On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 20:24:36 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 9/3/12 8:10 PM, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 14:35:19 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

Someone there will show you where to point the business end. I
had a SIG X5 for a while, but I sold it for something faster and more
accurate.

Such as?

A custom built CZ, with this as its base plus a few "extras," such as a
SA only, light trigger:

http://czcustom.com/CZ75_SP01_SHADOW_CustomShop.aspx

You should have bought yourself a decent boat instead. But anyway....

I notice you don't shoot anything other than a 9mm? I understand your X5
could also be configured in .40 cal but I don't understand why you'd sell a
Sig X5 for a CZ of any kind. Perhaps you flinch at the recoil of a larger
caliber handgun.

I told you...I sold the X5.

Your comprehension of the above paragraph leads you to believe I think you
still have the X5? Apparently like most things my yuk-yuk about buying
yourself a decent boat *instead* didn't register.

The CZ is more accurate and cycles faster. It's been the "top gun" in the category in which I compete.

Really. Which category is that?

I don't have the patience to reload, and I have no need or desire
to shoot competitively with larger calibers.

It's hard to believe you are a competitive shooter. Or for that matter a
gun owner. You are so anti - gun for everyone else, but it's ok for you to
own guns. Of course this is the typical liberal stance on guns. Rosie
O'Donnell, and Michael Bloomberg are but two examples who live the
hypocrisy. Both depend for their safety on gun carrying bodyguards. They
have guns to protect their lives but they want to deny, and in some places
DO deny, me the right to have a gun to protect my life. I'll tell you
Harry, the hypocrisy of that alone should be reason enough for more states
to pass "Shall Issue" statutes.