Ebay funny of the day

[Michael A. Terrell]

What a waste of 6061

http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

[Cydrome Leader]

Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> What a waste of 6061
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

That's weak.

It should be solid OFHC copper, cryotreated and silver plated.

[Ignoramus32077]

On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> What a waste of 6061
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
interference suppression.

i

[Gunner]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077

Was it machined from a "billet" too?


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

[Jim Wilkins]

"Gunner" <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3uc5i891q96mv2vo8...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32077.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> What a waste of 6061
>>>
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602
>>
>>You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free
>>1
>>gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
>>interference suppression.
>>
>>i
>
> Was it machined from a "billet" too?

The USAF paid me a whole lot more than that to design and mill similar
boxes. Instead of 60 Hz the contents ran at 6000000000 Hz.

[Robert Nichols]

On 02/18/2013 12:37 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> What a waste of 6061
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602

No true audiophile would ever use that.
There's no gold plating!!! :-/

--
Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"

[Michael A. Terrell]

Robert Nichols wrote:
>
> On 02/18/2013 12:37 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > What a waste of 6061
> >
> > http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602
>
> No true audiophile would ever use that.
> There's no gold plating!!! :-/

I was thinking it was for pro audio for portable set-ups. Some of
those types spend lots on junk, too.

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.32077.invalid> wrote:

Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!

--
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32077.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> What a waste of 6061
>>>
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602
>>
>>You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
>>gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
>>interference suppression.
>
>Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!

>The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson

Nope:

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation

[Gunner]

A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

Molon Labe!


Gunner

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:08:52 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:30:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
>>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32077.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What a waste of 6061
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602
>>>>
>>>>You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
>>>>gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
>>>>interference suppression.
>>>
>>>Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!
>>
>>>The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson
>>
>>Nope:
>>
>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>
>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

Maybe Larry should attribute it to you. That would give it some
credibility, eh? d8-)

Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
your ideas more credible?

--
Ed Huntress

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:08:52 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:30:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
>>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32077.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What a waste of 6061
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602
>>>>
>>>>You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
>>>>gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
>>>>interference suppression.
>>>
>>>Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!
>>
>>>The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson
>>
>>Nope:
>>
>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>
>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.

I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,

It _Must_ Be True. ;)


>Molon Labe!

From my cold, dead hands.


--

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>>
>>>>The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson
>>>
>>>Nope:
>>>
>>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>>
>>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.
>
>Maybe Larry should attribute it to you. That would give it some
>credibility, eh? d8-)
>
>Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
>attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
>your ideas more credible?
>
>--
>Ed Huntress

Google Search "The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be

needed until they try to take it. "

Results 2,680,000

Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 06:16:02 -0800, Larry Jaques

<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:08:52 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:30:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0800, Larry Jaques
>>><lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:43:31 -0600, Ignoramus32077
>>>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32077.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2013-02-18, Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a waste of 6061
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/400323338602
>>>>>
>>>>>You need solid aluminum outlet to get top performance of oxygen free 1
>>>>>gauge copper audio speakers. You would get "spiffy" sound and solid
>>>>>interference suppression.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, you'll get that high-tech 'billet' sound!
>>>
>>>>The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson
>>>
>>>Nope:
>>>
>>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>>
>>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.
>
>I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
>but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,
>
>It _Must_ Be True. ;)
>

The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
generally made sense.

Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?

Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
about what it means.

>
>>Molon Labe!

From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...

>
>From my cold, dead hands.

That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:35:05 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>>The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>>>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson
>>>>
>>>>Nope:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>>>
>>>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.
>>
>>Maybe Larry should attribute it to you. That would give it some
>>credibility, eh? d8-)
>>
>>Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
>>attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
>>your ideas more credible?
>>
>>--
>>Ed Huntress
>
>Google Search "The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be
>needed until they try to take it. "
>
>Results 2,680,000

Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
not surprised.

>
>Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
>to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
>think it makes your spewage somehow valid?

Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:40:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>>>
>>>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.
>>
>>I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
>>but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,
>>
>>It _Must_ Be True. ;)
>>
>
>The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
>makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
>generally made sense.
>
>Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
>militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
>being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>
>Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
>about what it means.

Must have been a technical writer. Shrug.

>
>>
>>>Molon Labe!
>
>From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
>admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...

Leftwingers...dumber than dirt and mentally ill.

>
>>
>>From my cold, dead hands.
>
>That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)

See above.

Gunner

>
>--
>Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>>
>>>Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
>>>attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
>>>your ideas more credible?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Ed Huntress
>>
>>Google Search "The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be
>>needed until they try to take it. "
>>
>>Results 2,680,000
>
>Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
>not surprised.

What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
them than just 2,680,000.

Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
over.

>
>>
>>Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
>>to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
>>think it makes your spewage somehow valid?
>
>Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.
>
>--
>Ed Huntress

See my posts to you.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:56:19 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:40:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>>>>
>>>>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.
>>>
>>>I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
>>>but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,
>>>
>>>It _Must_ Be True. ;)
>>>
>>
>>The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
>>makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
>>generally made sense.
>>
>>Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
>>militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
>>being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>>
>>Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
>>about what it means.
>
>Must have been a technical writer. Shrug.

More likely a mindless gun nut, who jerks his knee at anything that
sounds like it supports his wishful thinking. That's one of the
chronic problems in the entire gun debate.

>>
>>>
>>>>Molon Labe!
>>
>>From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
>>admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...
>
>Leftwingers...dumber than dirt and mentally ill.
>>
>>>
>>>From my cold, dead hands.
>>
>>That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)
>
>See above.
>
>Gunner

Take care of your circulation, Gunner -- smoking sure doesn't help --
or they may be prying guns from your cold, dead hands before the rest
of you is dead. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:14 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
>>>>attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
>>>>your ideas more credible?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Ed Huntress
>>>
>>>Google Search "The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be
>>>needed until they try to take it. "
>>>
>>>Results 2,680,000
>>
>>Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
>>not surprised.
>
>What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
>them than just 2,680,000.

I doubt if there were many Democrats among those parrots. That's a gun
nutz quip if there ever was one.

>
>Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
>over.
>>
>>>
>>>Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
>>>to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
>>>think it makes your spewage somehow valid?
>>
>>Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.
>>
>>--
>>Ed Huntress
>
>See my posts to you.

You haven't explained why it makes any sense. See above.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:taa7i8p7ske73lb90...@4ax.com...

>
> Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
> militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
> being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>

> Ed Huntress

Is that also your philosophy on insurance?

[Ed Huntress]

You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.

Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:01:48 -0500, Ed Huntress

<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:56:19 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:40:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>>>>>
>>>>>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.
>>>>
>>>>I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
>>>>but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,
>>>>
>>>>It _Must_ Be True. ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>>The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
>>>makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
>>>generally made sense.
>>>
>>>Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
>>>militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
>>>being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>>>
>>>Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
>>>about what it means.
>>
>>Must have been a technical writer. Shrug.
>
>More likely a mindless gun nut, who jerks his knee at anything that
>sounds like it supports his wishful thinking. That's one of the
>chronic problems in the entire gun debate.

Perhaps a technical writer who used to like guns.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Molon Labe!
>>>
>>>From the ancient Greek for "wash your melon." Greek mothers used to
>>>admonish their children to keep their fruit clean...
>>
>>Leftwingers...dumber than dirt and mentally ill.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>From my cold, dead hands.
>>>
>>>That's what happens when you don't take care of your circulation. d8-)
>>
>>See above.
>>
>>Gunner
>
>Take care of your circulation, Gunner -- smoking sure doesn't help --
>or they may be prying guns from your cold, dead hands before the rest
>of you is dead. <g>

My circulation is just fine. In fact..its been discussed on the
internet more than once. I take pretty good care of myself these
days. I dont have a spare heart or too many more spare arteries.

<VBG>

Gunner

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:20:23 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:01:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:56:19 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:40:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A Jefferson quote or not..its still true.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wondered about that myself, when I saw it in your email yesterday,
>>>>>but I figured that since it was in email or on the Internet,
>>>>>
>>>>>It _Must_ Be True. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The giveaway for many of these quips is that, as in this case, it
>>>>makes no sense. Jefferson said a lot of provocative things but they
>>>>generally made sense.
>>>>
>>>>Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
>>>>militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
>>>>being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>>>>
>>>>Somebody just fell in love with the play on words, and didn't think
>>>>about what it means.
>>>
>>>Must have been a technical writer. Shrug.

You're dodging the point: the meaning of that quip, which is
self-referential, and could be a joke if it was dressed up.

The form would be something like, "I'd give my right hand to be
ambidextrous."

>>
>>More likely a mindless gun nut, who jerks his knee at anything that
>>sounds like it supports his wishful thinking. That's one of the
>>chronic problems in the entire gun debate.
>
>Perhaps a technical writer who used to like guns.

I still like guns. I just don't care for mindless gun nutz.

Did you ever make something with that Martini?

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:04:28 -0500, Ed Huntress

<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:59:14 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:43:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you guys feel the need to dress up your sophomoric sayings by
>>>>>attributing them to some famous person? Do you think that it makes
>>>>>your ideas more credible?
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Ed Huntress
>>>>
>>>>Google Search "The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be
>>>>needed until they try to take it. "
>>>>
>>>>Results 2,680,000
>>>
>>>Two-million, six-hundred and eighty thousand thoughtless parrots. I am
>>>not surprised.
>>
>>What...you dont like Democrats? And there are a hell of a lot more of
>>them than just 2,680,000.
>
>I doubt if there were many Democrats among those parrots. That's a gun
>nutz quip if there ever was one.

You stated clearly "thoughtless parrots" so obviously you were talking
about Democrats.

>
>>
>>Will make some damned big "memorial parks" when the Great Cull is
>>over.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why do you need to make sophomoric accusations by attributing things
>>>>to a small group of people you are utterly divorced from? Do you
>>>>think it makes your spewage somehow valid?
>>>
>>>Think about what that silly quip means. See my post to Larry.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Ed Huntress
>>
>>See my posts to you.
>
>You haven't explained why it makes any sense. See above.

Are you that biased and stupid?

Im afraid it looks as if you actually are.

Pity.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

<VBG>

[Gunner]

"...and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an
aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in
the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."
Representative Bob Dornan

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:34 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Don't try that cheap shot with me, Gunner. You aren't fooling anyone.

You repeated that silly quip without even thinking about what it
means. If it "isn't needed until they try to take it," then you don't
think it's "needed" to protect yourself against an intruder (he
doesn't give a damn about no steenking Second Amendment, he just wants
to shoot you), right?

In other words, you didn't think. You just jerked your knee.

--
Ed Huntress

[Doug Miller]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:ilc7i8tcsjrqisfl36vbq4frkehhllhotc@
4ax.com:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:taa7i8p7ske73lb90...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
>>> militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
>>> being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>>>
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>Is that also your philosophy on insurance?
>
> You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
> car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.
>
> Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
> or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.

No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

> If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
> need it otherwise, what is its purpose?

Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.

> You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.

Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:10:58 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
><murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:taa7i8p7ske73lb90...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
>>> militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
>>> being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>>>
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>Is that also your philosophy on insurance?
>>
>>
><VBG>

So, what kind of insurance would reflect a parallel to the quip? How
about, "This insurance policy isn't needed until someone tries to take
it away. Otherwise, you won't need it."

Great. An insurance policy that insures you against having your
insurance policy taken away. Otherwise, it isn't needed. One wonders
what value the insurance policy is, if you won't "need" it before then
-- not if you die first, or have a heart attack first, or have your
car stolen first.

What a great and useful insurance policy! Try thinking before engaging
your keyboard.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:13:56 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
>><murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:taa7i8p7ske73lb90...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
>>>> militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
>>>> being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>
>>>Is that also your philosophy on insurance?
>>
>>You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
>>car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.
>>
>>Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
>>or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.
>>
>>If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
>>need it otherwise, what is its purpose?
>>
>>You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.
>
>"...and by the way, Mr.Speaker, the Second Amendment is not for
>killing little ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an
>aunt and uncle. It's for hunting politicians, like in Grozny, and in
>the colonies in 1776, or when they take your independence away."
> Representative Bob Dornan

That's not what the quip says. It says you won't need it until someone

tries to take it away.

So, Gunner, if someone invades your house and threatens to kill you,
just roll over. You won't need the 2nd, if you believe that quip.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:48:43 -0500, Ed Huntress

I have it barreled, and have the butt stock. Im still working on the
foreend. I was in something of a tither trying to find a small
centerfire cartridge that would work, but it was modified to the
point that it was most difficult to convert back to centerfire, so I
installed a Beyer stainless barrel that I swapped for. Im considering
fluting it because it is a bit..heavy. Id considered a carbon fiber
barrel..but the $$ was way out of my reach..and then I had that
medical issue....shrug.

And I thank you again. When the ship comes in..and/or manufacturing
once again blooms in California, Ill finish it up and shoot it in my
Saturday morning small bore matches.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:32:47 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
<doug_at_mil...@example.com> wrote:

>Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in news:ilc7i8tcsjrqisfl36vbq4frkehhllhotc@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:11 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
>> <murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>news:taa7i8p7ske73lb90...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Think about it: If you never need it for self defense or for the
>>>> militia purpose, or any other purpose, other than to prevent it from
>>>> being taken away...why would you "need" it in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Ed Huntress
>>>
>>>Is that also your philosophy on insurance?
>>
>> You need insurance in case something particular happens to you -- a
>> car accident, a health emergency, death -- whatever.
>>
>> Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
>> or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.
>
>No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".

See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
yourself and your home.

Do you disagree?

>
>> If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
>> need it otherwise, what is its purpose?
>
>Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.
>
>> You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.
>
>Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
>federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.

That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
need it.

You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:39:41 -0500, Ed Huntress

What..you dont like B1 Bob either?

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>>
>>> Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
>>> or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.
>>
>>No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".
>
>See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
>yourself and your home.
>
>Do you disagree?
>
>>
>>> If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
>>> need it otherwise, what is its purpose?
>>
>>Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.
>>
>>> You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.
>>
>>Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
>>federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.
>
>That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
>need it.
>
>You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
>It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.
>
>--
>Ed Huntress

You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.
But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
time.

I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
to harm me or take away my guns. At which point it becomes a very
tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
same firearms.

Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.

Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
until the moment I do.

[Gunner]

With the 2nd Amendment graven in stone (not simply a pesky
"suggestion")....I may have no "need" of it until the moment I do,
just like fire extinguishers and seat belts.

Having that 2nd Amendment well known and graven in stone.....helps
prevent government from attempting to infringe the rest of the
Constitution. It helps..doesnt guarentee prevention. The Great Cull
will do just that after all the gun grabbers and mentally ill
Leftwingers are killed and bulldozed into mass graves in the very very
near future.



Gunner

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:31:09 -0500, Ed Huntress

I dont need those pesky fire extingushers and seat belts until the
moment I need them.

You RINOs and Neos tend to be rather mentally ill, sadly.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:44:18 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Well, it's mostly a historical curiosity, since those Miniature Rifle
Clubs were started by Rudyard Kipling. It was their equivalent of
junior DCM, or something like that.

I hope you don't expect it to be a fine shooter. It isn't worth a lot
of work. Like all full-size Martinis, it has a very slow lock time and
it would be more work than it's worth to make a special titanium or
hollow firing pin. The trigger on those guns is creepy, and the lockup
at the rear end of that long bolt mitigates against shooting tight
groups. The smaller, target-shooting rimfire Martinis have a short
bolt and they were finely finished to get a fairly tight lockup at the
bolt face.

But it was a clever action, and one of historical importance.

It's been a while but I didn't think it was converted to rimfire. The
later ones were, (I think) using an offset barrel bushing. But most of
them were chambered for a small, pistol-sized centerfire made
especially for the job. The mid-sized Australian Martini Cadet was
made for still another cartridge, somewhat larger but still
sub-caliber for a military rifle.

Anyway, it's a collector's item that's good for conversation.

>
>And I thank you again. When the ship comes in..and/or manufacturing
>once again blooms in California, Ill finish it up and shoot it in my
>Saturday morning small bore matches.

It will be a challenge, especially offhand. But you'll have the
coolest gun, anyway. <g>

Remember Bob Richardson? (or was he on CompuServe?) I found a Martini
Model 12 for him, a high-end rimfire target gun. He used it in small
bore matches in California and he did great with it.

The guys at Navy Arms used to let me climb through their bins of
imported British Martinis. That's how I found your MRC action. It was
the only one out of hundreds. Hang on to it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:51:14 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Oh, yeah, the congressman who declared 1994 the "Year of the Penis."
<g>

The precursor to the Tea Party. Is he still alive?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
>>>> or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.
>>>
>>>No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".
>>
>>See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
>>yourself and your home.
>>
>>Do you disagree?
>>
>>>
>>>> If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
>>>> need it otherwise, what is its purpose?
>>>
>>>Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.
>>>
>>>> You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.
>>>
>>>Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
>>>federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.
>>
>>That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
>>need it.
>>
>>You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
>>It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.
>>
>>--
>>Ed Huntress
>
>You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

Actually, I'm just reading the words and considering what they mean --
which you guys apparently have not done.

>But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
>time.
>
> I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides
>to harm me or take away my guns.

That's not what the quip says. It says you "won't need it." That's
what gave it away as something too dumb to be from Jefferson.

> At which point it becomes a very
>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>same firearms.

Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
won't need.

>
>Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
>practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
>speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.
>
>Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
>until the moment I do.

Again, that's a different issue.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:59:49 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

True enough. But that's not what the quip says.

>
>Having that 2nd Amendment well known and graven in stone.....helps
>prevent government from attempting to infringe the rest of the
>Constitution. It helps..doesnt guarentee prevention.

It's an important symbol that distinguishes the basis of power in our
government from all others. Well, except for Yemen and East Timor,
maybe. d8-)

> The Great Cull
>will do just that after all the gun grabbers and mentally ill
>Leftwingers are killed and bulldozed into mass graves in the very very
>near future.

I thought that was the plan for last year? Did their GPS receivers run
out of charge?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:01:40 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

'Same with the 2nd. But that's not what the quip says. It says you
don't need them until someone tries to take the 2nd Amendment away. It
says nothing about home assaults, or personal assaults, or citizen
militias, or other militias.

>
>You RINOs and Neos tend to be rather mentally ill, sadly.

"Neo" what?

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:10:52 -0500, Ed Huntress

Indeed. I had a BSA that I shot until I got the Anshutz and have had
several others. Id have to check the records..shrug.

>
>But it was a clever action, and one of historical importance.
>
>It's been a while but I didn't think it was converted to rimfire. The
>later ones were, (I think) using an offset barrel bushing. But most of
>them were chambered for a small, pistol-sized centerfire made
>especially for the job. The mid-sized Australian Martini Cadet was
>made for still another cartridge, somewhat larger but still
>sub-caliber for a military rifle.
>
>Anyway, it's a collector's item that's good for conversation.

Id originally thought about 38-55 or even 32-20..but...converted to
rimfire left those out. 38-55 would have been way cool.

>
>>
>>And I thank you again. When the ship comes in..and/or manufacturing
>>once again blooms in California, Ill finish it up and shoot it in my
>>Saturday morning small bore matches.
>
>It will be a challenge, especially offhand. But you'll have the
>coolest gun, anyway. <g>

Indeed. Its wrapped in a zip bag after being spritzed with Good Stuff
.

>
>Remember Bob Richardson? (or was he on CompuServe?) I found a Martini
>Model 12 for him, a high-end rimfire target gun. He used it in small
>bore matches in California and he did great with it.
>
>The guys at Navy Arms used to let me climb through their bins of
>imported British Martinis. That's how I found your MRC action. It was
>the only one out of hundreds. Hang on to it.

Oh..its not going anywhere. I never give up gifts from people I like.

<G>

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:40 -0500, Ed Huntress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dornan

"On a January 28, 1994 appearance on Politically Incorrect, Dornan
declared it was "The Year of the Penis" due to recent events in the
news. This was a joke in regard to the 1992 media and political
reference as that election being referred to as "The Year of the
Woman", when 4 women won election to the United States Senate. In
relation to this comment by Dornan, Representative Barney Frank noted
"Bob Dornan isn't even rational on the House floor. You can't expect
him to be rational on Politically Incorrect."[10]"

>
>The precursor to the Tea Party. Is he still alive?

Dornan currently works with the American Life League, his primary
mission as a member of the American Life League team will be
refocusing attention on the Right to Life Act, a proposal that
establishes the personhood of each human being as beginning at
fertilization."

Quite a gentleman. Ive met him 2x. Funny as hell and takes no
prisoners

<VBG>

Gunner

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:31:55 -0500, Ed Huntress

Odd...I wont need it either until.....

>
>> At which point it becomes a very
>>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>>same firearms.
>
>Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
>won't need.

Really? Cites?

>
>>
>>Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
>>practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
>>speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.
>>
>>Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
>>until the moment I do.
>
>Again, that's a different issue.

Cites?

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:37:04 -0500, Ed Huntress

I was convinced by another poster that it would likely happen in 2013
or even 2014..but wouldnt happen in 2012, and after pondering on it
for a few days..agreed.

He is a very smart fellow .

Now that the Obamassiah and his drones have gone after the guns...the
fuse has been lit.

<VBG>

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:58:03 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

heh...Do you remember if the firing pin has a flat face? If so, it was
modified for rimfire. But that should be the only difference, IIRC.
The barrel thread is the same; the rimfires just had a screw-in
bushing to offset the cartridge head from the firing pin.

If the face is flat, the firing pin can be replaced to shoot
centerfire. But watch the cartridge pressure! That milled notch behind
the bolt was intended to "disable" the gun from shooting standard
military ammo.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:j8o7i8545h7u00kp4...@4ax.com...

How do you know in advance that you will never need to defend
yourself? Or if awareness of your carry permit deterred a break-in?
You have only absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.

"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
supporting a false conclusion.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:44:42 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"

Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
the quip that I said was mindless.

All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
words, you won't need it.

Look at it again:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed

until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
it unless someone tries to take it away.

As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:03:58 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Until what? Until your life is threatened, or until someone tries to
pass an amendment to the Constitution?

Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
about it.

>>
>>> At which point it becomes a very
>>>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>>>same firearms.
>>
>>Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
>>won't need.
>
>Really? Cites?

The actual words of that silly quip:

"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

<cough, cough....> It says you'll only need it when they try to take
it, Gunner. If they try to kill you, no problem. You won't need it
then.

>>
>>>
>>>Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
>>>practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
>>>speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.
>>>
>>>Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
>>>until the moment I do.
>>
>>Again, that's a different issue.
>
>Cites?

See above.

What you're doing is knee-jerking about what you WANT that quip to
say. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. It's all noise in your
head.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:57:54 -0500, Ed Huntress

Oh the Amendment process is legal. Its the bans and other
Unconstitutional stuff that will require guns. I figure this year
they will kill all the Leftwingers. Something about "protect the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic"

>
>Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
>about it.

Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

>
>>>
>>>> At which point it becomes a very
>>>>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>>>>same firearms.
>>>
>>>Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
>>>won't need.
>>
>>Really? Cites?
>
>The actual words of that silly quip:
>
>"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"

Makes sense to me.

>
><cough, cough....> It says you'll only need it when they try to take
>it, Gunner. If they try to kill you, no problem. You won't need it
>then.

Only if they DO kill me. If they try to take it..Im covered by it up
to the point they kill me. And the next guy kills them and so on and
so forth.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
>>>>practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
>>>>speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.
>>>>
>>>>Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
>>>>until the moment I do.
>>>
>>>Again, that's a different issue.
>>
>>Cites?
>
>See above.
>
>What you're doing is knee-jerking about what you WANT that quip to
>say. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. It's all noise in your
>head.

Spoken like a true RINO

[Gunner]

Of course not. The Second Amendment isnt only about fighting off those
pesky common criminals. Its also about killing those pesky
politicians.

You dont understand that?

I thought you were a wonder brain....sad really to find one of my
icons no better than a slug mentally.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:08:45 -0500, Ed Huntress

Id have to go dig it out of the vault. There is no screw in
bushing..this one was silver soldered in.

>
>If the face is flat, the firing pin can be replaced to shoot
>centerfire. But watch the cartridge pressure! That milled notch behind
>the bolt was intended to "disable" the gun from shooting standard
>military ammo.

Hence the 38-55 cartridge. Its low pressure enough to not stress the
action.

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:52:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>
>>"If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
>>supporting a false conclusion.
>>
>
>Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
>the quip that I said was mindless.
>
>All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
>it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
>words, you won't need it.
>
>Look at it again:
>
>"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"
>
>"It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
>PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
>whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
>it unless someone tries to take it away.
>
>As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
>there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
>on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
>he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson. <g>
>
>--
>Ed Huntress

Ed forgets that Self Defense is a human right. Yet it took the 2nd
Amendment to give teeth and tail to defending against an out of
control government.

Which is why the saying works.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:06:49 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

No doubt the "poster" will have excuses for you in 2013 and 2014, as
well. Stick with him, it's always good to know someone who can come up
with a good excuse. d8-)

>
>Now that the Obamassiah and his drones have gone after the guns...the
>fuse has been lit.

<pfssssst...dud>


>
><VBG>
>
>Gunner

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:28:32 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Hmm. Nothing about self-defense against marauding gangs with
high-capacity ARs, or protecting your home against intruders? No
citizen militia?

>
>>
>>Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
>>about it.
>
>Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
>expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)

But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
between your ears.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> At which point it becomes a very
>>>>>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>>>>>same firearms.
>>>>
>>>>Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
>>>>won't need.
>>>
>>>Really? Cites?
>>
>>The actual words of that silly quip:
>>
>>"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"
>
>Makes sense to me.

That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
there somewhere. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:30:57 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:51:34 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Don't try that cheap shot with me, Gunner. You aren't fooling anyone.
>>>>
>>>>You repeated that silly quip without even thinking about what it
>>>>means. If it "isn't needed until they try to take it," then you don't
>>>>think it's "needed" to protect yourself against an intruder (he
>>>>doesn't give a damn about no steenking Second Amendment, he just wants
>>>>to shoot you), right?
>>>>
>>>>In other words, you didn't think. You just jerked your knee.
>>>
>>>I dont need those pesky fire extingushers and seat belts until the
>>>moment I need them.
>>
>>'Same with the 2nd. But that's not what the quip says. It says you
>>don't need them until someone tries to take the 2nd Amendment away. It
>>says nothing about home assaults, or personal assaults, or citizen
>>militias, or other militias.
>
>Of course not. The Second Amendment isnt only about fighting off those
>pesky common criminals. Its also about killing those pesky
>politicians.
>
>You dont understand that?
>
>I thought you were a wonder brain....sad really to find one of my
>icons no better than a slug mentally.
>
>Gunner

But the quip says you won't need it for that. " [I]t will not be
needed until they try to take it," says your quip. Nothing about
criminals or defense. That sounds pretty clear, no?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:33:18 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Well, just keep in mind that it's the firing pin that makes the
difference. And if it already has a bushing in the receiver, check the
center location of the thread relative to the firing pin location.
That will tell you if it's ready for a rimfire barrel.

>>
>>If the face is flat, the firing pin can be replaced to shoot
>>centerfire. But watch the cartridge pressure! That milled notch behind
>>the bolt was intended to "disable" the gun from shooting standard
>>military ammo.
>
>Hence the 38-55 cartridge. Its low pressure enough to not stress the
>action.
>
>Gunner

Yeah, I think I'd go for centerfire, unless it already has a
sweated-in bushing in the receiver. Replacing the firing pin should be
a snap.

I'd sure as heck proof it in an old tire, which I'm sure you'll do.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:53:30 -0500, Ed Huntress

Oh thats well covered by the right to self protection. No so much in
Socialist nations. And Blue States...but I repeat myself.

>
>>
>>>
>>>Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
>>>about it.
>>
>>Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
>>expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)
>
>But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
>someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
>between your ears.

Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
sorts of threats. Government threats.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> At which point it becomes a very
>>>>>>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>>>>>>same firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
>>>>>won't need.
>>>>
>>>>Really? Cites?
>>>
>>>The actual words of that silly quip:
>>>
>>>"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"
>>
>>Makes sense to me.
>
>That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
>there somewhere. d8-)

So slam your head against the corner of the fridge door and see it it
starts firing again.

[Gunner]

With 35 million "assault rifles" purchased in the past year or
so...hold that thought.

There are no ARs available. There is no ammo available. In most
calibers. Primers? Gone. Rounds are selling for $1.80 each

The folks are not stockpiling..they are arming up and preparing.

[Richard]

On 2/19/2013 4:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> How do you know in advance that you will never need to defend
>> yourself? Or if awareness of your carry permit deterred a break-in?
>> You have only absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
>>
>> "If you never need it for self defense" is a false assumption
>> supporting a false conclusion.
>>
>
> Jim, you're arguing the 2nd, not the words in that silly quip. It's
> the quip that I said was mindless.
>
> All it says is that you won't need the 2nd until someone tries to take
> it away. It doesn't say anything about any USE. It says, in so many
> words, you won't need it.
>
> Look at it again:
>
> "The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
> until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"
>
> "It won't be needed until..." Gee, I thought the idea was that was a
> PURPOSE to having it, like, as you say, defending yourself, or
> whatever you think you need a gun for. That quip says you don't need
> it unless someone tries to take it away.
>
> As I pointed out many posts ago, that makes no sense. What we have
> there is someone who's a little dim, who thought he had a clever play
> on words going for him, but who didn't think about the meaning of what
> he wrote. It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Jefferson.<g>
>

Hey, Ed.
Welcome back to the monkey cage.

I've recently seen the quip about how the founding fathers didn't mean
ASSAULT weapons, but their quaint muzzle loading muskets.

Only problem with that is that those WERE the assault weapons of their time.

But how about let's give the 2nd amendment a break and take a really
close look at the 10th?


And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
bills?


Who ya gonna call THEN?



BTW, glad to see you back as Ed.
I hated that asshole TMT persona.

:)
Richard

[Richard]

Would you two get a room!

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:05:33 -0500, Ed Huntress

its not my first rodeo.

Send me an email to gunne...@gmail.com and Ill give you a link to my
firearms collection, which is posted on Picasa, but secured

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:25:00 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:49:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>I thought that was the plan for last year? Did their GPS receivers run
>>>>out of charge?
>>>
>>>I was convinced by another poster that it would likely happen in 2013
>>>or even 2014..but wouldnt happen in 2012, and after pondering on it
>>>for a few days..agreed.
>>>
>>>He is a very smart fellow .
>>
>>No doubt the "poster" will have excuses for you in 2013 and 2014, as
>>well. Stick with him, it's always good to know someone who can come up
>>with a good excuse. d8-)
>>
>>>
>>>Now that the Obamassiah and his drones have gone after the guns...the
>>>fuse has been lit.
>>
>><pfssssst...dud>
>
>With 35 million "assault rifles" purchased in the past year or
>so...hold that thought.
>
>There are no ARs available. There is no ammo available. In most
>calibers. Primers? Gone. Rounds are selling for $1.80 each

Ammo prices are 3x-8x normal price here, when you can find it, and a
local bare AR-15 was just advertised at $3,500.

>The folks are not stockpiling..they are arming up and preparing.
><VBG>

Ayup. Time to sit on the porch and watch it come down, jes sippin'
that lemonade.

--

[Larry Jaques]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
>>>> or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.
>>>
>>>No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".
>>
>>See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
>>yourself and your home.
>>
>>Do you disagree?
>>
>>>
>>>> If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
>>>> need it otherwise, what is its purpose?
>>>
>>>Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.
>>>
>>>> You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.
>>>
>>>Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
>>>federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.
>>

>>That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
>>need it.

Not true at all, Eddie, you dolt. It points out one good aspect of

it.


>>You're on the wrong page, Doug. This isn't about meanings of the 2nd.
>>It's about the silly quip and its claim that you won't need it.
>>
>>--
>>Ed Huntress
>
>You seem to be rather fixed minded and narrow sighted.

>But..shrug..thats been one of your defining traits for a very long
>time.

Sooooo, why are you still talking to him?

> I wont need the 2nd Amendment until a poly tick or a criminal decides

>to harm me or take away my guns. At which point it becomes a very

>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>same firearms.
>

>Same as I wont need the First, unless someone tries to prevent me from
>practicing my religion, forcing theirs on me, or preventing my free
>speech. At that point...I will use the Right granted me by the 2nd.
>
>Much like a fire extinguisher or a seat belt...I dont need either
>until the moment I do.

Right, like insurance: Not needed until the moment you do. And when
you do need it, it had better be handy and in force. I'm happy it's
there, especially this term. Any day now, folks...

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:09:10 -0600, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

There was a really interesting show on PBS tonight, with considerable
comments by NRA President David Keene, in which one historian pointed
out the obvious, which every gun nut gleefully ignores: Shooting
muzzle loaders, one shot at a time, presents a QUALITATIVELY different
issue than 30-round ARs. The historian had tracked homicides in
America for the past couple of centuries and found that the sharpest
jump occurred in the decade after Colt introduced the six-shooter.

So it's hard to say what they would have said about the situation we
face today. As it is, that doesn't matter, because we have a dead
Constitution. <g>

>
>Only problem with that is that those WERE the assault weapons of their time.
>
>But how about let's give the 2nd amendment a break and take a really
>close look at the 10th?

Sure. Start with the most conservative view, that of Judge Bork. He
said it was a meaningless redundancy.

Or you could try Madison:

"“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in State
governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison, "The
Federalist" No. 45,

Then came the 14th Amendment. As a governor of Texas once said,
"Oops..."

Next issue?

>
>
>And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
>bills?

Those are our bills. And they can always pay them. They have the
printing presses.

Of course, the Tea Party may decide we don't really have to pay them.

>
>
>Who ya gonna call THEN?

When?

>
>
>
>BTW, glad to see you back as Ed.
>I hated that asshole TMT persona.
>
>:)

Shirley you jest. TMT's antics are a big part of why I left. I
couldn't stand the noise.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:33:07 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Ok. Sent.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:40:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:56:10 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:45:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise, the 2nd. Its purpose is to provide a means of self-defense,
>>>>> or of assembling a state militia -- whatever.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not. Its purpose is to protect "the security of a free state".
>>>
>>>See D.C. v. Heller. That decision says it's also for protecting
>>>yourself and your home.
>>>
>>>Do you disagree?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you "only need it when they try to take it away," and you never
>>>>> need it otherwise, what is its purpose?
>>>>
>>>>Its purpose is to protect all the *other* amendments.
>>>>
>>>>> You're not thinking about the meaning of that quip.
>>>>
>>>>Speaking of not thinking, Ed... What we *really* need the Second Amendment for is if the
>>>>federal government attempts to take away the First, or the Fourth, or the Sixth, etc.
>>>
>>>That's not what Larry and Gunner's silly quip says. It says you won't
>>>need it.
>
>Not true at all, Eddie, you dolt. It points out one good aspect of
>it.

It does nothing of the kind, you dolt. It says "it won't be needed
until...," not "one good aspect of it is...."

It's a really simple sentence, Larry, in plain English. You posted it.
Are you having trouble with it?

--
Ed Huntress

[Richard]

On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

You know, I've always enjoyed reading you, Ed.
Sometime I agree, sometimes you are just pig headed wrong.
But always interesting.

But I hate it when you just tell God's honest unvarnished truth...

[Richard]

On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>

> Shirley you jest. TMT's antics are a big part of why I left. I
> couldn't stand the noise.
>

Don't call me Shirley!

[Richard]

On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>

> Then came the 14th Amendment. As a governor of Texas once said,
> "Oops..."
>
> Next issue?
>
>>
>>
>> And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
>> bills?

>> Who ya gonna call THEN?
>
> When?
>

When the Federal government can't (or won't) pay the interest on the
national debt...

>>
>>
>>
>> BTW, glad to see you back as Ed.
>> I hated that asshole TMT persona.
>>
>> :)
>
> Shirley you jest. TMT's antics are a big part of why I left. I
> couldn't stand the noise.
>

Me too. What a toad.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:47:49 -0600, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On 2/19/2013 10:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>> Then came the 14th Amendment. As a governor of Texas once said,
>> "Oops..."
>>
>> Next issue?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And, a thought about what happens when the feds can't pay their (THEIR)
>>> bills?
>
>>> Who ya gonna call THEN?
>>
>> When?
>>
>
>When the Federal government can't (or won't) pay the interest on the
>national debt...

Well, they *can*, for the reason stated above. If they won't, it means
that the people who voted for Tea Party congressmen should have their
heads examined.

Otherwise, nothing much will happen.

[Gunner]

Ive laid in plenty of banjo strings. Its gonna be fun sitting on the
porch, listening to the rising body count reported over the radio and
playing happy riffs with each massive increase.

Glorious!!

[Gunner]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:44:13 -0600, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Time to hit it with the machine and jump start it again. Course it
will mean the deaths of millions of leftwingers..but its a small price
to pay.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:16:27 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Hmm. Which part of the Constitution says that? Only the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

So, we're in a recursive circle here. You do need the 2nd, and for
more than defense against "them taking it away."

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
>>>>about it.
>>>
>>>Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
>>>expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)
>>
>>But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
>>someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
>>between your ears.
>
>Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
>funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
>Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
>workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
>"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
>sorts of threats. Government threats.

This is all fine philosophy, and a good reason for the 2nd (see
Scalia, et al.). But it's not what the quip says, and that's what's in
dispute.

Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At which point it becomes a very
>>>>>>>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>>>>>>>same firearms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
>>>>>>won't need.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? Cites?
>>>>
>>>>The actual words of that silly quip:
>>>>
>>>>"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"
>>>
>>>Makes sense to me.
>>
>>That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
>>there somewhere. d8-)
>
>So slam your head against the corner of the fridge door and see it it
>starts firing again.

You're locked in one of your delusional cycles of wishful thinking,
Gunner. The quip says nothing about the things you've described above.
That's why it's dim-witted.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:34:56 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I forget nothing of the kind. I'm just remarking about the mindless
drivel Larry attributes to Jefferson.

Note that he did it again, even after I provided a link to the
Jefferson scholars' Monticello site, which says it's spurious.

That's a man who really doesn't give a damn about the truth. It's all
about whatever he makes up between his ears.

>
>Which is why the saying works.

Only in your dreams.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress

Its found in "Natural Law"...on which much of the Constitution is
based. <G>

>
>So, we're in a recursive circle here. You do need the 2nd, and for
>more than defense against "them taking it away."

It sure makes killing politicians legal when they come to take the
Peoples guns away.
<VBG>

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't you care if your life is threatened? That quip says nothing
>>>>>about it.
>>>>
>>>>Of course I do. It might cause me to have to expend some of that
>>>>expensive Gold Dots that I carry in my daily gun(s)
>>>
>>>But the quip says you won't need the 2nd for that. You only need it if
>>>someone tries to take it away. Note the actual words, not the buzz
>>>between your ears.
>>
>>Of course it does. When one goes after ones home, ones job and ones
>>funds via "law" its not by definition "criminal" Thats what the 2nd
>>Amendment really is about. Defending oneself from those government
>>workers who do that under the color of authority. There is a personal
>>"threshold" beyond which one simply needs to use guns to end those
>>sorts of threats. Government threats.
>
>This is all fine philosophy, and a good reason for the 2nd (see
>Scalia, et al.). But it's not what the quip says, and that's what's in
>dispute.
>
>Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
>NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>

Oh it works just fine. Perhaps not to you..but enough people here ..a
majority in fact...seem to understand it well enough. So it would
appear you are out....voted.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At which point it becomes a very
>>>>>>>>tough defining statement that I may offer up resistance with those
>>>>>>>>same firearms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sure. But that's another story altogether, one that the quip says you
>>>>>>>won't need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? Cites?
>>>>>
>>>>>The actual words of that silly quip:
>>>>>
>>>>>"The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
>>>>>until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson"
>>>>
>>>>Makes sense to me.
>>>
>>>That's a frightening though. It must be a synapse that's misfiring in
>>>there somewhere. d8-)
>>
>>So slam your head against the corner of the fridge door and see it it
>>starts firing again.
>
>You're locked in one of your delusional cycles of wishful thinking,
>Gunner. The quip says nothing about the things you've described above.
>That's why it's dim-witted.

Your opinion, is once again...noted with great amusment and laughter.

[Gunner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:29:42 -0500, Ed Huntress

So why do the majority of those responding to you indicate it is a
good statement, no matter the source?

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
them in bullet points. d8-)

Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:20:57 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

Because they're gun nutz -- a little vague in their thinking, not too
careful with words, and given to cheering for stupid sayings that ring
their chimes.

That's the difference between pro-gun, pro-2nd Amenndment gun
enthusiasts, and gun nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:17:43 -0500, Ed Huntress

You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?

Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.

>
>Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.

Does it matter who said it? Its still true.

So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?

Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
front of you. Fall through?

[Gunner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:28:58 -0500, Ed Huntress

Ah..another bigot and biased Lefty heard from.

You really need to go for regrooving. It would improve your
presonality 100% and Id also suggest relocating out of the Blue Morass
you inhabit. Perhaps move to Texas or somewhere they appreciate bags
of hot air?

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:15:45 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

No, I mean gun nutz. You know, people who never read the Constitution,
but who think they know all about it. Like some of the people here.

>
>Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.
>>
>>Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.
>
>Does it matter who said it? Its still true.

It matters who said it if you care about the truth. I realize that's a
questionable proposition here, but it matters to some.

>
>So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?

Not much. I spend more time correcting bullshit for the sake of those
who care about the truth.

>
>Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
>front of you. Fall through?

No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
Bay.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:17:56 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

???

I'm "biased" against the drivel posted by nutz.

>
>You really need to go for regrooving. It would improve your
>presonality 100% and Id also suggest relocating out of the Blue Morass
>you inhabit. Perhaps move to Texas or somewhere they appreciate bags
>of hot air?

They have plenty of hot air, and with the people they've elected to
Congress, and the hot air they brought with them, it looks like
they're going to float the halls of Congress into the stratosphere.

Like this laugher: "How out of control has the Chuck Hagel opposition
become? A Daily News reporter says he posed a sarcastic question to a
GOP aide of whether Hagel took money from any groups like �Friends of
Hamas,� an over-the-top, non-existent group, and the next thing he
knew it was a headline on a conservative website."

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/20/17030289-congress-shut-it-down?lite

Ted Cruz is doing his best impersonation of Joe McCarthy, hot air and
all.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>>
>>>Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
>>>them in bullet points. d8-)
>>
>>You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?
>
>No, I mean gun nutz. You know, people who never read the Constitution,
>but who think they know all about it. Like some of the people here.

Yourself included one assumes.

>
>
>>
>>Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.
>>>
>>>Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.
>>
>>Does it matter who said it? Its still true.
>
>It matters who said it if you care about the truth. I realize that's a
>questionable proposition here, but it matters to some.

Obviously the "truth" means nothing to Leftwingers. Thats a provable
fact btw.

>
>>
>>So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?
>
>Not much. I spend more time correcting bullshit for the sake of those
>who care about the truth.

So why arent you hammering on the Leftwingers with both hands swinging
sledge hammers? Bullshit is written into their OPs plan.

>
>>
>>Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
>>front of you. Fall through?
>
>No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
>revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
>go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
>Bay.

The fish got blown away???

[Gunner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:47:24 -0500, Ed Huntress

See..your bias and bigotry is write large in that statement. And you
cant even see it, can you?

>
>>
>>You really need to go for regrooving. It would improve your
>>presonality 100% and Id also suggest relocating out of the Blue Morass
>>you inhabit. Perhaps move to Texas or somewhere they appreciate bags
>>of hot air?
>
>They have plenty of hot air, and with the people they've elected to
>Congress, and the hot air they brought with them, it looks like
>they're going to float the halls of Congress into the stratosphere.

Indeed.

>
>Like this laugher: "How out of control has the Chuck Hagel opposition
>become? A Daily News reporter says he posed a sarcastic question to a
>GOP aide of whether Hagel took money from any groups like “Friends of
>Hamas,” an over-the-top, non-existent group, and the next thing he
>knew it was a headline on a conservative website."
>
>http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/20/17030289-congress-shut-it-down?lite
>
>Ted Cruz is doing his best impersonation of Joe McCarthy, hot air and
>all.

Given the numbers of attacks conservatives get every day..I cant blame
them

Btw...read this?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-s-gun-control-package-polls-well-with-one-big-caveat-20130117

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
>>NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>

So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.


--

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:24:30 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>>Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
>>>front of you. Fall through?
>>
>>No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
>>revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
>>go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
>>Bay.
>
>The fish got blown away???

It's that evil AGWK, I tell ya.
(Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya)

Y'know, those Easterners sure are wimpy. Sandy was a Class 1
hurricane. Think what would have happened if it had been a _real_
storm.

--

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:24:30 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
>>>>them in bullet points. d8-)
>>>
>>>You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?
>>
>>No, I mean gun nutz. You know, people who never read the Constitution,
>>but who think they know all about it. Like some of the people here.
>
>Yourself included one assumes.
>>

Ah, I have read it.

>>
>>>
>>>Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.
>>>>
>>>>Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.
>>>
>>>Does it matter who said it? Its still true.
>>
>>It matters who said it if you care about the truth. I realize that's a
>>questionable proposition here, but it matters to some.
>
>Obviously the "truth" means nothing to Leftwingers. Thats a provable
>fact btw.
>
>>
>>>
>>>So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?
>>
>>Not much. I spend more time correcting bullshit for the sake of those
>>who care about the truth.
>
>So why arent you hammering on the Leftwingers with both hands swinging
>sledge hammers? Bullshit is written into their OPs plan.
>>
>>>
>>>Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
>>>front of you. Fall through?
>>
>>No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
>>revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
>>go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
>>Bay.
>
>The fish got blown away???

They got covered with sand. My favorite spot has 7 feet of sand piled
on top of the mussles, crabs, and other food that the fish were
feeding on. So the fish took a hike.

--
Ed Huntress

[Richard]

Aw, Larry, it's not all that bad.
Ed, like most of earth, is "mostly harmless".

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:05:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
>>>NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>
>
>So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
>his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
>since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
>Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.

Stay in your echo chamber, Larry, where people think it's just ducky
to threaten to kill duly elected officials.

You'll get real far with that one.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:12:03 -0800, Larry Jaques
<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:24:30 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
>>>>front of you. Fall through?
>>>
>>>No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
>>>revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
>>>go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
>>>Bay.
>>
>>The fish got blown away???
>
>It's that evil AGWK, I tell ya.
>(Anthropomorphic Global Warming, Kumbaya)
>
>Y'know, those Easterners sure are wimpy. Sandy was a Class 1
>hurricane. Think what would have happened if it had been a _real_
>storm.

This is where I used to surf fish, you ignorant asshole:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-bpKCZgdM

--
Ed Huntress

[Michael A. Terrell]

Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> Y'know, those Easterners sure are wimpy. Sandy was a Class 1
> hurricane. Think what would have happened if it had been a _real_
> storm.

It would have blown their flimsy shacks all the way to West Virginia,
and left the survivors wandering in circles.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
> ><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
> >>NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>
>
> So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
> his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
> since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
> Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.

He still writes like his 'Ed Anger' column in the 'Weekly World
News', and it's obvious that he's still "pig biting mad".

[Gunner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress

<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:24:30 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
>>>>>them in bullet points. d8-)
>>>>
>>>>You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?
>>>
>>>No, I mean gun nutz. You know, people who never read the Constitution,
>>>but who think they know all about it. Like some of the people here.
>>
>>Yourself included one assumes.
>>>
>
>Ah, I have read it.

Really? You seem to be rather oblivious to:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed"

>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.
>>>>
>>>>Does it matter who said it? Its still true.
>>>
>>>It matters who said it if you care about the truth. I realize that's a
>>>questionable proposition here, but it matters to some.
>>
>>Obviously the "truth" means nothing to Leftwingers. Thats a provable
>>fact btw.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?
>>>
>>>Not much. I spend more time correcting bullshit for the sake of those
>>>who care about the truth.
>>
>>So why arent you hammering on the Leftwingers with both hands swinging
>>sledge hammers? Bullshit is written into their OPs plan.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
>>>>front of you. Fall through?
>>>
>>>No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
>>>revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
>>>go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
>>>Bay.
>>
>>The fish got blown away???
>
>They got covered with sand. My favorite spot has 7 feet of sand piled
>on top of the mussles, crabs, and other food that the fish were
>feeding on. So the fish took a hike.

No tides?

[Gunner]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:07:35 -0500, Ed Huntress

<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:05:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
><lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
>>>>NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>
>>
>>So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
>>his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
>>since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
>>Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.
>
>Stay in your echo chamber, Larry, where people think it's just ducky
>to threaten to kill duly elected officials.

Define "duly elected"

Would that be like Adolph Hitlers election?

He Was duly elected as you recall.

>
>You'll get real far with that one.

Maybe a bunker in Berlin?

[Larry Jaques]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:13:22 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:07:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:05:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
>>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
>>>>>NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>
>>>
>>>So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
>>>his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
>>>since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
>>>Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.
>>
>>Stay in your echo chamber, Larry, where people think it's just ducky
>>to threaten to kill duly elected officials.

I did no such thing, you idiot, Huntress.
(No wonder why he's in my twit filter, eh, guys?)

--
Average # of people killed in mass shooting when stopped by police: 18.25
Average # of people killed when stopped by civilians: 2

Save lives: Keep Civilians Armed!

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 04:32:24 -0800, Larry Jaques

<lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:13:22 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:07:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:05:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
>>><lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
>>>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
>>>>>>NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>
>>>>
>>>>So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
>>>>his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
>>>>since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
>>>>Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.
>>>
>>>Stay in your echo chamber, Larry, where people think it's just ducky
>>>to threaten to kill duly elected officials.
>
>I did no such thing, you idiot, Huntress.
>(No wonder why he's in my twit filter, eh, guys?)

[LJ]

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand." What was Gunner's quote
regarding public outcry? "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the
cartridge box." This guy was a visual cue, a precursor, for that
statement's logical outcome...since they haven't taken the first two
cues to heed. <shrug>

Don, the politicians have been doing whatever the f*ck they feel like
for decades now and the people are finally starting to stand up for
themselves and voice their anger. The act of carrying arms to a
political rally was one of the little cues they're using to alert the
politicians to this. Do you really think their statement went
unnoticed, or was misconstrued?

[Don Foreman]

You hint at it and dance around it but don't really make a simple
declarative statement. Was it that if the politicians don't do what
angry citizens want them to do then the citizens will shoot them? If
not that, than pls explain the reference to the cartridge box.

[LJ]

I didn't say I'd do it, and I didn't say I agreed with it entirely,
and I didn't say it didn't cause other problems, but I am glad it was
done.

[EH]

Veiled threat -- a threat that is concealed, hidden, disguised,
obscured, etc.

In other words, a real threat in disguise.

Like Gunner, you "wouldn't do it," but you're glad someone else is,
and you're cheering them on.

And just before I plonked you:

[EH]

Virtually all of these gun-toters are nothing more than the punks who
stand behind the real bullies, cheering and egging them on. As that
former SS agent said a couple of days ago, the big problem you present
to the rest of us is that your irresponsible, trashy "posturing" is
going to encourage one of them to pull a trigger.

Or to set off a bomb. Notice the similarity between what Gunner has
been saying about his "100 million friends" who are going to kill
everyone they don't like, and the words of Timothy McVeigh, who said
he was starting a revolution and that "blood would flow in the
streets."

Gunner isn't a McVeigh. A pugnacious blowhard, he doesn't have the
guts for it. He's just providing the verbal ammunition and moral
support for the McVeighs. And there you are, a few steps back with his
other little friends, giving him encouragement and repeating his
slogans.

Carry on. You've covered your ass but you aren't fooling anyone. "Good
guys" don't incite others to violence.

<plonk>

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:00:13 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:37:30 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:24:30 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:38:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only the gun nutz, Gunner. They'll believe anything if you tell it to
>>>>>>them in bullet points. d8-)
>>>>>
>>>>>You mean the 51% of the population that owns firearms?
>>>>
>>>>No, I mean gun nutz. You know, people who never read the Constitution,
>>>>but who think they know all about it. Like some of the people here.
>>>
>>>Yourself included one assumes.
>>>>
>>
>>Ah, I have read it.
>
>Really? You seem to be rather oblivious to:
>
>"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>infringed"

I try not to laugh when you tell us what you think it means, Gunner.
NOT what the Court said it refers to, but what it *means*.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems like you got outvoted again Ed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Larry seems to still believe that Jefferson said it, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does it matter who said it? Its still true.
>>>>
>>>>It matters who said it if you care about the truth. I realize that's a
>>>>questionable proposition here, but it matters to some.
>>>
>>>Obviously the "truth" means nothing to Leftwingers. Thats a provable
>>>fact btw.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So Ed..spend a lot of your time splitting hairs these days?
>>>>
>>>>Not much. I spend more time correcting bullshit for the sake of those
>>>>who care about the truth.
>>>
>>>So why arent you hammering on the Leftwingers with both hands swinging
>>>sledge hammers? Bullshit is written into their OPs plan.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems as though you do. Say..I thought you got a huge project in
>>>>>front of you. Fall through?
>>>>
>>>>No, but it's delayed. We got started and it had to stop for a
>>>>revision. I'm spinning my wheels and getting cabin fever. I can't even
>>>>go fishing, because Hurricane Sandy wrecked the fishing in the Raritan
>>>>Bay.
>>>
>>>The fish got blown away???
>>
>>They got covered with sand. My favorite spot has 7 feet of sand piled
>>on top of the mussles, crabs, and other food that the fish were
>>feeding on. So the fish took a hike.
>
>No tides?

How would a tide move sand from one end of a bay to the other, when
the bay is more than 20 miles long?

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:13:22 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:07:35 -0500, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:05:05 -0800, Larry Jaques
>><lja...@invalid.diversifycomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:19:59 -0800, Gunner <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:26:28 -0500, Ed Huntress
>>>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Again, it's a dimwitted play on words that makes no sense. Definitely
>>>>>NOT Jefferson. Maybe Larry. <g>
>>>
>>>So RINO Ed doesn't like it? Good. Thanks for quoting, as I don't see
>>>his crap unless someone else repeats it. He's been in my twit filter
>>>since he pulled that crap on me. Now he's trying to do it with you.
>>>Careful, mon. He's a dangerous old wacko.
>>
>>Stay in your echo chamber, Larry, where people think it's just ducky
>>to threaten to kill duly elected officials.
>
>Define "duly elected"

Elected by a majority of the people, under the law.

>
>Would that be like Adolph Hitlers election?

He wasn't elected. He was appointed Chancellor by von Hindenberg. Then
he eliminated the other parties with the help of the Catholic Centre
Party, creating his dictatorship.

>
>He Was duly elected as you recall.

You really have a crappy understanding of history.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:46:23 -0500, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>>>
>>>Stay in your echo chamber, Larry, where people think it's just ducky
>>>to threaten to kill duly elected officials.
>>
>>Define "duly elected"
>
>Elected by a majority of the people, under the law.
>
>>
>>Would that be like Adolph Hitlers election?
>
>He wasn't elected. He was appointed Chancellor by von Hindenberg. Then
>he eliminated the other parties with the help of the Catholic Centre
>Party, creating his dictatorship.
>
>>
>>He Was duly elected as you recall.
>
>You really have a crappy understanding of history.
>
>--
>Ed Huntress

"The election took place in March — though Hitler was convinced it
would be the last. Hitler did not get the number of votes he wanted
but he did get enough to get over a 50% majority in the Reichstag. . .
.

After the burning down of the Reichstag, politicians had nowhere to
meet. The Kroll Opera House in Berlin was chosen. This was a
relatively small round building – perfect for meetings. On March 23rd,
elected officials were due to meet to discuss and vote on Hitler’s
Enabling Law.

As politicians neared the building, they found it surrounded by SS and
SA thugs who tried to ensure that only Nazi or Nationalist politicians
[in coalition with the Nazis] got into the building. The vote for this
law was crucial as it gave Hitler a vast amount of power. The law
basically stated that any bill only needed Hitler’s signature and
within 24 hours that bill would become law in Germany. With only Nazis
and other right wing politicians inside the Kroll Opera House, the
bill was quickly passed into law. The act gave Hitler what he wanted —
dictatorial power. What he wanted would become law in Germany within
24 hours of his signature being put on paper. "

And this was different than Obamas "win" how?

Gunner