Scarborough gets it right
 

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:26:32 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Someone with a 6 shot, sawed off shotgun

Huh? How "sawed off" could it be with a 6 round tube under the
barrel?

The reality is sawing off the barrel does not change the pattern all
that much once you lose the choke.

A 10" piece of 3/4" Sch 40 galvanized pipe doesn't pattern that much
different than a 26" skeet gun. It is just more ragged around the
edges.

I figured it spread the pattern a lot. The old Ithaca car gun was supposed
to a wide spread shooter. Put the wad with a pin in the middle, and may
increase the spread also.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 19:56:10 -0500, ESAD wrote:

Besides, while PG County has some bad spots, it is a mostly rural county

Huh?

It was rural when I was there but it is very built up now. I doubt you
could find a safe place to hunt anywhere in PG.
We used to shoot quail just South west of 210 and Oxon Hill Rd and we
would hunt ducks down there on the river where that new metroplex is
now.

I am also amazed at how built up Chuck County was the last time I was
up there (July)
When you get down south of Leonardtown it starts looking familiar but
there are still a lot of new houses.

You can't get much further south than Leonardtown.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article 1544287637377724059.933093bmckeenospam-
, says...

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.


Who held congress at the time the bill was passed?

Republicans, why?

The California Legislature was Democrat. The bill was a California bill.
Just set the model for the rest of the states.

California doesn't define the United States.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/20/2012 4:23 PM, jps wrote:


No self-respecting Democrat

This is a real tell... It's all about appearances for you guys, huh?

Why because liberals and democrats are two different meanings, just like
conservative and Republican are two different meanings? I'm sure you're
too stupid to realize that one can be one without being the other,
right?

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article om,
says...

On 12/20/2012 4:23 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:41:19 -0600, Califbill

The California Legislature was Democrat. The bill was a California bill.
Just set the model for the rest of the states.

Proof you have no remaining ties whatsoever to the Democratic Party.

No self-respecting Democrat ever refers to the party as "Democrat."
It's a use fostered by Rush and taken up by Republican stooges.


What is the politically correct name for democrat these days?

A Democrat. What you fail to understand, as does Scotty and other insane
fanatics, is that you can be liberal without being a Democrat, much like
you can be conservative without being a Republican. It's really simple
if you can think.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article 2071675585377754624.473476bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/20/12 4:23 PM, jps wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:41:19 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.


Who held congress at the time the bill was passed?

Republicans, why?

The California Legislature was Democrat. The bill was a California bill.
Just set the model for the rest of the states.

Proof you have no remaining ties whatsoever to the Democratic Party.

No self-respecting Democrat ever refers to the party as "Democrat."
It's a use fostered by Rush and taken up by Republican stooges.

Indeed. It is the Democratic Party, and and individual acolyte is a
Democrat and more than one are Democrats. Thus, the California
legislature was Democratic, made up mostly of Democrats.

And it still is, and still overspending like crazy!

Only Democrats overspend, right??!

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/20/2012 7:46 PM, BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:41:19 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 3:45 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:46 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,

Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...

It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.

Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.

http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?

Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Have we not had Democrat presidents and Democrat controlled congresses since Reagan?

What a stupid f'ing comment, Kevin.


Who held congress at the time the bill was passed?

Republicans, why?

The California Legislature was Democrat. The bill was a California bill.
Just set the model for the rest of the states.

Proof you have no remaining ties whatsoever to the Democratic Party.

No self-respecting Democrat ever refers to the party as "Democrat."
It's a use fostered by Rush and taken up by Republican stooges.

Why did these so called self-respecting Democrat's change from calling
themselves Democrats to Democratics?

Your source is Wikipedia and it has its own agenda that is contrary to
reality.

The White House hasn't read your memo.



You mean, Wiki is not fair and balanced??? Oh, the heartbreak...

But FOX is, right?!

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/20/2012 7:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
JustWait wrote:
On 12/20/2012 3:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait
wrote:


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a
motorcycle.

Some might need a motorcycle, but nobody needs a race motorcycle. Just
like the former police chief n San Jose California. Since he was a cop,
got to carry all the time, but stated no civilian needed a firearm. Max
speed limit was 65 in the state, but he drove a top of the line Jaguar.


Uh, not really an accurate analogy. We are not asking for equipment or
experience to be exclusively for me... But what you folks getting so
defensive about is bogus, I consider "because I want it" *is* a
legitimate reason to be weighed when considering situation... I am
getting the feeling that because of the question you all think I am
against your right to bear... well, the ones who really don't read what I
have said anyway:)

No, we are pointing out the fallacious arguments of no one needs a 30 round
feeder. I was talking to a 90 year old lady friend at dinner last night.
She pointed out the talking heads did not even bring up mental issues until
after the third "expert".


Fair enough, but I never said anything near "no one needs a 30 round
clip". I was talking to a friend today and he happened to bring out his
Chinese SKS with a 30 round clip. It was a pretty "tactical" looking
weapon, what really caught my attention was the rounds, how sharp they
were. Always thought bullets were more rounded.

We were talking about the advantages of a 30 clip and agreed, it's just
fun... but really not "necessary" for any legal use of the weapon. He
thinks you guys are goofy getting all bent out of shape because I asked
the obvious question BTW.

Either way, it was interesting to talk so someone who had so much
experience, and wasn't all defensive... so I could actually get to the
point of my questions.

More anecdotal lies from Scotty.

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/21/2012 12:26 AM, Califbill wrote:
JustWait wrote:
On 12/20/2012 7:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
JustWait wrote:
On 12/20/2012 3:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:34:29 -0500, JustWait
wrote:


So, how about you try it since Greg won't answer the question... and
remember, I support the second. But I am starting to wonder why you need
a 30 round clip?

Since when do we base what we can buy by what we need. Nobody NEEDS a
motorcycle.

Some might need a motorcycle, but nobody needs a race motorcycle. Just
like the former police chief n San Jose California. Since he was a cop,
got to carry all the time, but stated no civilian needed a firearm. Max
speed limit was 65 in the state, but he drove a top of the line Jaguar.


Uh, not really an accurate analogy. We are not asking for equipment or
experience to be exclusively for me... But what you folks getting so
defensive about is bogus, I consider "because I want it" *is* a
legitimate reason to be weighed when considering situation... I am
getting the feeling that because of the question you all think I am
against your right to bear... well, the ones who really don't read what I
have said anyway:)

No, we are pointing out the fallacious arguments of no one needs a 30 round
feeder. I was talking to a 90 year old lady friend at dinner last night.
She pointed out the talking heads did not even bring up mental issues until
after the third "expert".


Fair enough, but I never said anything near "no one needs a 30 round
clip". I was talking to a friend today and he happened to bring out his
Chinese SKS with a 30 round clip. It was a pretty "tactical" looking
weapon, what really caught my attention was the rounds, how sharp they
were. Always thought bullets were more rounded.

We were talking about the advantages of a 30 clip and agreed, it's just
fun... but really not "necessary" for any legal use of the weapon. He
thinks you guys are goofy getting all bent out of shape because I asked
the obvious question BTW.

Either way, it was interesting to talk so someone who had so much
experience, and wasn't all defensive... so I could actually get to the
point of my questions.

We are, or at least some of us are, trying to get you to think.

I just don't get what you are trying to get me to think about. All I
asked was why? Never suggested any kind of control, or prohibition. If
you wanted me to "think", I think you would have given me an answer to
think about instead of acting like caught little kids...


You go off
on a 30 round magazine or greater than 10. Will not stop a massacre.

And I never said that, I just asked "what if?".... Just trying to get
you guys to "think"... LOL!

Someone with a 6 shot, sawed off shotgun would probably kill or wound most
in a classroom. The problem is most of these mass killers were known to be
mentally unbalanced. But nothing was done, or could be really done to or
for them. The laws over the years basically say you can decline to be
treated and walk out the door, go to Home Depot, buy a couple hundred
pounds of fertilizer and make a bomb that kills a lot at the hospital.
Then you get an insane defense and treatment. After the fact help.


I get it, I get it... I am the one who suggested in another group that
Tim McVeigh probably spent less on diesel and fertilizer than this guys
mom spent on the four weapons he brought to the school.

I just like to ask questions, sometimes non answers tell me more than
answers do... and here I have really learned a lot about gun owners, if
not about guns.

Trust me, Scotty, no one here expects you to "think".

Scarborough gets it right
 

In article , says...

On 12/20/2012 2:54 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 19:25:08 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/19/2012 12:49 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:33:35 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 12/18/2012 12:21 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:

Fine - do away with 'military style...combat assault rifles with high capacity (not defined)
magazines'. How the hell would that stop someone who wanted to kill twenty kids? It might make him a
little slower, but not much!

Yeah, lets make it as easy as possible.

That was kind of a stupid reply. C-4 would make it *very* easy. In fact, I'm wondering why some
jihadist hasn't strapped a bomb to her chest and walked into a school cafeteria during lunchtime.

Yeah, it wasn't the time for sarcasm. You got my point though.

If the goal is to make the killing of 20 kids take 10 seconds longer, then it's a stupid goal! Do
you get the point?



Why do you gotta' be such a ****ing asshole all the time. Yes, when it
comes to somebody shooting and me running, I will take the extra ten
****ing seconds, even if it only saves one life. Remember, this moron
stopped shooting kids and shot himself when he heard the cops coming...
If they had come 10 seconds earlier, unless you can tell me no lives
could in any way be saved, you are just being a self serving ****...

Man, just like Harry, you sure go off when someone shows you what a
moron you are!