.net:
A prominent anti-gunnner,head of one of the major anti-gun lobbies,stated
that their goal was to blur the definition so that people would confuse
semi-auto rifles with their machine gun look-alikes.
The anti-gun groups intend to deceive people in order to achieve their
goals.If their goals are so lofty and good,they should not need to deceive
the public.
Since they deliberately deceive,one cannot trust anything they say.
>
> Until I beat you with them.... ;')
--
tankfixer
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
> Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > [Explain how someone can 'report a gas leak' INSIDE an unoccupied
> > home...]
>
> nor the people on 3rd floor can find any leak - the guy on 2nd floor
> doesn't answer our knocks..." should do the trick.
>
> will show up FAST. And if they think it realls smells of gas, they'll
> enter ANY room in that building.
Easier to just go to the main for each apparment and turn off the gas
entering the building....
tankfixer
says...
It's very obvious they try to confuse terms and facts to lure the
gullible into buying into thier silly scemes.
Fred J. McCall
:
:Jack Linthicum <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Usually, that sort has a reputation and the gas people go around and
:> tell their neighbors what is about to happen. If they are lucky they
:> can get the local TV people there to record the explosion.
:Give them a chance - let them tape it on their private camera and sell
:it to CNN ;-)
:
I assume from the unclipped verbiage that Jack is putting forward the
proposition that the gas company will simply murder people who dare to
believe they have the right to defend themselves and their property.
Unfortunately for him, 'Jack' would appear to be what he knows about
this (and about most things) and most of us don't live in his ugly
little 'Jackworld' where such things happen.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Fred J. McCall
:
:However, like most things there is a "true" definition for " assault
:weapon", or more to the point "Assault Rifle". Certain people have
:just perverted it for their own means.
No, there is no 'true' definition for "assault weapon". There is one
for "assault rifle". "Assault weapon" was made up to sound 'mean' and
has always only referred to 'ugly guns' rather than any particular
sort of weapon or feature set.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> [Explain how someone can 'report a gas leak' INSIDE an unoccupied
:> home...]
:
:"There's a funny smell inside our house - smells like gas - neither us
:nor the people on 3rd floor can find any leak - the guy on 2nd floor
:doesn't answer our knocks..." should do the trick.
:
We differentiate between 'home' and 'apartment' here. That's why I
used the former word.
:
:If there's a report of gas smells inside a building the fire brigade
:will show up FAST. And if they think it realls smells of gas, they'll
:enter ANY room in that building.
:
Is this a frequent occurrence where you live? It practically never
happens anywhere I've lived, so far as I can remember.
:
:And rightly so - the cause of that smell might be somebody doing a very
:thorough inspection of the inside of his gas oven...
:
Hard to do. I don't know that you can get a gas range that doesn't
have an automatic pilot in it anymore, although I suppose you might if
you worked at it.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Fred J. McCall
:Zomby...@cox.net wrote:
:>
:> However, like most things there is a "true" definition for " assault
:> weapon", or more to the point "Assault Rifle". Certain people have
:> just perverted it for their own means. After all a Faggot really is a
:> bundle of sticks.
:>
:
:Well... actually the whole definition derives from "Sturmgewehr", and
:particularly from the StGw44.
:
:Officially, the AK-47 was refered to as submachinegun...
:
Really? It doesn't seem to fit the definition of one. I've never
heard it referred to as anything other than an assault rifle.
--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."
-- Buffy the vampire
Zomby...@cox.net
<snip>
>
>A prominent anti-gunnner,head of one of the major anti-gun lobbies,stated
>that their goal was to blur the definition so that people would confuse
>semi-auto rifles with their machine gun look-alikes.
>The anti-gun groups intend to deceive people in order to achieve their
>goals.If their goals are so lofty and good,they should not need to deceive
>the public.
>
>Since they deliberately deceive,one cannot trust anything they say.
>
Again, their goal isn't to control "Guns", but peoples minds.
Zomby...@cox.net
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Zomby...@cox.net wrote:
>:
>:However, like most things there is a "true" definition for " assault
>:weapon", or more to the point "Assault Rifle". Certain people have
>:just perverted it for their own means.
>:
>
>No, there is no 'true' definition for "assault weapon". There is one
>for "assault rifle". "Assault weapon" was made up to sound 'mean' and
>has always only referred to 'ugly guns' rather than any particular
>sort of weapon or feature set.
>
As I said, more to the point "Assault Rifle", and I even didn't
stutter. However, An assault weapon is any weapon used primarily to
aid in assault operations in military parlance - for the most part no
other specific characteristics define the weapon.
The term Assault weapon is derived from the term assault rifle, itself
a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle".
In its technical sense, the term Assault weapon refers to a military
weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking
a fortified position.
In the US Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to
refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by
specific characteristics (that they don't like or understand) for
statutory purposes.
The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to
limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to
extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar
in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon.
Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an
established technical definition. Advocates for the right to keep and
bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters (or
Gun-Nuts), generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon
to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe
civilian firearms. This term is seldom used outside of the United
States in this context by people with half a brain.
In military parlance an assault weapon refers to weapons designed for
and used in assault operations. Current examples include the SMAW and
SRAW used to breach obstacles or destroy structures. Historical
examples include the Bangalore torpedo, the APOBS, and even the flame
thrower. Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire,
such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm
Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems.
This definition differs greatly from the current variety of legal
definitions (all bullshit) used in the United States of America as it
applies to the restrictions placed on firearms ownership based purely
on appearance, not function.
Ask Carolyn McCarthy to describe the purpose & or function of any of
the many features of firearms she'd like to see restricted and she'll
piss all over herself trying to obfuscate because she knows not from
which she speaks. She just knows she doesn't like guns. Personally I
think she should be banned based on her appearance as well.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:59:10 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:>Zomby...@cox.net wrote:
:>:
:>:However, like most things there is a "true" definition for " assault
:>:weapon", or more to the point "Assault Rifle". Certain people have
:>:just perverted it for their own means.
:>:
:>
:>No, there is no 'true' definition for "assault weapon". There is one
:>for "assault rifle". "Assault weapon" was made up to sound 'mean' and
:>has always only referred to 'ugly guns' rather than any particular
:>sort of weapon or feature set.
:>
:As I said, more to the point "Assault Rifle", and I even didn't
:stutter.
:
And I didn't disagree with that part, now did I? It was the incorrect
part that preceded it that I disagreed with.
:
:However, An assault weapon is any weapon used primarily to
:aid in assault operations in military parlance - for the most part no
:other specific characteristics define the weapon.
:
No, it's not. No such term is part of 'military parlance'.
:
:The term Assault weapon is derived from the term assault rifle, itself
:a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle".
:In its technical sense, the term Assault weapon refers to a military
:weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking
:a fortified position.
:
No, it is not.
:
:In the US Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to
:refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by
:specific characteristics (that they don't like or understand) for
:statutory purposes.
:
In the US, political lobbyists made up the term 'assault weapon' to
try to confuse listeners into thinking they were referring to
automatic weapons when they talked about 'assault weapons'.
:
:In military parlance an assault weapon refers to weapons designed for
:and used in assault operations. Current examples include the SMAW and
:SRAW used to breach obstacles or destroy structures. Historical
:examples include the Bangalore torpedo, the APOBS, and even the flame
:thrower.
:
I've never heard anyone who knew anything about these weapons refer to
them as 'assault weapons'.
:
:Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire,
:such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm
:Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems.
:
No, they're referred to as assault rifles or combat shotguns, not
'assault weapons'. You're letting the acronym CAWS confuse you. It
is a Weapon System; it is used for Close Assault; that doesn't make it
an 'assault weapon'.
Anyone using 'assault weapon' that way has been affected by the
anti-gun propaganda that invented the term in the first place.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Zomby...@cox.net
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>:Zomby...@cox.net wrote:
>:>
>:> However, like most things there is a "true" definition for " assault
>:> weapon", or more to the point "Assault Rifle". Certain people have
>:> just perverted it for their own means. After all a Faggot really is a
>:> bundle of sticks.
>:>
>:
>:Well... actually the whole definition derives from "Sturmgewehr", and
>:particularly from the StGw44.
>:
>:Officially, the AK-47 was refered to as submachinegun...
>:
>
>Really? It doesn't seem to fit the definition of one. I've never
>heard it referred to as anything other than an assault rifle.
>
You would be correct. A Submachinegun by definition fires a pistol
cartridge. This the AK series of weapons do not do.
Zomby...@cox.net
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Just because your knowledge & that of your friends is limited, that
does not make a thing untrue.
>:
>:Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire,
>:such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm
>:Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems.
>:
>
>No, they're referred to as assault rifles or combat shotguns, not
>'assault weapons'. You're letting the acronym CAWS confuse you. It
>is a Weapon System; it is used for Close Assault; that doesn't make it
>an 'assault weapon'.
>
Again, you aren't up to date. They are indeed Assault Weapon Systems.
They are the combination of multi weapon platforms & functionality
into one. The XM8 is definitely refereed to as an Assault Weapon
System by the designers because it is much more then just a "Rifle".
>
>Anyone using 'assault weapon' that way has been affected by the
>anti-gun propaganda that invented the term in the first place.
--
Zomby...@cox.net
<juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote:
>Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>> A prominent anti-gunnner,head of one of the major anti-gun
>> lobbies,stated that their goal was to blur the definition so that
>> people would confuse semi-auto rifles with their machine gun
>> look-alikes.
>
>Over here, they deliberately mistranslate "small arms" to claim that
>the UN demands a ban on all handheld weapons. Not that crew-served
>weapons would be legal, mind you (except for muzzle-loaded cannons)
>
The UN can demand all it wants, personally I demand that they start
paying their freight -- to include their rent.
>
>Juergen Nieveler
tankfixer
juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
> tankfixer <paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote:
>
> >> If there's a report of gas smells inside a building the fire brigade
> >> will show up FAST. And if they think it realls smells of gas, they'll
> >> enter ANY room in that building.
> >
> > Easier to just go to the main for each apparment and turn off the gas
> > entering the building....
>
>
> Seriously, in such cases the fire brigade HAS to enter the flat, there
> could be an explosive gas mix in there, and the person inside that flat
> might be in need of medical help (no way to tell wether he doesn't want
> to open the door, is away, or is unconscious...)
As someone else noted an apartment is a different case than a single
detatched home.
The landlord may enter an apartment.
Fred J. McCall
:On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:53:35 -0700, Fred J. McCall
Nor does it make everything true and everything possible.
My knowledge is based on a lot of years carrying said weapons and even
more years involved in the trade (although I'm missiles rather than
small arms).
:
:>
:>:
:>:Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire,
:>:such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm
:>:Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems.
:>:
:>
:>No, they're referred to as assault rifles or combat shotguns, not
:>'assault weapons'. You're letting the acronym CAWS confuse you. It
:>is a Weapon System; it is used for Close Assault; that doesn't make it
:>an 'assault weapon'.
:>
:
:Again, you aren't up to date. They are indeed Assault Weapon Systems.
:They are the combination of multi weapon platforms & functionality
:into one. The XM8 is definitely refereed to as an Assault Weapon
:System by the designers because it is much more then just a "Rifle".
:
Not so much, no. There is a 'modular weapon system', which is a
FAMILY of weapons (in this case). The XM8 is almost universally
referred to as either 'future combat rifle' or 'lightweight assault
rifle'.
:>
:>Anyone using 'assault weapon' that way has been affected by the
:>anti-gun propaganda that invented the term in the first place.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
William Black
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote in message
news:MPG.226d06ec8...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> Seriously, in such cases the fire brigade HAS to enter the flat, there
>> could be an explosive gas mix in there, and the person inside that flat
>> might be in need of medical help (no way to tell wether he doesn't want
>> to open the door, is away, or is unconscious...)
>
> As someone else noted an apartment is a different case than a single
> detatched home.
> The landlord may enter an apartment.
In the UK they can't, which is an interesting difference.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
TMOliver
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote ...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote ....
>> The landlord may enter an apartment.
>
> In the UK they can't, which is an interesting difference.
>
>
Most US rental contracts/leases provide a right of entry for landlords.
Conditions vary, except many jurisdictions specify advance notice, unless
the landlord has reason to believe that the tenant has departed or that
conditions which put "public health and safety" at risk exist.
As for claims that police or emergency services providers in the US can
enter apartments but not houses, that's simply Bullshit. Any one of a
number of conditions or reasonable presumption of conditions all the way
from commission of a crime to fire, illness, death, certain types of damage
(including to gas or other utility services) may trigger a "warrantless"
entry. Certainly, employees of a municipal utility are covered under such
provisions, and even employees of privately owned utility companies are
provided with situations in which entry can be undertaken.
Don't let those who claim that a USAian's "Home is his castle" divert you
from reality, as there are all sorts of situations in which a variety of
folks may enter a home. In most urban jurisdictions, even a "City
Inspector" cannot be barred from entry and inspection for local code
violations, although he/she may have to seek the aid of law enforcement
officers to buffalo a recalcitrant homeowner/tenant.
TMO (8 years on a "City Council" and four elections have imprinted all sorts
of arcane municipal and state laws in my memory)
William Black
"TMOliver" <tmoliv...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:480399a2$0$7057$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote ...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote ....
>
>>> The landlord may enter an apartment.
>>
>> In the UK they can't, which is an interesting difference.
>>
>>
>
> Most US rental contracts/leases provide a right of entry for landlords.
> Conditions vary, except many jurisdictions specify advance notice, unless
> the landlord has reason to believe that the tenant has departed or that
> conditions which put "public health and safety" at risk exist.
That's almost unheard of in the UK.
As with the US any number of statutory bodies have the right of entry to
your home, all under the usual conditions.
Zomby...@cox.net
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Nor does it make everything true and everything possible.
>
Fair enough, but it does make some of both.
>
>My knowledge is based on a lot of years carrying said weapons and even
>more years involved in the trade (although I'm missiles rather than
>small arms).
>
Well my "old" knowledge had nothing to do with carrying anything other
then sometimes my ass in my hands. F-4 Wild Weasels aren't even in
the inventory anymore, although my beloved HARM Missile still is.
However, now being involved in certain "Systems" Project Management
Functions i.e. the United States Army's Assault Weapon System Program
I do know what some of the current parlance is on the "shop floor" so
to speak.
There is also a "Modular Weapon Systems" Program (see
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/oicw-mwsf.htm)
looking at several variations & versions (most based on the 5.56
round), one of which would actually be an "Assault Weapon" in the
purest sense of the term.
The perverted Legislative made up term "Assault Weapon" does of course
have a different meaning to the Anti-gun Crowd. Matter of fact if
the Legislators weren't so disingenuous (and actually knew something
about what they hate) they would be discussing banning "Modular
Weapons Systems" as they have the so-called features they hate.
>:
>:>
>:>:
>:>:Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire,
>:>:such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm
>:>:Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems.
>:>:
>:>
>:>No, they're referred to as assault rifles or combat shotguns, not
>:>'assault weapons'. You're letting the acronym CAWS confuse you. It
>:>is a Weapon System; it is used for Close Assault; that doesn't make it
>:>an 'assault weapon'.
>:>
>:
>:Again, you aren't up to date. They are indeed Assault Weapon Systems.
>:They are the combination of multi weapon platforms & functionality
>:into one. The XM8 is definitely refereed to as an Assault Weapon
>:System by the designers because it is much more then just a "Rifle".
>:
>
>Not so much, no. There is a 'modular weapon system', which is a
>FAMILY of weapons (in this case). The XM8 is almost universally
>referred to as either 'future combat rifle' or 'lightweight assault
>rifle'.
>
Here are very specific examples of what "I" was trying to talk about:
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/HK_CAWS.htm
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/smaw.htm
http://www.gunslot.com/guns/hk-caws-close-assault-weapons-system
Also one can make the argument that Sturmkompagnien, A specialized
German Company of storm-troopers; which often consisted solely of
specialists in grenades, mortars, flame-throwers or machine-guns were
the first deployers of "Assault Weapons" to attack fortified positions
during WW I.
>
BTW -- "Modular Weapons Systems" Program includes the XM-8, HK-416,
FN-SCAR, so while they maybe refereed to as the "Future Combat Rifle",
the HK-416 & FN-SCAR exist now. I doubt the XM-8 will ever come into
full reality or operational use.
>:>
>:>Anyone using 'assault weapon' that way has been affected by the
>:>anti-gun propaganda that invented the term in the first place.
>
Now http://apocryph.org/node/553 has a rather comprehensive & cohesive
discussion on the legislative use of the term vice the true use of the
term, but like the legislators doesn't address the concept of a "Main
Battle Rifle (one not using an intermediate cartridge), which of
course can also be selective-fire and have a bayonet lug. The M-14 &
FN FAL would be a good examples of selective fire Main Battle Rifles.
All-in-all I would say the basis of the issue is "When is something
that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck & looks like a duck, not
really a duck?", when a legislator is talking out his/her ass about
the subject. Sort of like Hillary's idea that National Health Care is
requiring everyone to buy Health Insurance.
Zomby...@cox.net
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"tankfixer" <paul.c...@us.cat.army.mil> wrote in message
>news:MPG.226d06ec8...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> In article <Xns9A8058738DA8...@nieveler.org>,
>> juergen.nie...@arcor.de says...
>
>>> Seriously, in such cases the fire brigade HAS to enter the flat, there
>>> could be an explosive gas mix in there, and the person inside that flat
>>> might be in need of medical help (no way to tell wether he doesn't want
>>> to open the door, is away, or is unconscious...)
>>
>> As someone else noted an apartment is a different case than a single
>> detatched home.
>> The landlord may enter an apartment.
>
>In the UK they can't, which is an interesting difference.
>
In the UK the owner of a property may not enter their own Property?
What is the rational behind that?
William Black
<Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0em704d5sfjjmc111...@4ax.com...
You have a right to privacy within your own home.
All lettings in the UK are, by law, subject to a contract, and the terms
of that contract are pretty much laid down in law.
I imagine a landlord could put in the contract that they'd like access once
a year or so, just to make sure you haven't demolished an interior wall or
something, but I've never heard of such a clause because it's
unenforceable.
Your landlord certainly has NO right of entry to your home.
If you don't let him in he can't break the door down.
If he tries you just call the cops who'll say 'Do you live here sir?' and
when he says 'no' they'll just haul him away...
Fred J. McCall
:
:As for claims that police or emergency services providers in the US can
I didn't see anyone make any such claim, Mr Oliver. Have you
perchance been studying hay homunculi again?
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right
to say it."
-- Voltaire
Kerryn Offord
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Your landlord certainly has NO right of entry to your home.
>
>
> Over here, the landlord can inspect the flat, but he has to set up a
> date with the tennant - he can't just come up and say "Hey, I want to
> see my property".
>
> Juergen Nieveler
I think it's no right to entry without the permission of the tenant...
The landlord (or his/her representative) is required (probably) to
schedule a visit with the tenant... They can't just use the spare key...
I think they need to be let in and followed around when they make an
inspection.
The NZ IRD allows deductions (Or it did last time I looked) for 6
monthly examinations -- of special concern for those landlords that own
holiday accommodation at the other end of the country that they just
have to inspect (At peak holiday times, with the whole family..
deducting travel etc costs...)
Kerryn Offord
> Zomby...@cox.net wrote:
>
>>> :Officially, the AK-47 was refered to as submachinegun...
>>> :
>>>
>>> Really? It doesn't seem to fit the definition of one. I've never
>>> heard it referred to as anything other than an assault rifle.
>>>
>> You would be correct. A Submachinegun by definition fires a pistol
>> cartridge. This the AK series of weapons do not do.
>
>
> Juergen Nieveler
You might be thinking of the STG- 44/ MP-44
The German Assault rifle which was originally called a machine pistol
because Hitler didn't approve of the concept of the non-full power
battle rifle
William Black
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns9A81558D1463...@nieveler.org...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Your landlord certainly has NO right of entry to your home.
>
No right at all.
When I was renting none of my landlords ever expressed an interest in any
form of communication except the flow of money from me to them.
Certainly none of them ever wanted a look at the places I rented when I was
in them.
Fred J. McCall
:Kerryn Offord <ka...@ext.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
:
:>>>> Really? It doesn't seem to fit the definition of one. I've never
:>>>> heard it referred to as anything other than an assault rifle.
:>>>>
:>>> You would be correct. A Submachinegun by definition fires a pistol
:>>> cartridge. This the AK series of weapons do not do.
:>>
:>> The reason was more political than technical, AFAIK...
:>>
:>> Juergen Nieveler
:>
:> You might be thinking of the STG- 44/ MP-44
:>
:> The German Assault rifle which was originally called a machine pistol
:> because Hitler didn't approve of the concept of the non-full power
:> battle rifle
:
:I don't know WHY, but the GDR government called the AKs submachineguns,
:too.
:
:http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/history.html also lists the whole bunch as
:submachineguns.
:
:Maybe it's a language thing - is there a russian word term for "assault
:rifle"?
:
It's interesting that all the text says 'submachine gun' but the
caption under the picture says 'AK-47 Assault rifle'.
Jack Linthicum
> >>>> heard it referred to as anything other than an assault rifle.
>
> >>> You would be correct. A Submachinegun by definition fires a pistol
> >>> cartridge. This the AK series of weapons do not do.
>
> >> The reason was more political than technical, AFAIK...
>
> >> Juergen Nieveler
>
> > You might be thinking of the STG- 44/ MP-44
>
> > The German Assault rifle which was originally called a machine pistol
> > because Hitler didn't approve of the concept of the non-full power
> > battle rifle
>
> too.
>
> submachineguns.
>
> Maybe it's a language thing - is there arussianword term for "assault
> rifle"?
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --
> Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I...
Avtomat, Smirnitsky Dictionary says "2. (military) Sub-machine gun;
machine carbine, (American) tommy gun."
The Designation is Avtomat Kalashnikova obraztsa 1947 goda;
Kalashnikov automatic rifle model of 1947.
Jim Yanik
> Maybe it's a language thing - is there a russian word term for "assault
> rifle"?
>
>
> Juergen Nieveler
yes;Kalashnikov.... ;-)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Ad absurdum per aspera
> And rightly so - the cause of that smell might be somebody doing a very
> thorough inspection of the inside of his gas oven...
Doesn't work very well for that anymore, except insofar as the
explosion of the building might do the job, with some collateral
damage. From the appropriately named "gaslight era," onwards a
little or even a long way into the 20th Century, houses were supplied
with any of several manufactured gases, most of which included
carbon monoxide as a prominent ingredient. Therein lies a poignant
moment of many a melodrama, and a line in Dorothy Parker's famous poem
that ends with "You'd might as well live."
Somewhere in, I think the 20s through 60s, depending on where you
live, these mixtures of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and various -anes
was replaced with, usually, natural gas (methane) from wells.
(Natural gas had been sporadically used much earlier.) After some
early disasters with natural gas, they began adding a rather loud
odorant that gives even small leaks a unique and attention-getting
aroma.
Anyway, in the US a landlord usually has some pretext for coming
right in under emergency circumstances (gas odors, burst pipes, that
sort of thing), or with advance notice for more routine affairs,
balanced against a principle that gives tenants the right to the
"quiet enjoyment" of the premises. I've wished that many an
upstairs neighbor had been more serious about the "quiet" part --
"enjoyment," they've usually had down pat -- but never mind that.
The balance is struck in civil court, not criminal, as I misunderstand
it.
Nolo Press, publisher of self-help legal information, has books and a
website on the subject, as well as books on the legal aspects of
getting along (or not) with neighbors, and other related subjects:
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/50990842-CBA7-40DB-A7E5F07160C7EBC1/catID/5944A0DA-71B3-49EA-BF5D300558FB66A9/213/178/ART/
Andrew Swallow
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:09:10 +0100, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The landlord may enter an apartment.
>> In the UK they can't, which is an interesting difference.
>>
> In the UK the owner of a property may not enter their own Property?
> What is the rational behind that?
Privacy. The landlord has leased the property to a tenant. The
tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property. If the
landlord wants to repair the building he has to give advanced written
notice to the tenant before letting the workmen in.
Andrew Swallow
Jack Linthicum
That would have driven my landlady crazy. I think she had a list of
apartments that would not be occupied during the day and checked that
out by visiting them as often as she could.
Andrew Swallow
> "Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nie...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A81558D1463...@nieveler.org...
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Your landlord certainly has NO right of entry to your home.
>> No right at all, or just no right to enter when you are not around?
>
> No right at all.
>
> When I was renting none of my landlords ever expressed an interest in any
> form of communication except the flow of money from me to them.
>
> Certainly none of them ever wanted a look at the places I rented when I was
> in them.
>
A good landlord is meant to inspect the property every 3 months.
Certainly every year. Of course having found a problem like a
leaking pipe the landlord then has to pay to have the pipe fixed.
<http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/harassment.htm>
Andrew Swallow
TMOliver
"Ad absurdum per aspera" <jtc...@california.com> wrote ...
>
>
>
> Somewhere in, I think the 20s through 60s, depending on where you
> live, these mixtures of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and various -anes
> was replaced with, usually, natural gas (methane) from wells.
> (Natural gas had been sporadically used much earlier.) After some
> early disasters with natural gas, they began adding a rather loud
> odorant that gives even small leaks a unique and attention-getting
> aroma.
Mercaptan, trade name "Captan", a byproduct of the "refining" of natural gas
from the well head. added to provide the traditional smell we associate with
the product, pure methane being odorless. The last big push for the
additive occured in the 30s, IIRC, when a small town school in New London,
Texas, where the school distictactually owned some gas wells, and used their
own product piped from the wellhead, blew up and killed over 200 kids, a
sort of hard to ignore lesson....
>
> Anyway, in the US a landlord usually has some pretext for coming
> right in under emergency circumstances (gas odors, burst pipes, that
> sort of thing), or with advance notice for more routine affairs,
> balanced against a principle that gives tenants the right to the
> "quiet enjoyment" of the premises. I've wished that many an
> upstairs neighbor had been more serious about the "quiet" part --
> "enjoyment," they've usually had down pat -- but never mind that.
> The balance is struck in civil court, not criminal, as I misunderstand
> it.
>
While the laws vary from state to state, most Southern and Western states,
heavy on the initial property rights tradition, grant extensive license to
landlords. The tradition is exemplified by the old Texas statute in which
the possession of wire cutters while on the land of another elevated simple
trespass, a misdemeanor, to felony status, but then if you caught your wife
in flagrante delicto, you had a right to shoot the flagrantor, but not your
wife. She was not permitted such latitude if encountering you imbedded
in/with another. While you could pursue the guy and shoot him in the
immediate aftermath of the mutual congress, you couldn't put it off until
tomorrow, aggravating malice aforethought instead of simple passion.
TMO
Jim Yanik
news:fuSdnaHQLOOGY5jV...@bt.com:
I suspect there are allowances for emergencies.
William Black
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3oidnTK3s-Dym5vV...@bt.com...
I never actually saw one of my landlords for five years, I just sent them
the money...
Andrew Swallow
can invite the landlord and the plumber in.
Andrew Swallow
Jim Yanik
If the tenant is home.
If they are out,on vacation and a water pipe breaks(or a water heater
bursts),the landlord/owner HAS to have access to repair it before it causes
extensive damage to HIS property,along with the tenant's belongings.
(and any other tenants in the building.)
It's reasonable and prudent.
William Black
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9A82DD1C64C...@64.209.0.87...
> If the tenant is home.
> If they are out,on vacation and a water pipe breaks(or a water heater
> bursts),the landlord/owner HAS to have access to repair it before it
> causes
> extensive damage to HIS property,along with the tenant's belongings.
> (and any other tenants in the building.)
>
> It's reasonable and prudent.
The landlord does not have such a right in the UK.
However the water company does have that right.
dott.Piergiorgio
> Privacy. The landlord has leased the property to a tenant. The
> tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property. If the
> landlord wants to repair the building he has to give advanced written
> notice to the tenant before letting the workmen in.
don't say about this to me....
I have a quote in a little real estate, a workshop leased to an
shoemaker, whose ever insist about detracting from the rent "expenses"
for alleged repairs, and I'm ever quarreling with the other
quote-holders (my mother & my aunt) about the fact that 1) in Italian
(Roman/Napoleon) Law is the tenant whose pay for the repairs and 2) that
I want receipt and photos of the alleged repairs, because I'm pissed
enough of not having certainty on that 270 euros....
So let's not talk about estates issues....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Fred J. McCall
:On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:02:26 -0700, Fred J. McCall
:<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>
:>My knowledge is based on a lot of years carrying said weapons and even
:>more years involved in the trade (although I'm missiles rather than
:>small arms).
:>
:
:Well my "old" knowledge had nothing to do with carrying anything other
:then sometimes my ass in my hands. F-4 Wild Weasels aren't even in
:the inventory anymore, although my beloved HARM Missile still is.
:
About the only thing that's still the same on that "beloved HARM
missile" is the body tube (and maybe the fins). Pretty much
everything else is different.
:
:However, now being involved in certain "Systems" Project Management
:Functions i.e. the United States Army's Assault Weapon System Program
:I do know what some of the current parlance is on the "shop floor" so
:to speak.
:
:There is also a "Modular Weapon Systems" Program
:
Yep. There are indeed 'weapon systems'. Been around for a long time.
:>:>:
:>:>:Assault rifles and shotguns capable of fully automatic fire,
:>:>:such as the Heckler & Koch CAWS, the XM8, and the Russian 7.62mm/40mm
:>:>:Assault Weapon System are also classified as assault weapon systems.
:>:>:
:>:>
:>:>No, they're referred to as assault rifles or combat shotguns, not
:>:>'assault weapons'. You're letting the acronym CAWS confuse you. It
:>:>is a Weapon System; it is used for Close Assault; that doesn't make it
:>:>an 'assault weapon'.
:>:>
:>:
:>:Again, you aren't up to date. They are indeed Assault Weapon Systems.
:>:They are the combination of multi weapon platforms & functionality
:>:into one. The XM8 is definitely refereed to as an Assault Weapon
:>:System by the designers because it is much more then just a "Rifle".
:>:
:>
:>Not so much, no. There is a 'modular weapon system', which is a
:>FAMILY of weapons (in this case). The XM8 is almost universally
:>referred to as either 'future combat rifle' or 'lightweight assault
:>rifle'.
:>
:Here are very specific examples of what "I" was trying to talk about:
:http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Shotguns/HK_CAWS.htm
Shotgun.
:http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/smaw.htm
Rocket.
:http://www.gunslot.com/guns/hk-caws-close-assault-weapons-system
Shotgun.
Because something has a proper name that includes a phrase doesn't
make it that thing. That "Close Assault Weapons System" should not be
parsed to mean that the 'System' referred to is an 'Assault Weapon'.
Rather it should be parsed to say that the thing is a 'Weapons System'
(pretty much everything is) used for 'Close Assault'.
Naming something 'Sheridan' doesn't make it a Civil War general.
:
:Also one can make the argument that Sturmkompagnien, A specialized
:German Company of storm-troopers; which often consisted solely of
:specialists in grenades, mortars, flame-throwers or machine-guns were
:the first deployers of "Assault Weapons" to attack fortified positions
:during WW I.
:
By this definition *ALL* weapons are 'assault weapons'.