Proposed gun laws...response to the Colorado Movie Massacre

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Proposed gun laws...response to the Colorado Movie Massacre.

Nationwide, federal gun law (supersedes all state gun laws).

1. Limit of 1 gun purchase per month.
2. Valid ID required to buy guns or ammo.
3. Guns or ammo purchased only in-person at gunshop.
(not mail order or internet)
4. Limit ammo to 1000 bullets per year.
5. Eliminate concealed carry of guns.
6. Only handguns (for in-home protection only) are legal.
7. Hunting rifles are short-term rentals only (from gunshops).
8. Exceptions in designated areas (e.g. people living in remote areas of U.S.).
9. Individuals may re-sell firearms or ammo only to a lawfully certified dealer..
10. "Sport" or "trophy" hunting with guns is illegal.


Pressure the Supreme Court to rule on 2nd Amendment...do all citizens
have a constitutional right to openly carry a loaded shotgun in
downtown New York City?

I say...shitcan the nonsense 2nd Amendment.
;-)

[Daryl]

On 7/21/2012 11:13 PM, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
> Proposed gun laws...response to the Colorado Movie Massacre.

Let's take a look at your nonsense. And trim the headers a bit.

>
> Nationwide, federal gun law (supersedes all state gun laws).

Not as long as the 2nd amendment exists and the Governors exist.
If this nonsense were to pass as you 'CLAIM" it reads, Texas
and a few others with State Militias would be exempt and you can
bet everybody and their brother would joint those.

>
> 1. Limit of 1 gun purchase per month.

You need to buy a carload of guns at a time? While one a month
would be too low I think a limit could be placed. Every month,
no need to buy enough weapons to invade a small country. Well,
you could be arming the Rebels in that small country so a limit
might be a good idea. What the limit is? Up for discussion.

> 2. Valid ID required to buy guns or ammo.

And this is bad how? People with Valid IDs rarely use guns for
bad therefore, for you in your own language;

Grunt, Grunt means ID good.

> 3. Guns or ammo purchased only in-person at gunshop.
> (not mail order or internet)

And this is a bad thing once again? You forgot, you will still
be able to purchase the ammo at a guns show "In Person". Again,
Grunt, Grunt (IDs are good)

> 4. Limit ammo to 1000 bullets per year.

Well, there has to be some kind of limit. Are you aware just how
many times per day you would have to fire a gun to use up that
1000? I know a few that could do it easy. Target Shooters go
through half that on a bad weekend. Oh, and they have Grunt,
Grunts as well.

> 5. Eliminate concealed carry of guns.

This isn't even a States Rights issue. It's a country and
municipal issue. Most Sheriffs and Police Chiefs enforce what
the county and the municipality dictates. Never going to happen
unless you want a total western secede from the United States.

> 6. Only handguns (for in-home protection only) are legal.

I many municipalies, hand guns are only legal with permits.
Bring your Grunt, Grunt. It's a safety issue done by the lowest
levels of government.

> 7. Hunting rifles are short-term rentals only (from gunshops).

Try some Grunt, Snort, Grunts. In otherwords, lay of the happy
pills.

> 8. Exceptions in designated areas (e.g. people living in remote
> areas of U.S.).

Yah, right. Now there is a first ammendment problem waiting to
happen.

> 9. Individuals may re-sell firearms or ammo only to a lawfully
> certified dealer..

Just as long as they can't sell them to you. Dream on, bucko.

> 10. "Sport" or "trophy" hunting with guns is illegal.

It's illegal to use Machine Guns, Bazookas, Tanks, Flamethrowers
and many other really nasty weapons for hunting of any kind. As
for outlawing hunting guns, good luck on that one. Canada, How's
that working out for yah?

>
>
> Pressure the Supreme Court to rule on 2nd Amendment...do all
> citizens
> have a constitutional right to openly carry a loaded shotgun in
> downtown New York City?

Since the Lowest levels of the Government say no, then it's not.
This is a decision made by the Municalities, Counties and State
of NY. Just like it should be. No 2nd ammendment necessary for
this argument.

>
> I say...shitcan the nonsense 2nd Amendment.
> ;-)

I think we should just shitcan you.




--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Daryl wrote:

> On 7/21/2012 11:13 PM, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>
>> Nationwide, federal gun law (supersedes all state gun laws).
>
> Not as long as the 2nd amendment exists and the Governors exist.

Son, we already have federal gun laws that supersede state laws...the
2ndA is *severely* restricted (rightfully), but needs elimination or
further restrictions...it made sense with 1776 muskets but not with
today's 10 bullets/second, or with today's shrunk world and instant
news media (the attention the nuts want).

You're a peabrain (and defeatist, suggesting nothing can be done to
curtail the gun insanity), so I didn't bother reading your crap further.
;-)

[Daryl]

On 7/22/2012 12:29 AM, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/2012 11:13 PM, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>>>
>>> Nationwide, federal gun law (supersedes all state gun laws).
>>
>> Not as long as the 2nd amendment exists and the Governors exist.
>
> Son,

I'll just call you Kid, is that alright, Kid?

>we already have federal gun laws that supersede state
> laws...

And we also have a little known idea in the Constitution that NO
Federal Law shall abridge the States Rights. When you are
monkeying with the 2nd ammendment, it's there to insure that
states and local rights are held in place.

the
> 2ndA is *severely* restricted (rightfully), but needs elimination or
> further restrictions...it made sense with 1776 muskets but not with
> today's 10 bullets/second, or with today's shrunk world and instant
> news media (the attention the nuts want).

Let's see, in 1919, the 2nd ammendment brought change (not a good
one) where Federal Troops were used against picket lines. That
became very embarrassing and subjected change FOR THE PEOPLE.

In 1935, The Workers started to form unions. The Corporations
demanded that federal troops would be introduced like it was in
1919. Didn't happen. Instant Revolution.

You honestly think that FDR wanted to give the "New Deal"? He
had to do something fast or another revolution would have
happened in the early and middle 30s. There were over 2 million
Armed out of work Veterans running around demanding jobs, jobs
and the right to live for them and thier families.

>
> You're a peabrain (and defeatist, suggesting nothing can be done to
> curtail the gun insanity), so I didn't bother reading your crap
> further.
> ;-)

Oh, you will, you will. Because I support the 2nd ammendment
because it prevents the takeover of the United States of America
knowing that our citizens are armed. It does little good to
overthrow the fed guv. You have to overthrow the People. And
that is as pertinent today as it was in 1775.

Do I actually own a gun? No, I don't have any use for one. If
things heated up do I know where to get a few and would I be
willing to arm myself? In a NY minute.

Would I fight and die for my families and friends rights? In a
NY Minute. Would I do the same for you? I don't think the
calender is printed that can time that one.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Daryl wrote:
>
> And we also have a little known idea in the Constitution that NO Federal
> Law shall abridge the States Rights.

Peabrain, it's little known because you gun goofballs made it up...we have many many
(many) federal laws that supersede (or prevent or squash) state laws.

How about just 1 more federal law...100 round ammo drums (as was used in
the Colorado Movie Massacre 2 days ago) are now illegal.

you ok with that 1 restriction, son?

(regardless...it's coming)
;-)

[Daryl]

On 7/22/2012 1:19 AM, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>>
>> And we also have a little known idea in the Constitution that
>> NO Federal Law shall abridge the States Rights.
>
> Peabrain, it's little known because you gun goofballs made it
> up...we have many many
> (many) federal laws that supersede (or prevent or squash) state
> laws.

If the states want to change the federal laws all they need to do
is have 2/3rds of the states pass the same law. This is one
reason that the Arizona Immagration Law scares the hell out of
Washington. I know a number of states with similar laws pending.

>
> How about just 1 more federal law...100 round ammo drums (as was
> used in
> the Colorado Movie Massacre 2 days ago) are now illegal.

NOW< NOW? Are you saying that it was legal before the shooting?
Not even close. Actually, it was and still is legal with the
proper paperwork. A class D firearms license covers that. You
can also own and fire a bozooka with a Class C Firearms license.
Neither one are hard to get. I used to have a class C myself
but since I no longer had the need, I let it run out. And, No,
that fruitcake could never have gotten even a class D license.
And neither can you, Kid. You don't mind me calling you kid,
right, Kid?

>
> you ok with that 1 restriction, son?
>
> (regardless...it's coming)
> ;-)

And since you are harping about an isolated insident of one sick
fuck then you must want it to happen. Newflash, the Supreme
Court already rule and they ruled in favor of the 2nd ammendment.

[jonathan]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in message
news:CLadncZ4qNXZNJbN...@supernews.com...

> Daryl wrote:
>>
>> And we also have a little known idea in the Constitution that NO Federal
>> Law shall abridge the States Rights.
>
> Peabrain, it's little known because you gun goofballs made it up...we have
> many many
> (many) federal laws that supersede (or prevent or squash) state laws.
>
> How about just 1 more federal law...100 round ammo drums (as was used in
> the Colorado Movie Massacre 2 days ago) are now illegal.

It's hard to defend the large clips and excessive amounts of ammo.
And assault rifles should be treated like automatic weapons
I think, much harder to get too.

But from what I've read, the big problem is with handguns, only
a small percentage of murders are with rifles and shotguns.
And there are so many handguns floating around, it just seems
like pissing into the wind trying to regulate them out of
existence.

The main response has been to dramatically increase the
penalties for using handguns in a crime. In Florida, they
have the 10,20 life law. Ten years minimum for using a
gun in a felony, 20 minimum for firing it during a felony
and life for shooting someone (dead or not).

But today the Miami Herald has a long article on the
abuse of the various Stand Your Ground laws on
self defense. People are literally getting away with
murder. They documented one case where this
guy claimed he was arguing with somone dating
his ex, and he said the guy ran out to his car to
get a gun, so he followed him out to his car and
fired 14 shots into the car, killing him, and got
away with it claiming self defense.

In Florida, the state has to prove his claim of
self defense is false, not the other way around.

>
> you ok with that 1 restriction, son?
>
> (regardless...it's coming)

Gun control is not popular in the US at all.
Quite the opposite.



> ;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Daryl wrote:
> On 7/22/2012 1:19 AM, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>> Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And we also have a little known idea in the Constitution that
>>> NO Federal Law shall abridge the States Rights.
>>
>>
>> Peabrain, it's little known because you gun goofballs made it
>> up...we have many many
>> (many) federal laws that supersede (or prevent or squash) state
>> laws.
>
>
> If the states want to change the federal laws

Peabrain, you're not paying attention...we already have federal gun
laws which supersede any state gun law. Congress can pass *additional*
federal gun laws which supersede any state gun laws.

Your intelligence is an example of usenet allowing the lowest common denominator.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

jonathan wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote in message
> news:CLadncZ4qNXZNJbN...@supernews.com...
>
>>Daryl wrote:
>>
>>>And we also have a little known idea in the Constitution that NO Federal
>>>Law shall abridge the States Rights.
>>
>>Peabrain, it's little known because you gun goofballs made it up...we have
>>many many
>>(many) federal laws that supersede (or prevent or squash) state laws.
>>
>>How about just 1 more federal law...100 round ammo drums (as was used in
>>the Colorado Movie Massacre 2 days ago) are now illegal.
>
>
>
> It's hard to defend the large clips and excessive amounts of ammo.
> And assault rifles should be treated like automatic weapons
> I think, much harder to get too.

Add to my list:
11. Bullet proof vests and leggings illegal

> And there are so many handguns floating around, it just seems
> like pissing into the wind trying to regulate them out of
> existence.

It will take time, but eventually it can be done. Make it hard to
buy and sell guns and ammo and keep records of sales. Whatever it
takes...so that 50 or 75 years from now there will be a difference.

> The main response has been to dramatically increase the
> penalties for using handguns in a crime. In Florida, they
> have the 10,20 life law. Ten years minimum for using a
> gun in a felony, 20 minimum for firing it during a felony
> and life for shooting someone (dead or not).

Good, but much more needs to be done.

> But today the Miami Herald has a long article on the
> abuse of the various Stand Your Ground laws on
> self defense. People are literally getting away with
> murder. They documented one case where this
> guy claimed he was arguing with somone dating
> his ex, and he said the guy ran out to his car to
> get a gun, so he followed him out to his car and
> fired 14 shots into the car, killing him, and got
> away with it claiming self defense.
>
> In Florida, the state has to prove his claim of
> self defense is false, not the other way around.

Good example of laws the gun goofballs want. I have a
neighbor who is arguing that everyone should carry a gun
when they go to movies...nuts!

> Gun control is not popular in the US at all.
> Quite the opposite.

Wrong, it is popular and desired...few people want easy access to
fully auto machine guns or RPGs...that is gun control, but we
need more...keep squeezing.
;-)

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jul 21, 11:00 pm, Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote:

> > Proposed gun laws...response to the Colorado Movie Massacre.

Why? We *know* gun control laws don't reduce crime. No one who would
obey them would be committing a crime in the first place.

[BlackBeard]

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:13:59 PM UTC-7, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
> Proposed gun laws...response to the Colorado Movie Massacre.
>
> Nationwide, federal gun law (supersedes all state gun laws).
>
> 1. Limit of 1 gun purchase per month.
> 2. Valid ID required to buy guns or ammo.
> 3. Guns or ammo purchased only in-person at gunshop.
> (not mail order or internet)
> 4. Limit ammo to 1000 bullets per year.
> 5. Eliminate concealed carry of guns.
> 6. Only handguns (for in-home protection only) are legal.
> 7. Hunting rifles are short-term rentals only (from gunshops).
> 8. Exceptions in designated areas (e.g. people living in remote areas of U.S.).
> 9. Individuals may re-sell firearms or ammo only to a lawfully certified dealer..

> 10. &quot;Sport&quot; or &quot;trophy&quot; hunting with guns is illegal.

>
>
> Pressure the Supreme Court to rule on 2nd Amendment...do all citizens
> have a constitutional right to openly carry a loaded shotgun in
> downtown New York City?
>
> I say...shitcan the nonsense 2nd Amendment.
> ;-)

10th amendment.

[george152]

BlackBeard wrote:
> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:13:59 PM UTC-7, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>> Proposed gun laws...response to the Colorado Movie Massacre.
>>
>> Nationwide, federal gun law (supersedes all state gun laws).
>>
>> 1. Limit of 1 gun purchase per month.
>> 2. Valid ID required to buy guns or ammo.
>> 3. Guns or ammo purchased only in-person at gunshop.
>> (not mail order or internet)
>> 4. Limit ammo to 1000 bullets per year.
>> 5. Eliminate concealed carry of guns.
>> 6. Only handguns (for in-home protection only) are legal.
>> 7. Hunting rifles are short-term rentals only (from gunshops).
>> 8. Exceptions in designated areas (e.g. people living in remote areas of U.S.).
>> 9. Individuals may re-sell firearms or ammo only to a lawfully certified dealer..

>> 10.&quot;Sport&quot; or&quot;trophy&quot; hunting with guns is illegal.

>>
>>
>> Pressure the Supreme Court to rule on 2nd Amendment...do all citizens
>> have a constitutional right to openly carry a loaded shotgun in
>> downtown New York City?
>>
>> I say...shitcan the nonsense 2nd Amendment.
>> ;-)
>
> 10th amendment.

Welcome back.And stick around :)

[Paul F Austin]

On the other hand, this was an instance where an armed citizen would
have had little chance of rescuing the situation: crowded theater, dark,
assailant reported to have worn body armor and using a long arm. I say
this as a man who has a carry permit.

Paul

[Jim Yanik]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:e6edneDQrs_ki5DN...@supernews.com:

Google Happyland massacre; a guy killed over 50 people with a gallon of
gasoline.

Even with body armor(likely the usual soft body armor),getting hit by a
round is going to HURT. even a .380 auto is over 200 ft-lbs of force. hit
the groin or lower abdomen,and the guy WILL fold up. .45ACP is around 600
ft-lbs.,that can break ribs,even with body armor.
Receiving incoming fire would also distract the killer and allow more
people to escape. it's hard to aim when bullets are smacking you. it would
probably force the killer to cover.

As for the "dark theater",the killer was able to see to fire at patrons,and
his muzzle flash will tell you where he is,if the light from the screen
isn't enough to see him,which I suspect it was.

Yes,the crowd would be a problem,but maybe a lot of them were hunkered
down,hiding,trying to "stay small" and unnoticed. The ones in motion all
would be moving AWAY from the killer.
But Paul,would -you- prefer to be UNARMED in that situation?
would you do nothing,not even try?

I read today that the killer's AR magazine jammed,and forced his to use the
shotgun and Glock,so that helped keep the death count down.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jul 23, 2:16 am, Paul F Austin <pfaus...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > Why?  We *know* gun control laws don't reduce crime.  No one who would
> > obey them would be committing a crime in the first place.
>
> On the other hand, this was an instance where an armed citizen would
> have had little chance of rescuing the situation: crowded theater, dark,
> assailant reported to have worn body armor and using a long arm. I say
> this as a man who has a carry permit.

I don't see how an armed citizen would have made the situation worse.
Even if he had a low possibility of success, that is still infinitely
greater than zero.

[Paul F Austin]

Where's your backstop? That's an important issue in a crowd. Engaging in
a fire fight in a crowd is a nightmare scenario with all the advantages
going to the bad guy who doesn't care where his rounds end up. All the
IPSC engagements are in a shoot house or range with good backstops and
all the bystanders _behind_ the single shooter. I really don't want to
think about .357 flying ashtrays going astray into a crowd and I _have_
to think about that, it's my responsibility. Mr Smith is my friend but
he's no bullseye gun.

Paul

[Jim Yanik]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:aIqdnaYUELxKW5DN...@supernews.com:

the killer was at the front of the theater,by the screen. All alone.
Nobody was behind him. or anywhere near him.

All the patrons were in the seats,and heading for the exits away from the
killer. He was shooting anyone who stood up or tried to escape.
Plus,the slope of the theater floor puts you above the killer,firing
downhill. Defensive shots would not likely endanger any patrons.

as for engaging in a firefight(Sen. Feinstein's words)in a crowd,the
firefight had already started,it was just very one-sided.
it would have been nice if some ODC could have shot back at the killer.


Once again,gun-free zones get people killed.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:

Add to my list:
11. Bullet proof clothing (body armor) illegal
12. 1 week wait for guns or ammo
;-)

[Bill]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:21:19 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:

> 4. Limit ammo to 1000 bullets per year.

That's a bit daft.

Keen target shooters use more than that in a month.

When I was shooting pistol competitively I was shooting 300 to 400 a
week.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Son, the Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable federal restrictions
are constitutional and we in fact have many (many!) federal gun laws
which supersede (or prevent or squash) state gun laws.

Comprende "reasonable" or "enough!", hijo?
;-)

[Andrew Swallow]

Worse it will hardy effect the psychopathic killer - too heavy to carry.

Andrew Swallow

[Daryl]

Stuff your pockets with clips, have clips on your belt as well.
Let's see, that might make up 100 to 200 rounds. The Psyco might
have about that but chances are, he won't have anymore than 4
clips at a max. But to carry 1000 rounds? That's 50 to 100
clips depending on the weapon. That's quite an armload.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in news:jum31k$ipc$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 7/23/2012 10:51 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 24/07/2012 02:41, Bill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:21:19 -0700, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>>> <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 4. Limit ammo to 1000 bullets per year.
>>>
>>> That's a bit daft.
>>>
>>> Keen target shooters use more than that in a month.
>>>
>>> When I was shooting pistol competitively I was shooting 300 to
>>> 400 a week.
>>
>> Worse it will hardy effect the psychopathic killer - too heavy to
>> carry.
>

> Stuff your pockets with clips, have clips on your belt as well.
> Let's see, that might make up 100 to 200 rounds. The Psyco might
> have about that but chances are, he won't have anymore than 4
> clips at a max. But to carry 1000 rounds? That's 50 to 100
> clips depending on the weapon. That's quite an armload.

Basic load for an infantryman when I carried an FAL was 200 rounds in four
magazines and the remainder in either boxes or bandoliers. When we went to
5.56mm, it went up to 300 rounds in six mags and more bags. More than that
will impede as it both weighs one down and bulks out one's carrying
capacity. It can be done, though.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
news:XnsA09A6C5DA2C84H...@88.198.244.100...

You must have had food, water and so on that could be substituted for

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jul 23, 6:55 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@jameford.edu>
wrote:

> Son, the Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable federal restrictions
> are constitutional

The Supreme Court once said blacks have no rights in the US. What's
your point?

[Andrew Chaplin]

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:jumk91$1ci$1...@dont-email.me:

This was in Fighting Order, not Marching Order. About all the capacity
you would have freed up was the canteen and a pouch or two of boil-in-bag
rations rations, so about 4 Kg.

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message

news:XnsA09AA6F7A2C2DH...@88.198.244.100...

And another 1.5 for the helmet, and at least another for the boots.

Wouldn't it make more sense to start with 40 kg, subtract 6 for the rifle,
another ten for armour and clothing, two for a pistol and a couple of
magazines, leaves 22, say 20. 20 kg is 1320 NATO rounds in magazines

[Andrew Chaplin]

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in

news:junbea$mkd$1...@dont-email.me:

> "Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
> news:XnsA09AA6F7A2C2DH...@88.198.244.100...
>

>> This was in Fighting Order, not Marching Order. About all the capacity
>> you would have freed up was the canteen and a pouch or two of
>> boil-in-bag rations rations, so about 4 Kg.
>
> And another 1.5 for the helmet, and at least another for the boots.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to start with 40 kg, subtract 6 for the
> rifle, another ten for armour and clothing, two for a pistol and a
> couple of magazines, leaves 22, say 20. 20 kg is 1320 NATO rounds in
> magazines

The load you are describing is one for Marching Order. You can transport
that much fairly easily--my knees and back beg to differ--but you will
manoeuvre only with difficulty. Fighting Order is a lot lighter, and about
as much as you want to be carrying if you are going to be engaged. The
helmet is the one piece of armour you do not want to go without (I believe
the Colorado suspect wore one). Of course, if you have a defensible
position to occupy before you engage, then you can cart the load you
propose.

(Why are your posts quoting so poorly, Peter?)

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message

news:XnsA09B5743CE011H...@88.198.244.100...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:junbea$mkd$1...@dont-email.me:

> "Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
> news:XnsA09AA6F7A2C2DH...@88.198.244.100...
>
>> This was in Fighting Order, not Marching Order. About all the capacity
>> you would have freed up was the canteen and a pouch or two of
>> boil-in-bag rations rations, so about 4 Kg.
>
> And another 1.5 for the helmet, and at least another for the boots.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to start with 40 kg, subtract 6 for the
> rifle, another ten for armour and clothing, two for a pistol and a
> couple of magazines, leaves 22, say 20. 20 kg is 1320 NATO rounds in
> magazines

>The load you are describing is one for Marching Order. You can transport
that much fairly easily--my knees and back beg to differ--but you will
manoeuvre only with difficulty. Fighting Order is a lot lighter, and about
as much as you want to be carrying if you are going to be engaged. The
helmet is the one piece of armour you do not want to go without (I believe
the Colorado suspect wore one). Of course, if you have a defensible
position to occupy before you engage, then you can cart the load you
propose.

We're talking about what some miscreant could carry into a theater (mall,
etc.) to do evil to the general population. The rules are different, he can
drop a bag of stuff at his feet before he starts, he doesn't want a helmet,
it would be noticed.

Your comments are correct, of course, for real soldiers.

>(Why are your posts quoting so poorly, Peter?)

Because I'm using a really bad client, I've got to fix that real soon now.