On 6/12/2014 2:20 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Boston and it's immediate surrounding sections are basically "no issue"
areas for concealed carry permits and are probably very restrictive in
the other 3 permit classes as well. It's the pulsating heart of
"progressive" liberalism and Mini-Me would like nothing better than to
ban all guns everywhere.

You sound like you're uphappy there. When you move south you can buy
all the guns your heart desires. You can then be happy about how easy
it is to own guns.



I am not obsessed with guns. Like many I enjoy shooting occasionally
but they don't make up a big part of my life or activities.

Our motivation to put the house up on the market and move somewhere
warmer isn't predicated on guns either. Nor politics. It's just time.
The family ties aren't as demanding as they have been in the past, the
house we have is way too big for our needs and, as I have learned over
the years of having boats, the season is ridiculously short. I'd like to
get another boat in a climate that the season is longer.

My comments about MA gun laws relate to the arbitrary and politically
motivated influence on what is allowed and what is not by the Attorney
General's office. There is a completely separate agency that tests
firearms for safety and adherence to current MA laws and/or
restrictions. In many cases this agency will qualify a particular model
for sale in MA but the AG's office will decide otherwise, for whatever
reason they feel like coming up with. In order to be MA compliant a
firearm must be approved by both the testing agency *and* the AG's
office. This results in many popular guns being banned from being sold
in the state legally.

The latest round of legislation that was just approved will further
restrict not only what can be sold but also who can obtain a permit to
own a firearm.

On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:06:12 PM UTC-7, jps wrote:
Maybe they'll make it part of XGames or the Olympics!



"Whoohooo!! Gun games!!!"

You like gun games???

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:18:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Theoretically one could open
carry without exhibiting any threatening attitude but I wouldn't test
the law (or lack of).

===

Exactly right. Many people would find open carrying by itself to be
threatening.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:37:12 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

You guys must be good. Our longest range target was only 300 yards, for the M14.

===

That's my recollection also (circa 1967 at Ft Jackson) but the M14 was
so accurate that I don't think 500 yards would have been that big a
problem

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:13:02 PM UTC-7, BAR wrote:




They would most likely want a copy of the death certificate in order to

deprive her of her right to vote.

Not in Illinois. Corpses in Cook county have been voting for years...

BAR wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:18:03 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:41:42 -0700, jps wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:17:05 -0400, wrote:

If people didn't "play games" with cars everyone would be driving a
Corolla (or some other "sensible" car).
If we put the same kind of restrictions on cars you want on guns they
would have 5 point seat belts for all occupants, there would be speed
governors, biometric sensors to be sure only authorized drivers were
driving, high performance cars would be banned and we would all have
to wear helmets.

It would certainly save lives (more than gun restrictions) and you
could still get back and forth to work "unhindered".

That's baloney. There's no test for owning a firearm, you don't have
to know the laws, you just go in and fill out the paperwork and if
you're not a felon, you get a gun.

You really need to get out a little more. States are already moving
that way and you want more

Not one state allows you to operated a car without proper training.

HUH? A drive around the block without hitting anything and parking
the car when you were 16 does not demonstrate any particular proper
training.
After that, for the next 70 years, anyone who can hobble up to the
counter, read line 3 on the eye chart and write a check is "properly
trained". It is mail order in most states these days.
Talk about dogs that can't hunt.


Your analogy doesn't hold water. In other words that dog won't hunt.

Woof Woof.

My mom was a bad driver in her later years. At 89 turning 90, she aced the
written test and they did not behind the wheel test her, and issued a 5
year license! And you only have to drive around for a couple days and see
really bad driving.

My mother was dead and they sent her a new license. (the check was
already in the mail)
You just need a current eye test and your ophthalmologist can sign off
on that.

They would most likely want a copy of the death certificate in order to
deprive her of her right to vote.

She got an absentee ballot after her passing.

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/12/14, 3:44 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/12/14, 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:27:33 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 6/11/2014 10:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

No law against "brandishing" a firearm? That's what would get you
arrested in many places.

http://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

Didn't Florida recently pass a law stating that accidental brandishing
was no longer a criminal offense?

That refers to something like your gun "printing" on a covering
garment or your coat blowing open for a moment. If you intentionally
hold your coat open to show your gun or pull it out to threaten
someone, it is still brandishing.

They are working on a "warning shot" exception to the 10-20-life law.
As it is, if you fire a warning shot, you better look like you have a
valid reason to kill them and you just missed. Every instructor I have
ever had said you just shoot for the center of mass, no warning shots.
That bullet is going to land somewhere and the only place you are
legally allowed to have it land is in a person who is presenting an
imminent threat to you.

BTW that is not necessarily true if an animal that is posing that
threat.
The burden of proof is much higher if you shoot a protected animal.


Well, of course...you want to be able to legally stand your ground
against a raccoon walking through your yard. It's Florida.


Hell, I wanted to shoot a raccoon in the yard the other night. Maybe two.
1:30 am and get woke up to fighting raccoons.


Well, of course, because little animals are soooo annoying and there's no
reason to leave them alone. I get it.


Raccoons are not little. And very loud and nasty when fighting.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:38:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 08:37:12 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote:

You guys must be good. Our longest range target was only 300 yards, for the M14.

===

That's my recollection also (circa 1967 at Ft Jackson) but the M14 was
so accurate that I don't think 500 yards would have been that big a
problem

When qualifying I was hitting every target except the damn 50 yard target. After about three misses
my spotter reminded me that I'd zeroed at 150 yards and was shooting over the damn target every
time. Those were my only misses. I really liked that rifle.

And you're right. I think 500 yards would be very hittable, even without a scope. Probably have to
aim about a foot over the silhouette's head.

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:46:03 -0500, Califbill wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/12/14, 3:44 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/12/14, 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:27:33 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 6/11/2014 10:04 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

No law against "brandishing" a firearm? That's what would get you
arrested in many places.

http://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

Didn't Florida recently pass a law stating that accidental brandishing
was no longer a criminal offense?

That refers to something like your gun "printing" on a covering
garment or your coat blowing open for a moment. If you intentionally
hold your coat open to show your gun or pull it out to threaten
someone, it is still brandishing.

They are working on a "warning shot" exception to the 10-20-life law.
As it is, if you fire a warning shot, you better look like you have a
valid reason to kill them and you just missed. Every instructor I have
ever had said you just shoot for the center of mass, no warning shots.
That bullet is going to land somewhere and the only place you are
legally allowed to have it land is in a person who is presenting an
imminent threat to you.

BTW that is not necessarily true if an animal that is posing that
threat.
The burden of proof is much higher if you shoot a protected animal.


Well, of course...you want to be able to legally stand your ground
against a raccoon walking through your yard. It's Florida.


Hell, I wanted to shoot a raccoon in the yard the other night. Maybe two.
1:30 am and get woke up to fighting raccoons.


Well, of course, because little animals are soooo annoying and there's no
reason to leave them alone. I get it.


Raccoons are not little. And very loud and nasty when fighting.

Once when racoon hunting a shot with a .22 brought the racoon out of the tree into a creek. The most
stupid of the hunting dogs jumped in after it. The racoon damn near killed the dog, which quickly
gave up and came back to our side of the creek. The racoon swam to the other side and escaped in the
bushes. This was about 2:00 AM, so we weren't able to see it or follow it.

It didn't seem to be hurt too badly.

On 6/13/14, 7:25 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:


Once when racoon hunting a shot with a .22 brought the racoon out of the tree into a creek. The most
stupid of the hunting dogs jumped in after it. The racoon damn near killed the dog, which quickly
gave up and came back to our side of the creek. The racoon swam to the other side and escaped in the
bushes. This was about 2:00 AM, so we weren't able to see it or follow it.

It didn't seem to be hurt too badly.


It's too bad the raccoon didn't go after you, since you were the lower
life form. And why were you hunting raccoons? To show your buddies you
really had a dick?


--
If right-wing assholes could fly,
rec.boats would be an airport!