Pointy Sticks are next

[Dave in Fairfax]

My thoughts exactly.

Dave in Fairfax

[Doug Miller]

I very much wish that the "keep and bear arms" language in the U.S. Constitution were more like that in the Constitution of my State (Indiana):

"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and of the State."

[Lee DeRaud]

Don't you need a pointy knife to separate the jawbone from the ass?

Lee

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

With government officials, you generally use a crowbar.

[C & M]

If the knife is properly sharpened, which it should be so as to negate the need for a point to beging a cut, it would be a savage weapon in a crime of passion. African nations with strong gun laws and few guns have seen machetes used to hack people to death. Where there is a will there is a way. Blugeoning by toaster or electric can opener would be better? We are an ingenious species and will use whatever is at hand.

[CW]

That was it's intent but they didn't feel the need to spell it out. They assumed, incorrectly, apparently, that people's reading comprehension would do nothing but improve over the years and a concept that was that easily understood at the time would be crystal clear in the future.

[Dave in Fairfax]

Geez, I usually use my 45. Or I try not to vote for them. Neither seems to work too well though. %-(

Dave in Fairfax

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, the inscrutable "toller" spake:

Unarmed victims like the Brits and Aussies? Now that's scary.

I hope charlieb reads some books like "The Coming Anarchy", Crichton's "State of Fear", and anything by Gary Kleck, such as "Armed--New Perspectives on Gun Control" for a bit of perspective. I used to be anti-handgun until I did more research on it. Talk about a lot of propaganda to cut through before finding the truth. Michael Crichton blows away all sorts of other false truths in his book. It's quite a ride, and though it's a work of fiction, it is LOADED with sources for getting to the truth.

[Larry Jaques]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:24:18 -0700, the inscrutable Mark & Juanita spake:

...followed by things which could strange you, such as all rope, wire, belts, bandanas, even long-sleeved pants! The horrors!

------------------------------------------------------------ California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake --------------------------------------

NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards

[Dave Mundt]

Actually, it reminds me of a time when, in a D&D campaign, one of the players saw two guys beating the living daylights out of each other. Being a peacemaker, she ran up to the fighters and yelled "Stop it! This Violence is Pointless!". From the middle of the whirlwind of fists, maces, etc, a chorus came: "It had BETTER be... we're both Clerics!". Now after this moment of geekiness...back to the topic at hand... Regards dave mundt

[Dave Balderstone]

ROFL! I got that first time through!

[Mark & Juanita]

I've said this since 9/12 -- it's just another example of the government learning the wrong lesson and applying the wrong solution to the problem.

Had an event like this occurred after the founding of the country (or even less than 100 years ago), your solution would have been that advocated by the country's leaders. However, at that time we had real leaders who understood that their right to govern rested in the hands of the people and not that the rights of the people rested in the hands of the government.

Definitely agree with this sentiment, especially immediately following

9/11 with all the NG troops in the airport.

That started years ago with instilling the idea that random searches were OK in schools, getting the youngsters used to the idea that checking them out for their own safety was a good idea. OTOH, this whole concept was exacerbated and initiated by the actions of those from the drug culture of the 60's who used their freedom to mask activities detrimental to our country's youth.

Yep, it gives the rest of the passengers time to get to the nuts before they can cause problems. As several instances following 9/11 showed, although our government didn't get it, the *citizens* did get it. It wasn't that some nutbars got on the plane with weapons that caused the mayhem, it was the fact that citizens had been conditioned and told by their leaders and others in authority that when in the situation of a hijacking (or other crime for that matter), one should not fight the criminals doing the hijacking, but submit -- that way noone, or only a few would be hurt. The citizens figured out after 9/11 that that was a bald-faced lie (if it ever was true), and you can pretty well rest assured that in the future should such a stunt be attempted again, the passengers of those planes will use whatever means are in their possession, no matter how they have been disarmed by the government, to protect themselves and prevent the hijackers from achieving their objective. That is what I meant by the government learning the wrong lesson.

I used to love flying. Now I absolutely hate it and will do whatever I can to avoid it. Actually, I still like flying, I just hate getting to the airplane. I'm one of those balding middle-aged white guys who seems to get singled out for the "random" search almost whenever I fly (I think I'm at about 75%). My theory is that they "randomly" search x number of people like me, a few 90 year old grandmothers, some toddlers, and some elderly people in wheelchairs so that they can search 1 person who actually looks like a potential threat in order to avoid being accused of profiling (but then I'm probably just being paranoid). If the trip would take 10 hours or less to drive, I pretty much prefer to drive.

Yep.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Lee DeRaud]

You mean the ones carrying the unloaded M16s? Some of the ones I saw didn't even bother to stuff in an empty magazine.

Lee

[Mark & Juanita]

Yep, them's the ones.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Larry Jaques]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 06:06:56 -0500, the inscrutable Prometheus spake:

No, bubble wrap could cause suffocation death and tea could cause drownings. They'll have none of that! I hope to Buddha that the USA never becomes as PC as that. What a crock!

------------------------------------------------------------ California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake --------------------------------------

NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards

[firstjois]

And just snipping this all to heck - does anyone know what "Airplane Security" has cost us in the USA? I can't imagine. But I do donate a pair of school scissors to the cause every time I travel, maybe all the security is worth that much.

Josie

[Dave Mundt]

Greetings and Salutations.... Of course, I had a thought about a paragraph or two to add WELL after I hit the "send" button - So here it is:

Along with everything else, there has been a sea change in the minds of air travellers, thanks to 9/11. For the 30 years or so of hijackings before

9/11, the rule was that the hijackers only wanted to get someplace else...so if everyone hung tight, the worst thing that would happen would be that they would spend a day or so in a Havana airport. So... for everyone, the attitude was to take it easy and go along with the hijackers. The terrorists of 9/11, though, changed the rules completely. Now, the attitude is that any hijacker is going to be using the plane for a weapon...so no one has anything MORE to lose, and, so will react appropriately. That is an apple that one only gets ONE bite at...and they took it, so, instead of a plane full of passive passengers, from now on, hijackers will be facing a plane filled with really ticked off enemies who are not going to let something like this happen without challenge. Interestingly enough, though (and getting back to the strange thought patterns of the governement here), I just saw THIS article in TheRegister:

Of course, no mentions of this in AMERICAN news media as of yet...and I will be interested to see if any is made. In any case, I see it as yet another example of the government callously using the events of 9/11 to promote their internal agenda of complete and total control. Regards Dave Mundt

[J. Clarke]

Same rule for the police? After all, with all their training they should only need one shot shouldn't they? And I guess that they should quit teaching police the double-tap?

And I presume from your comment about size that you favor legalizing open carry?

Define "armor piercing bullet" in such a way that it does not subsume the majority of bullets.

[Tom Quackenbush]

Well, some is heavily restricted:

Of the ammo that isn't restricted, which ones are you curious about?

Maybe I'm reading too much into your question, but are you suggesting that if people can't prove that they need something, then that's sufficent reason to ban it? I've got an awful lot of power tools that I might not be able to prove a need for.

R, Tom Q. Remove bogusinfo to reply.

[Doug Miller]

As if there was any real difference in practice. That's akin to saying it's ok to let people have hammers, but we're going to have to ban nails.

That's nonsense. *People* kill people. The gun, or the bullet if you prefer, is simply a tool, the implement by which the intent to kill is made a reality.

Which obviously renders it useless.

Easy for you to say - but it's obvious you've never been in a situation where you felt threatened enough to need to draw a gun. When the adrenaline gets pumping, it's tough to aim carefully, especially when there's very little time to do so.

Obviously making you an even easier target, encumbered by all that hardware. No, one large-capacity semiautomatic handgun would be a much more practical method of defending against multiple assailants.

Defense against a) criminals wearing body armor b) invading foreign troops c) our own government, should it prove a greater threat to liberty than the hypothetical foreign invaders in b) above

and also in target practice, to prepare for any of the above cases.