Giving photogs a bad name?

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:11:58 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-06-06 23:42:47 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:54:53 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-06-06 13:22:29 +0000, "PAS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014060604485463167-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-06-06 11:32:24 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

But the biggest nutter there was an anti-gun women, who's main gripe on
cam
era appeared to be that the guns make really loud noises as she cowered
beh
ind her car covering her ears !

Hey! being around guns and shooting is a noisy experience. Always use
hearing protection. Even if you are an anti-gun nut.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

You've spent more time at ranges than I will in ten lifetimes. Have you
ever come across anyone at a range that was not wearing hearing protection?

Very few ranges will allow anybody on the firing line without hearing
protection and/or some type of protective eyewear. At an indoor range
the sound pressure levels are so high they are painful, At some outdoor
ranges where there is some room behind the firing line some folks can
tolerate the sound without protection as the sound dissipates better in
the open. However, even outdoors the actual loudness of a high power
handgun or rifle can surprise somebody who gets what they know of guns
from TV or movies.

As for artillery!

WHAT DID YOU SAY??
There are many old artillery men who are hard of hearing. There is a
reason the hearing-aid business does so well with the former military.

Over the years I have used all sorts of hearing protection from the
good old ear muff type, to waxed cotton balls, foam industrial
earplugs, in-ear sonic valves, and my current hearing protection of
choice is the EP7 Sonic Defender Ultra.
http://www.surefire.com/ep7-sonic-defenders-ultra.html

I will neveer forget the first time I encountered a 3.7" anti aircraft
gun.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...guns_H_993.jpg
I was walking towards it when it fired away from me. The shockwave in
the ground briefly kicked me into the air and the shockwave in the air
knocked me back at least one pace. And it was loud.

I will never forget the kick under my feet.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

rOn Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:39:14 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.

Drones
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:11:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right, it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


Assault rifles similar to the AK47

BAR

50 CAL rifles

Apache helicopters

Mortars

Bradley fighting vehicles

Sherman tanks

For God's sake give the Shermans to the enemy.


Abrams tanks


Hand grenade

Bazookas


M32 grenade launcher


150 mm Howitzer


Armed drones


Nuclear weapons
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-06-07 01:05:51 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:11:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

Le Snip

Sherman tanks

For God's sake give the Shermans to the enemy.

There is a reason the M1 Abrams exists.

Abrams tanks


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-06-07 01:28:54 +0000, Robert Coe said:

Le Snip

Every single thing we've heard so far is consistent with the possibility that
Bergdahl was an American spy sent, under the cover of pretending to be a
deserter, to infiltrate the Taliban.

Huh?!! Where the Hell did you come up with that speculative theory?

Even if he weren't, the Government might choose to behave as though he
were, just to keep the Taliban guessing. In
cases like this it's a mistake to jump to conclusions about the actions or
motivations of any of the participants.

It sounds like you are writing the next season of "Homeland".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 18:37:14 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-06-07 01:05:51 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:11:27 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

Le Snip

Sherman tanks

For God's sake give the Shermans to the enemy.

There is a reason the M1 Abrams exists.

In North Africa when fighting the British, the Germans used to call
Shermans "Tommy Cookers".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/6/2014 9:28 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

snip

Every single thing we've heard so far is consistent with the possibility that
Bergdahl was an American spy sent, under the cover of pretending to be a
deserter, to infiltrate the Taliban. Even if he weren't, the Government might
choose to behave as though he were, just to keep the Taliban guessing. In
cases like this it's a mistake to jump to conclusions about the actions or
motivations of any of the participants.

Bob

Why!. If we wait until the facts are in, the radical right will have
missed a chance to bash our President.


--
PeterN

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:51:41 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 5/28/14 5:38 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 05:49:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:


That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

I do understand that in general americans do see guns in a differnt way to
those of us in the UK and perhaps other countries too.
I don't see this as a being right or wrong but a reflection on the society you
would like to live in and that goes for most things.


An armed society is a free society.

Having said that, I strongly disagree with these idiots here in Texas who
march into restaurants with their long-guns. They are Drama Queens.

Entirely coincidentally, my sister has just sent me this link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wPhjbqbWs
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...

On 6/7/14 9:37 PM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:51:41 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 5/28/14 5:38 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 05:49:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:


That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

I do understand that in general americans do see guns in a differnt way to
those of us in the UK and perhaps other countries too.
I don't see this as a being right or wrong but a reflection on the society
you
would like to live in and that goes for most things.


An armed society is a free society.

Having said that, I strongly disagree with these idiots here in Texas who
march into restaurants with their long-guns. They are Drama Queens.

Entirely coincidentally, my sister has just sent me this link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wPhjbqbWs

Another Leftard tool who was successful as a comic either...