How many more?
 

PDW wrote:
Scotty wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...

PDW wrote:

Once you get all this done just what the heck are you

going to make with

it all?

Guns, of course.


BT, DT. Cannons if you please. You can make guns on mini-mills & lathes, but
cannons require *real* machinery.

PDW

Where you going to aim them when they're done? New Zealand?

How many more?
 

katy wrote:
PDW wrote:
Scotty wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...

PDW wrote:

Once you get all this done just what the heck are you

going to make with

it all?

Guns, of course.


BT, DT. Cannons if you please. You can make guns on mini-mills & lathes,
but
cannons require *real* machinery.

PDW

Where you going to aim them when they're done? New Zealand?

PWC.

PDW

How many more?
 

"PDW" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...
PDW wrote:


Once you get all this done just what the heck are you
going to make with
it all?

Guns, of course.

BT, DT. Cannons if you please. You can make guns on mini-mills & lathes,
but
cannons require *real* machinery.

PDW

Hmmmm. You've piqued my interest, Pete. I have a 10ga. Winchester black
powder cannon. What are you building? What I'm looking for are specifics:
bore, appearance, replication, material, etc. Are you going to be selling
them commercially?

Max

How many more?
 

Maxprop wrote:

"PDW" wrote in message
...
Scotty wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...
PDW wrote:


Once you get all this done just what the heck are you
going to make with
it all?

Guns, of course.

BT, DT. Cannons if you please. You can make guns on mini-mills & lathes,
but
cannons require *real* machinery.

PDW

Hmmmm. You've piqued my interest, Pete. I have a 10ga. Winchester black
powder cannon. What are you building? What I'm looking for are specifics:
bore, appearance, replication, material, etc. Are you going to be selling
them commercially?

Half scale moddels of a 1806 British 6 pounder naval cannon and a half scale
model of an 1812 Napoleon field gun, widely used by both sides in your Civil
War IIRC. Cast iron construction (I had a friend with a foundry). The castings
are lying about the place seasoning - did them a long time ago. I'm going to
bore them out and sleeve them with Sched 80 s/steel tube, probably at 57mm
bore for golf balls. When I get the time that is.

And yes, I do have a lathe big enough to bore out one of these toys.

No, they're not for sale, never will be. Just big garden ornaments tho I might
fit one of the naval guns to my schooner as a stern chaser. Friend of mine has
a dozen I think on the 'DUYFKEN'. He has rail mounted swivel guns too. I still
have the pattern for the Napoleon gun and my friend still has the pattern for
the naval gun so we could cast more, but I have no plans to do so.

PDW

How many more?
 

PDW wrote:


No, they're not for sale, never will be. Just big garden ornaments tho I might
fit one of the naval guns to my schooner as a stern chaser. Friend of mine has
a dozen I think on the 'DUYFKEN'. He has rail mounted swivel guns too.


Interesting friend Peter: http://www.duyfken.com/


Thanks

Martin

How many more?
 

Martin Baxter wrote:
PDW wrote:


No, they're not for sale, never will be. Just big garden ornaments tho I
might
fit one of the naval guns to my schooner as a stern chaser. Friend of mine
has
a dozen I think on the 'DUYFKEN'. He has rail mounted swivel guns too.


Interesting friend Peter: http://www.duyfken.com/

Interesting replica too. My shipmate has skippered her many times, he likes
square riggers and their cousins. Sails on an icebreaker for one reason only -
money.

PDW

How many more?
 

Bill,

You need to read Capt JG's comments, above, carefully. Obviously, lots
of things could be used to kill people (a typical NRA argument, of
course) but guns are by far the most effective and most used medium.
Accordingly, they should be regulated more closely. The use of guns
should be regulated at least as sensibly as the use of an automobile.

Jim




Bill wrote:
Or fertilizer and gasoline. 168 Timothy McVeigh.

And how many people were killed in the US by the use of fertilizer or
gasoline last year? And, what percentage of murders in the last ten
years involved the use of fertilizer or gasoline?

Jim


You're missing the point. It's not that fertilizer and gasoline
should be banned it is simply that people that wasnt to kill other
people will always find a way. If they want to kill a lot of people
they don't need a gun. Several people in this thread have tried to
use the VT shootings as the biggest example for why guns should be
either banned or more heavily restriced, because a gun allows you kill
more people than a knife or club, but the McVeigh example shows that
it doesn't take a gun to kill a lot of people, in fact without a gun
and just some basic ingredients you can kill many more than with a
gun. Had McVeigh run out and tried to shoot people he may have gotten
a pretty high number but not 168. I'm not saying that he should have
used a gun because it would have been better for the people but just
illustrating the point that people are dangerous and inventive.

How many more?
 

JimC wrote:
Bill,

You need to read Capt JG's comments, above, carefully. Obviously, lots
of things could be used to kill people (a typical NRA argument, of
course) but guns are by far the most effective and most used medium.
Accordingly, they should be regulated more closely. The use of guns
should be regulated at least as sensibly as the use of an automobile.

Jim




Bill wrote:

Or fertilizer and gasoline. 168 Timothy McVeigh.


And how many people were killed in the US by the use of fertilizer or
gasoline last year? And, what percentage of murders in the last ten
years involved the use of fertilizer or gasoline?

Jim


snort now that's a laugh....

How many more?
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:
Bill,

You need to read Capt JG's comments, above, carefully.
Obviously, lots
of things could be used to kill people (a typical NRA
argument, of
course) but guns are by far the most effective and most
used medium.
Accordingly, they should be regulated more closely. The
use of guns
should be regulated at least as sensibly as the use of
an automobile.
Jim


snort now that's a laugh....

Now Katy, just think of the millions of lives that have been
saved by mandatory registration of automobiles.

Scotty

How many more?
 

And how many people were killed in the US by the use of fertilizer or
gasoline last year? And, what percentage of murders in the last ten
years involved the use of fertilizer or gasoline?

Jim

A bunch. Didn't read about the gangs setting "homeless" on fire? Didn't
read about arsons that killed 17? ETC.

How many more?
 

Scotty wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

JimC wrote:

Bill,

You need to read Capt JG's comments, above, carefully.

Obviously, lots

of things could be used to kill people (a typical NRA

argument, of

course) but guns are by far the most effective and most

used medium.

Accordingly, they should be regulated more closely. The

use of guns

should be regulated at least as sensibly as the use of

an automobile.

Jim


snort now that's a laugh....


Now Katy, just think of the millions of lives that have been
saved by mandatory registration of automobiles.

Scotty


that's what I was thinking when I posted that...

How many more?
 

* Scotty wrote, On 4/29/2007 11:33 PM:
"katy" wrote in message
...
snort now that's a laugh....

Now Katy, just think of the millions of lives that have been
saved by mandatory registration of automobiles.

We don't need more automobile-control laws. We have plenty of
automobile-control laws. We need to enforce the automobile-control
laws we have.

(20% of all fatal accidents involve one driver without a valid license.)

How many more?
 

Jeff wrote:
* Scotty wrote, On 4/29/2007 11:33 PM:

"katy" wrote in message
...

snort now that's a laugh....


Now Katy, just think of the millions of lives that have been
saved by mandatory registration of automobiles.


We don't need more automobile-control laws. We have plenty of
automobile-control laws. We need to enforce the automobile-control laws
we have.

(20% of all fatal accidents involve one driver without a valid license.)


I'm still laughing....

How many more?
 

The use of guns
should be regulated at least as sensibly as the use of an automobile.

Jim

Clearly you don't live in California where everyday a whole bunch of
people get into car accidents and very few get shot. Maybe you live
in one of those states where everyone runs around shooting each other
but is very considerate when it comes to driving. Yes clearly we need
to make gun regulations more like car registration because everyone
with a car is really concerned with safety and commom sense. Where as
everyone I know actually self regulates their guns more than what is
required by law because they actually do use common sense. Please
show any evidence at all that shows that more gun regulations equals
less violent crime. All of the places that have done it have shown an
increase in violent crime not to mention that historically speaking,
getting rid of guns is one of the first things that massively
oppresive governments do to control the people. I don't want to be
one of those countries but clearly you do. Giving up a lot of
freedoms for a little sense of security is not worth it to me.

How many more?
 

In article .com,
Bill wrote:
The use of guns
should be regulated at least as sensibly as the use of an automobile.

Jim

Clearly you don't live in California where everyday a whole bunch of
people get into car accidents and very few get shot. Maybe you live
in one of those states where everyone runs around shooting each other
but is very considerate when it comes to driving. Yes clearly we need
to make gun regulations more like car registration because everyone
with a car is really concerned with safety and commom sense. Where as
everyone I know actually self regulates their guns more than what is
required by law because they actually do use common sense. Please
show any evidence at all that shows that more gun regulations equals
less violent crime. All of the places that have done it have shown an
increase in violent crime not to mention that historically speaking,
getting rid of guns is one of the first things that massively
oppresive governments do to control the people. I don't want to be
one of those countries but clearly you do. Giving up a lot of
freedoms for a little sense of security is not worth it to me.

Fear works wonders... even better than getting guns out the hands of
regular citizens. Unfortunately, the right-wing is very good at the
fear-based thing.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

I suggest you get you information from actual research rather than the
NRA and its affiliates.


Oz I have already stated that I don't get my information from the NRA
but from legal proffesionals like Lawyers, Criminal Justice teachers
and police officers. This stuff is all fact. Every place that has
banned guns has seen an increase in violent crimes as well as other
crimes. It is a fact that one of the things that Hitler, Stalin and
Mousilini did, that the people thought was great at first, was to ban
all private ownership of guns. They said everyone will be safer and
the people cheered them on. Look what happened next. I am not saying
that this will happen to the U.S. or Australia but the people are not
doing themselves any favors by trying to be socialists.

I heard on the radio this morning that 20/20 is doing a story this
week about gun control and its effectiveness. You should watch it.
Apparently they had a team of different scientists do research on
historical efficacy of gun control and the social impact. The
reporter on the radio this mornig said that the conclusion was that
gun control does not help to stop crimes at all and has shown evidence
that it helps to increase crime.

How many more?
 

Fear works wonders... even better than getting guns out the hands of
regular citizens. Unfortunately, the right-wing is very good at the
fear-based thing.

My argument is not about fear. I am not saying that I need a gun but
rather I need my rights to not be infringed, gun ownership being one
of them. If you want to talk about fear how about the fear of guns
that is so deeply ingrained into the leftist philosophy that people
feel they need to regulate a gun instead of being concerned for the
people killed. Gun control is in response to people being afraid of
other citizens owning guns. Thats a huge irrational fear if you ask
me. People do break into homes, murder and rape others. Some of
these may be prevented by private gun ownership but none of them will
be stopped by gun control laws. You are so afraid of people owning
guns that you want to take away their ability to protect themselves
and thier right to own something that isn't hurting anyone.

You are blinded by your fear and willing to give up everything in that
condition because of it.

How many more?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In
Fear works wonders... even better than getting guns out
the hands of
regular citizens.

An irrational fear of an inanimate object ( gun) is
unhealthy.

How many more?
 

In article . com,
Bill wrote:
Fear works wonders... even better than getting guns out the hands of
regular citizens. Unfortunately, the right-wing is very good at the
fear-based thing.

My argument is not about fear. I am not saying that I need a gun but
rather I need my rights to not be infringed, gun ownership being one
of them. If you want to talk about fear how about the fear of guns

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you that "right."

feel they need to regulate a gun instead of being concerned for the
people killed. Gun control is in response to people being afraid of
other citizens owning guns. Thats a huge irrational fear if you ask
me. People do break into homes, murder and rape others. Some of
these may be prevented by private gun ownership but none of them will
be stopped by gun control laws. You are so afraid of people owning
guns that you want to take away their ability to protect themselves
and thier right to own something that isn't hurting anyone.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it a truth. Please show me where I
support banning guns.

You are blinded by your fear and willing to give up everything in that
condition because of it.

You're the fearful one... unwilling to look at the facts.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

My argument is not about fear. I am not saying that I need a gun but
rather I need my rights to not be infringed, gun ownership being one
of them. If you want to talk about fear how about the fear of guns

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you that "right."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ml#amendmentii
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.

one more time to be dramatic: the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me.

feel they need to regulate a gun instead of being concerned for the
people killed. Gun control is in response to people being afraid of
other citizens owning guns. Thats a huge irrational fear if you ask
me. People do break into homes, murder and rape others. Some of
these may be prevented by private gun ownership but none of them will
be stopped by gun control laws. You are so afraid of people owning
guns that you want to take away their ability to protect themselves
and thier right to own something that isn't hurting anyone.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it a truth. Please show me where I
support banning guns.


I didn't say that at all. I didn't mention you or banning guns at
all. Can you read?


You are blinded by your fear and willing to give up everything in that
condition because of it.

You're the fearful one... unwilling to look at the facts.

What facts? You have stated none but only your opinions. You have
shown no imperical evidence that stricter gun control laws will
prevent any crime only what you, a non-expert, think.

How many more?
 

In article . com,
Bill wrote:
My argument is not about fear. I am not saying that I need a gun but
rather I need my rights to not be infringed, gun ownership being one
of them. If you want to talk about fear how about the fear of guns

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you that "right."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ml#amendmentii
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.

one more time to be dramatic: the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me.

It's clear when you leave off the first part... "a well regulated
militia" doesn't give an individual the right to own a gun unless
they're part of a WELL REGULATED militia.

I didn't say that at all. I didn't mention you or banning guns at
all. Can you read?

You've said it repeatedly. I'll let you look it up, since you wrote
it.

What facts? You have stated none but only your opinions. You have
shown no imperical evidence that stricter gun control laws will
prevent any crime only what you, a non-expert, think.

I am entitled to my opinions, and I believe that at a minimum we need
to enforce the laws that currently exist. Fact.. we don't. Fact... you
don't have any evidence, except what that you claim to consult to with
people who "know." Sorry, but that's not actually a fact.



--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

It's clear when you leave off the first part... "a well regulated
militia" doesn't give an individual the right to own a gun unless
they're part of a WELL REGULATED militia.

Where does it say that you have to be part of an active militia? A
militia does not mean military. One definition from wikioedia is:
The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state,
which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the
law, or to respond to a disaster.

I don't think that it needs to be limited to men only but a militia
can be called up at any time. The bill of rights don't say that you
have to be part of a militia to own a gun, that is just part of the
justification.

You've said it repeatedly. I'll let you look it up, since you wrote
it.

No actually the lines you were responding to were a quote from a
reporting that was talking about gun control. The words "ban" and
"Ganz" were never present.

I am entitled to my opinions, and I believe that at a minimum we need
to enforce the laws that currently exist. Fact.. we don't. Fact... you
don't have any evidence, except what that you claim to consult to with
people who "know." Sorry, but that's not actually a fact.

I have plenty of evidence as well as statements from legal
prfessionals. I also have historical precedence, but none of that
matters. You have your opinions and I can respect that but if you
feel it necessary to ban things to feel safer, then eventually you
will have to ban opinions because they are more dangerous than any
weapon out there.

How many more?
 

In article .com,
Bill wrote:
It's clear when you leave off the first part... "a well regulated
militia" doesn't give an individual the right to own a gun unless
they're part of a WELL REGULATED militia.

Where does it say that you have to be part of an active militia? A
militia does not mean military. One definition from wikioedia is:

I never said it did and never said it was. It does need to be WELL
REGULATED, and that doesn't mean some guy who who keeps a handgun
under his pillow. Or, is that what you're claiming?

The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state,
which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the
law, or to respond to a disaster.

Well, so, my point exactly.

I don't think that it needs to be limited to men only but a militia
can be called up at any time. The bill of rights don't say that you
have to be part of a militia to own a gun, that is just part of the
justification.

You're off the deep end here... it specifically says a well regulated
militia. So, what's your point?

No actually the lines you were responding to were a quote from a
reporting that was talking about gun control. The words "ban" and
"Ganz" were never present.

You're said repeatedly that all liberals want to ban guns. I'm a
liberal, and I don't want to ban them. Thus, your statement is false.

I have plenty of evidence as well as statements from legal
prfessionals. I also have historical precedence, but none of that
matters. You have your opinions and I can respect that but if you
feel it necessary to ban things to feel safer, then eventually you
will have to ban opinions because they are more dangerous than any
weapon out there.

So far, we haven't seen anything except your claims to have the
facts.




--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

In article ,
Bill wrote:

I doubt you'll get it, but here is the definition of militia, courtesy
of Princeton.

"civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army"

Here's the Findlaw explanation for a "well-regulated" militia.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

Happy reading...

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

In article ,
Charlie Morgan wrote:
Hey! I'm to the left of you by a wide margin and I own a bunch of guns. That

I own several also. g

said, I think there are many types of guns that should be banned, and others
whose availability should be strictly controlled. Who really needs a cheap,
imported $100-200 "throw-away" semi-automatic pistol? All those are good for is
committing street crimes, shooting family members by mistake, and holding up
convenience stores. Who needs a semi-auto with a huge clip? Who needs a fully
automatic? Try and buy a bazooka and you'll find there is already plenty of
precedence for banning certain types of weapons.

Agreed. But, I think Bill was talking about hunting rifles and such.

We could start by banning all guns not made in the USA. That would keep American
manufacturers manufacturing here - an added benefit. I think most gun owners
would applaud that individually, although the nutty NRA would have a ****-fit
over it. It would also mean Saturday night specials would start to dry up.

I like it.

Personally, I have no problem with mandatory requirements that gun owners
(especially handgun owners) be screened, licensed, and insured. Owning a gun is
a right, but it's also a huge responsibilty. Hey, to get my carry permit, I had
to go through all sorts of red tape. Had to get letters of support from folks
like the chief of police, and make the case for why I should be allowed to carry
a concealed weapon.

Remind me not to **** you off. g

Despite the fact that I have guns and know how to use them, if I heard a prowler
inside my house, the first option is that my wife and I would go out a window
and call the police on our cell phones. We sure as hell would avoid confronting
them if at all possible. We would have a lot more to lose than they do. It's
something we've given plenty of thought.

Nah, just start blasting... g

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

How many more?
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I never said it did and never said it was. It does need to
be WELL
REGULATED, and that doesn't mean some guy who who keeps a
handgun
under his pillow.

Now you want bed checks?

How many more?
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...

Hey! I'm gayer than you by a wide margin and I own a bunch
of guns. That
said, I think there are many types of guns that should be
banned, and others
whose availability should be strictly controlled. Who
really needs a cheap,
imported $100-200 "throw-away" semi-automatic pistol? All
those are good for is
committing street crimes, shooting family members by
mistake, and holding up
convenience stores. Who needs a semi-auto with a huge
clip?

Someone who doesn't like to reload so often.


Who needs a fully
automatic?

Who really needs a sailboat?



Personally, I have no problem with mandatory requirements
that gun owners
(especially handgun owners) be screened, licensed, and
insured. Owning a gun is
a right, but it's also a huge responsibilty. Hey, to get
my carry permit, I had
to go through all sorts of red tape. Had to get letters of
support from folks
like the chief of police, and make the case for why I
should be allowed to carry
a concealed weapon.

When I wanted a permit to travel outside the state the
hurdles got even higher.
They won't just give you one for asking. I'm glad that's
the case, and I don't
feel it infringes on my rights one bit.


if they gave you a permit, that just goes to show how much
any type of gun control is flawed.

SV





Despite the fact that I have guns and know how to use
them, if I heard a prowler
inside my house, the first option is to hide under my wife
and
call the police .

Oh brother.

How many more?
 

In article ,
Scotty Same.as.above@com wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in

I never said it did and never said it was. It does need to
be WELL
REGULATED, and that doesn't mean some guy who who keeps a
handgun
under his pillow.

Now you want bed checks?

I think that ship has sailed...

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com