|
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:46:35 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
You lie again.
Got a cite to where I ever stated that?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Ah SOD, you are such a simpleton. If you can't understand why a
machine gun, or a pool cue, were not covered under the Assault Weapon Ban
of 1994, then you will no doubt have to remain clueless as to why you are
"one who continues the lie that machine guns were covered by the "Assault
Weapons Ban of 1994"."
You can't tell the difference between an "Assault Weapon" and your
fist. Doesn't understand the logic that your repetitions of a lie don't
make it true, and your willful "confusion" of "assault weapons" with
machine guns is what makes you out to be the serial liar.
It is you, you silly sod, who repeatedly, deliberately, mistakes
something not cover in the law for something cover in the law. It is your
lame inability to be able to tell the difference between a Banned "Assault
Weapon" such as an AR-15, from something used in an assault, such as a 1957
Chevy, which leads to the conclusion that you are a mendacious prevaricator
of an anti gun weenie. Or a complete idiot. The two are not exclusive.
toodles
--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level. LtCol Grossman.
|
| |
| |
pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O.
Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote back on Sun, 19 Sep 2004
15:46:35 -0600 in talk.politics.guns :
ROTFLMAO!!!
Can't find a cite where I stated that, can you liar?
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:46:35 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Yep, thanks for the confession.
Sorry Dishonest SOD, but you're continue to deliberately obfuscate the
difference between something used in an assault, and an Assault Weapon.
Despite your deliberate attempts to confuse the issue, the facts of the
matter remain: you are lying. Deliberately and repeatedly.
Considering that prior to the debate for the "Assault Weapon Ban" act
in 1994, the term "assault weapon" , if used at all, was used in casual
reference to assault rifles, I'd have to say that your insistence that
machine guns, sticks, rocks and other things are "Assault Weapons"
demonstrates that you are an idiot, or a liar. Or both.
--
pyotr filipivich
Old farts these days - no like when I was a boy. We used to
have us Real Geezers in those days. Now, they'll let anybody
with a little gray hair be an old fart.
|
| |
| |
pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O.
Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote back on Sun, 19 Sep 2004
15:46:35 -0600 in talk.politics.guns :
Sorry Dishonest SOD, but you're continue to deliberately
obfuscate the difference between something used in an
assault, and an Assault Weapon. Despite your deliberate
attempts to confuse the issue, the facts of the matter
remain: you are lying. Deliberately and repeatedly.
The only one confused Petey, is you. Everyone else
grasps the definitions.
Aren't you going to talk about cars now?
Or household pets?
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:02:41 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
sanjian wrote:
You lie again.
Post the BATF form for registering/transfering Full Auto
weapons, and cite the "proof of need", you pathetic liar.
Let's see if he will go read the From 4.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f53204.pdf
This is the transfer form. You really need to learn more about NFA-34
if you are going to discuss them. I suggest you get a copy of Dan
Shea's _The Machine Gun Dealer's Bible_. Your arguments would be
better if you knew the facts and the forms.
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/bible.htm
a subscription to SAR wouldn't hurt.
******************************************************
"They were a fearful sight.
And near six thousand warriors
We stopped them on the run,
The bravest of the brave
Could never match the Maxim gun.
"The Battle of Bembezi"
John Edmond
|
| |
| |
John A. Stovall wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:02:41 -0600, "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote:
Let's see if he will go read the From 4.
So your claiming that the Transferee's certification
that he has a "reasonable necessity" is a restriction
on Full Auto requiring "proof of need" ?
Well, numbnuts, if that is what you are claiming,
then the "proof of need" is simply the transferee's
own self-certification. Hardly a "restriction" at all, eh?
http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f53204.pdf
This is the transfer form. You really need to learn more
about NFA-34 if you are going to discuss them. I suggest
you get a copy of Dan Shea's _The Machine Gun Dealer's
Bible_. Your arguments would be better if you knew the
facts and the forms.
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/bible.htm
a subscription to SAR wouldn't hurt.
******************************************************
"They were a fearful sight.
And near six thousand warriors
We stopped them on the run,
The bravest of the brave
Could never match the Maxim gun.
"The Battle of Bembezi"
John Edmond
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote back on Sun, 19 Sep 2004
19:07:46 -0400 in talk.politics.guns :
Care to explain why we should until they have broken the law?
However, "shall not be
infringed" is fairly clear. The words are easy to
understand, even for someone like you. The government does
not have that power. Period.
Sure, why not? Most felonies are non-violent so what difference would it
make if they owned guns?
Most felons are convicted of non-violent crimes. Doesn't mean they
didn't commit a violent crime, or are not likely to do so, just that they
were not convicted of such a crime.
Yeah, this unfairly tars Joe Shmoe, who has a long history of arrests
for "Mopery with intent to creep" before he got a class III felony bust for
"Gross Stupidity while an Officer Watched", by putting him in the same
class as Son of Sam Berkowitz, who shot people because his dog told him to.
For those felons you don't want to own guns, then I suggest you keep them in
prison were we can good to extreme measures to control their access to guns.
Sounds "fair" to me.
Anyways, if we've got to worry about these people owning firearms,
obviously we didn't keep them locked away long enough.
Good point.
Yes, it is. Sadly people would rather keep releasing them, then #@&@
about
the crime problem.
Hence the real popularity with "3 Strikes and You're In for Life" laws
with voters.
The issue is with our penal system, not with the
gun laws. Fix the problem, not the symptom.
Criminals as part of due process. Hardly applicable to everyone else.
Further I feel that such restrictions should apply ONLY during the execution
of their sentence, and when completed they are seen as everyone
else.....except they have a prior conviction.
And this is where I want that law on the books. It serves as a 'hanging
reg" - we can always get him on the "felon in posession" charge. Open &
Shut case. But there is also a need for some common sense application. A
bartender who uses a "company" firearm to prevent his employer's
establishment from being robbed, is still a hero. Even if he is a felon.
I'll give him a pass, as he is not the one committing a crime. Even if the
guy committing the crime has no "prior convictions"
But that's my opinion.
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
|
| |
| |
pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:46:35 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Sorry Dishonest SOD, but you're continue to deliberately obfuscate the
difference between something used in an assault, and an Assault
Weapon. Despite your deliberate attempts to confuse the issue, the
facts of the matter remain: you are lying. Deliberately and
repeatedly.
Considering that prior to the debate for the "Assault Weapon Ban" act
in 1994, the term "assault weapon" , if used at all, was used in
casual reference to assault rifles, I'd have to say that your
insistence that machine guns, sticks, rocks and other things are
"Assault Weapons" demonstrates that you are an idiot, or a liar. Or
both.
In the end, the term as he uses it is absolutely redundant. If you can't
use it to assault, it's not much of a weapon.
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "sanjian"
<sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote back on Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:54:50 -0400 in
talk.politics.guns :
But M-16s are GOVERNMENT rifles, owned and operated by the Military and
Police Departments. Thus consecrated, they can't be EvilGunz(tm) unless
in the profane hands of the unanointed.
Err... in the end, wouldn't it just be more admin, since they would
effectively be paying it to themselves (by way of the federal government via
federal funds for law enforcement and anti-terrorism).
Maybe so, but I've no doubt that having to pay extra for "Specialized
Police Equipment" would be used to increase the Police Department's Budget,
and thus excuse a "temporary" tax increase.
--
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "sanjian"
<sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote back on Mon, 4 Oct 2004 08:54:50 -0400 in
talk.politics.guns :
Maybe so, but I've no doubt that having to pay extra for "Specialized
Police Equipment" would be used to increase the Police Department's
Budget,
and thus excuse a "temporary" tax increase.
--
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
Dirty Harry stole it, too - Remember ?
|
| |
| |
|
