|
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mar 31, 5:51*pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " *wrote in message traweb.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. * Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. * The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. *The Bodyguard *also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. * But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. * Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/2013 6:51 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. The real point is under your hat, asshole. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/2013 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. He would dry fire it going "do you know what that sound is?" over and over again and again weather it had a safety or not. harry uses his guns to make himself feel safe and tough, he just won't admit it here.. LOL! |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/2013 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. It's obvious that you need to sign up for the Best In The World Harry N Krause Expert Gun Handling And Safety Course. You need to learn from the best John. Fergit everything you learned in the Army and let Krausie mold you into the gun happy schizophrenic paranoid, narcissistic, egotistical asshole clone of himself, that he wants you to be. Be all that you can be |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote:
On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On 4/1/13 9:13 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:51:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank©" wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. It's for damn sure I don't know 2% of what you know about any subject! Your knowledge of everything is simply astonishing. You point that out to us on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Now, how would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. It is clear I know a hell of a lot more about semi-auto pistols than you do, and your arrogance will keep you ignorant. |
Picked up the Sig Sauer P250
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:46 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/31/13 9:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Mar 31, 5:51 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 5:02 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 15:53:47 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 3:13 PM, J Herring wrote: On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:33:44 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/31/13 10:19 AM, Eisboch wrote: "Hank " wrote in message b.com... On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 20:01:21 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/30/13 7:43 PM, J Herring wrote: On both the Sig and the M&P the trigger is damn near as wide as the trigger guard. I wouldn't want anything any wider, 'cause the safety is the trigger! There is *no* safety on that pistol. Yup, ESAD, compared to your stuff this is a piece of ****. If the bozo did some checking, he'd find that most of the CCW pistols are sans safety levers and rely on internal safetys and long pull stiff double action triggers to prevent accidental firing. ---------------------------------------------------- Except those that are legal to buy in MA. Haven't checked them all, but I think a safety is a requirement to be MA compliant which is why so many semi-automatic pistols are not available up here. The safety button on the Walther is really a de-cocker, but you can't pull the trigger with it in the "safe" position. The Bodyguard also has a safety in addition to a long trigger pull, double action only and no exposed hammer. But revolvers, that are much more available here, don't have a safety. Makes no sense. Lots of semi auto "carry" sized pistols have safeties. I recall handling a Walther PPK that had a traditional safety. All my semi-auto firearms have traditional safeties. My SIG X-5 had a safety. A decocker is not a safety. Here are the specs on the PPK. Aren't most revolvers sold today single action? That means you have to pull the hammer back before you can fire. If the hammer is not pulled back, the trigger won't fire the weapon. Thus, the safety is inherent in the design, as it were. That said, I've seen safeties on some S&W revolvers, and there is a company that makes a retrofit safety for them: http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html Both of my revolvers are S&W, both are double or single action, and neither have a safety. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Which has nothing to do with the point. My goodness, Foaesad, just what is your point? How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. The point is that despite your "career" in the Army, you don't know jack**** about pistols. Harry, I'd say he knows a lot more about the M101A1and M144 than anybody else here. Not counting M41's and 48's Heck, Harry, there's people who have retired from the armed services who never picked up a pistol in their entire career. My dad served in the Philippines in ww2 and never carried a pistol. He sure shot a lot of rounds though an M1 carbine, and an M3 'grease gun' though. The subject under discussion here was pistols, not howitzers or assault rifles, and, more specifically, the safeties or lack of same on those pistols. Surely Herring was issued a sidearm and training for it during his time in our war against the people of Vietnam. How would you treat a pistol with a safety differently from one without? And, it's about time, given your support for it, that you start referring to the Vietnam conflict as 'our war'. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com