"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:21:09 -0400, Proprietario di Guzzi
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:01:25 -0700, jps wrote:


Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey's home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow.

"It is attempted intimidation," he wrote. "It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop."

Bookman continues: "It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn't listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There's a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun."

Suppose he said, "The possession of guns by American civilians should
be outlawed, and all guns currently in such possession will be
confiscated. Warantless searches should be authorized."

Wouldn't you agree with him more then?

Nope. Shotguns and rifles for hunting and protection is fine by me.

Assholes out in public openly toting handguns and AR15 are pussies
who should be slapped upside the head and put in a cell.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...-panthers-2000

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/P...2_schaefer.htm Your own Seattle
and gun.

http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/bl...panthers_2.htm the
party advocated carrying guns for self-defense. At the time, under
California law it was legal to carry guns if not concealed. The Panthers
also took on various responsibilities in the community. Wearing black
leather jackets, blue shirts, black pants, and black berets, they patrolled
the neighborhoods carrying weapons

jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow.

“It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally
carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".

H the K wrote:
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing
nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into a
brawl with law enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the
president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the secret
service and local police forces.

Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand
feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order
This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to
pass/enforce.



I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the
Loogy/JustHate Zombies...


http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl

Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper right
hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your weapon zeroed
so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets.

First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I
was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights.
Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't
any wind.

They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the group,
1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups.

Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just attached.
Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between the eyes of
your typical zombie at 100 yards.

Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the black
at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites.

Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper
targets at 100 yards?

H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check?

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing
nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into
a brawl with law enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the
president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the
secret service and local police forces.

Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple thousand
feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be is in order
This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to
pass/enforce.



I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the
Loogy/JustHate Zombies...


http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl

Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper right
hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your weapon zeroed
so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets.

First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I
was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights.
Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't
any wind.

They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the group,
1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups.

Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just
attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between
the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards.

Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the black
at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites.

Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper
targets at 100 yards?



1. Please. I used the target I used because I have a package them, not
because I need to "zero in" a rifle. Bought a big batch of these targets
at a gun show.

2. Oh, and the factory sights on this rifle are fiber optics. Both of them.

3. 300 and 500 yard targets? Sorry...100 yards is all I have access to,
and...of course, this is a .22LR rifle...300 and 500 yard targets would
be...absurd.

4. I wasn't trying to walk the group. I was trying to put five into a
relatively small target with a new rifle at 100 yards.

5. 10 in the black at 500 yards with iron sights from a .22LR rifle?

Speaking of pussies, what sort of pussy were you during your brief stint
in the marines? You never got an overseas assignment. Some warrior you
were. :)

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background check?


Moron.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".


In some states, there are ways around the "validation" because of the
gun show loophole, which must be closed.

Why? The 1st amendment isn't limited to those who pass a background
check?


Moron.

Is there a background check for those who house soldiers under the 3rd
amendment?

The forth amendment puts the onus on the government to prove that it has
probable cause for the search or seizure.

The fifth amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to
"plead the fifth."

The sixth amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to
be tried in jurisdiction of your crime.

The seventh amendment doesn't say you have to have a background check to
be tried by a jury.

The eight amendment doesn't say your bail, fine or punishment is
dependent upon a background check.

The ninth amendment doesn't say that you need a background check for
your rights.

The tenth amendment doesn't say you need a background check either.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can
purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some
that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is
wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing
nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get into
a brawl with law enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the
president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the
secret service and local police forces.

Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple
thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may be
is in order
This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to
pass/enforce.



I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the
Loogy/JustHate Zombies...


http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl

Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper
right hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your
weapon zeroed so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets.

First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle. I
was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in sights.
Took a couple of shots first to sight in for elevation...there wasn't
any wind.

They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the group,
1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups.

Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just
attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five between
the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards.

Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the
black at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites.

Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper
targets at 100 yards?



1. Please. I used the target I used because I have a package them, not
because I need to "zero in" a rifle. Bought a big batch of these targets
at a gun show.

You were shooting in your backyard at 25 yards? Nice groups he says very
sarcastically.

2. Oh, and the factory sights on this rifle are fiber optics. Both of them.

Fiber optic sights, right. They are still iron sights. just paint dots
on your iron sights and you can call them what ever you want. Or, you
can over pay for your "fiber optic" sights.

3. 300 and 500 yard targets? Sorry...100 yards is all I have access to,
and...of course, this is a .22LR rifle...300 and 500 yard targets would
be...absurd.

That's what I thought you are not a serious shooter. You just play at it.

4. I wasn't trying to walk the group. I was trying to put five into a
relatively small target with a new rifle at 100 yards.

If you were a real shooter you could take a rifle off the rack and zero
the sights and then walk the group into the center.

5. 10 in the black at 500 yards with iron sights from a .22LR rifle?

5.56mm is close to .22 cal.

Speaking of pussies, what sort of pussy were you during your brief stint
in the marines? You never got an overseas assignment. Some warrior you
were. :)

WW III never happened.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
Don White wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans
coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow. “It is attempted
intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can
purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some
that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The
person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is
wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

Sooner rather than later, one of the gun-toting right-wing
nincompoops is going to open fire or "have an accident" or get
into a brawl with law enforcement.

When these armed idiots show up at public meetings at which the
president is going to appear, it increases the workload of the
secret service and local police forces.

Some kind of federal law restricting weapons within a couple
thousand feet of anywhere the President of member of congress may
be is in order
This is something you couldn't trust the individual states to
pass/enforce.



I've been practicing so I can handle the impending invasion of the
Loogy/JustHate Zombies...


http://tinyurl.com/ma5znl

Did you bother to read the target "100 Yard Sight-In" in the upper
right hand corner of the target? You use that target to get your
weapon zeroed so that you can move to the 300 and 500 yard targets.

First five shot group at 100 yards from the new ZombieKiller Rifle.
I was plopped on a ground cloth and using the rifle's built-in
sights. Took a couple of shots first to sight in for
elevation...there wasn't any wind.

They are called iron sights. And you should be able to walk the
group, 1.5 inches, to the center in no more than four three shot groups.

Tomorrow I'm going to try some shots with the new scope I just
attached. Once I get used to it, I should be able to put five
between the eyes of your typical zombie at 100 yards.

Scope? Scopes are for pussies. You should be able to put 10 in the
black at 500 yards in the prone position using iron sites.

Freaking scopes, are you pretending to be a sniper shooting a paper
targets at 100 yards?



1. Please. I used the target I used because I have a package them, not
because I need to "zero in" a rifle. Bought a big batch of these
targets at a gun show.

You were shooting in your backyard at 25 yards? Nice groups he says very
sarcastically.

2. Oh, and the factory sights on this rifle are fiber optics. Both of
them.

Fiber optic sights, right. They are still iron sights. just paint dots
on your iron sights and you can call them what ever you want. Or, you
can over pay for your "fiber optic" sights.

3. 300 and 500 yard targets? Sorry...100 yards is all I have access
to, and...of course, this is a .22LR rifle...300 and 500 yard targets
would be...absurd.

That's what I thought you are not a serious shooter. You just play at it.

4. I wasn't trying to walk the group. I was trying to put five into a
relatively small target with a new rifle at 100 yards.

If you were a real shooter you could take a rifle off the rack and zero
the sights and then walk the group into the center.

5. 10 in the black at 500 yards with iron sights from a .22LR rifle?

5.56mm is close to .22 cal.

Speaking of pussies, what sort of pussy were you during your brief
stint in the marines? You never got an overseas assignment. Some
warrior you were. :)

WW III never happened.


1. No, I was shooting in a nearby pasture at 100 yards. Didn't you see
the line "...First five shot group at 100 yards..." If I had been
shooting at 25 yards, the grouping would have been under 1/2".

2. The fiber optic sights are standard on this model. Got the rifle at a
very good price, certainly did not overpay.

3. I never said or implied I was a "serious shooter." I shoot targets
and empty cans for fun, though I do a bit of competitive shooting, but
just for fun.

4. A real shooter? Why would I want to be a "real shooter"? I told you,
I do this for simple fun.

5. You're comparing the NATO round to a .22LR round? You obviously don't
shoot much, if at all. The NATO bullet may be about the same diameter as
a .22LR round, but...the .22LR cartridges I shoot have a 36 gr bullet,
compared to what, a 55-70 gr bullet for the NATO round. And of course
the bullets are shaped completely differently and there's a hell of a
lot more powder charge in the NATO round. The NATO rounds are typically
good for what, 400 yards? The drop of a hot .22lr round at 400 yards is
about 20 feet.


Stick to playing golf badly, and stay off the firing range.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:08:15 -0400, wrote:

The reality is most CCW holders seldom carry anyway, once the novelty
wears off. The strange thing is, the places where I would want to
carry a gun, prohibit it.

Supposedly you can carry in the national parks now, which presumably
includes the Everglades wilderness areas. The south end of Cayo
Costa has a wild boar issue but I don't know what the rules are out
there. If nothing else you'd probably get the PETA people on your
case if you shot one in self defense.