Giving photogs a bad name?

On 6/17/2014 12:28 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/17/2014 9:00 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/16/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/13/2014 12:31 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message

snip


Are you saying that there should e no regulation of ownership of
weapons?
Discussion of the degree of regulation is a different discussion
than
whether ownership should be regulated.

No I am not. But there is too much regulation in many cases, as I've
demonstrated.

At least we agree on something. How much is too much, can lead to
interesting discussions. I can see the reasonable logic for the
regulations you have complained about.

Don't we agree on rum raisin too?



And Snowflake & (I think,) Magic Fountain in Mattituck.

LOL, we were just at the Magic Fountain this past weekend. There is
another
place in Center Moriches on Montauk Highway - "The Ice Cream Cottage" -
that
is really great. They make a chocolate fudge ice cream that has those
jelly
rings in it. It's amazing.



You are diabetic. WTF are you doing eating that kind of ice cream!
Besides, the only thing that should be added ti ice cream, is small pieces
of fruit, or nuts. Adding jelly of peanut butter to ice cream is a
sacrilege.

I "taste", I don't eat. It's difficult but if I want to live than I have to
refrain from eating all that good stuff. My wife gets the ice cream and
I'll have a little taste. Some of the places do have sugar-free Italian Ice
and I usually get that.



I don't keep any ice cream that my wife like, in he house. She is
diabetc, and do to other issues, is not suppose to eat dairy.
Fortunately she hates coffee and rum raisin, and coconut. They have
always been among my favorites. The last time I had vanilla bean, it
disappeared. Her theory is that if you take a few spoonfuls at 3:AM
while standing in front of the refrigerator, it does no harm.


--
PeterN

On 2014-06-17 15:52:17 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:02:54 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the UK an
"ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns?

Some ordinary citizens are dangerous to themselves and/or others.

Seventy year-old L.C. Williams shot himself in the foot yesterday. The
Orlandoan was carrying his gun tucked in the waistband of his trousers
and it dropped to ground. It discharged wounding Williams.
The round ricocheted and did $500 of estimated damages to a Dodge
Charger in the supermarket parking lot where the incident occurred.

I feel badly for the owner of the Dodge Charger.

Tucked in the waistband of his trousers! What an idiot!
There are too many irresponsible gun owners who get their concept of
how to carry a pistol from Hollywood and TV. If you insist on carrying
a handgun inside your waistband, which is probably the most insecure &
dangerous way of concealing a handgun, consider an *inside the
waistband holster*. They exist.

http://www.galcogunleather.com/walka..._8_7_1336.html


For my two carry weapons (I only use one at a time) I have three types
of holster:
1: A handmade belt loop holster made by Andy Aratoonian an English
leather artist who makes his holsters one at a time, and has a nine
month backlog on filling orders.
http://www.holsters.org/covert_22-holster.htm

2: A less exclusive Galco *Paddle* holster which is a grab and go rig
and both my Kimber and Glock live in one of these.
http://www.galcogunleather.com/ccp-c..._8_5_1054.html

3: Then there is the one I seldom use these days, and was only used
when there was a specific need at work, a *Small of Back* SOB holster
which makes a good concealed carry holster, with a few drawbacks. For
one, you don't want to use one of those if you are going to be sitting
in a car any length of time.
http://www.desantisholster.com/S-O-B-SMALL-OF-BACK
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-06-17 17:17:16 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:49:55 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-06-17 15:52:17 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:02:54 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the UK an
"ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns?

Some ordinary citizens are dangerous to themselves and/or others.

Seventy year-old L.C. Williams shot himself in the foot yesterday. The
Orlandoan was carrying his gun tucked in the waistband of his trousers
and it dropped to ground. It discharged wounding Williams.
The round ricocheted and did $500 of estimated damages to a Dodge
Charger in the supermarket parking lot where the incident occurred.

I feel badly for the owner of the Dodge Charger.

Tucked in the waistband of his trousers! What an idiot!

The article also said that he has a concealed weapon permit and that
his holster recently broke.

HTF do you break a holster?
Sounds like BS to me.

Evidently, he needed something at the
supermarket more urgently than he needed a new holster, and that he
felt in imminent danger in a Winn-Dixie parking lot at 12:30 PM.
Perhaps there have been cart-jackings* at that location.

He was going to stand his ground behind that cart.

What a maroon! (apologies to Bugs)

The article did not state if he purchased a box of Depends before or
after shooting himself.

He was lucky to have missed the under carriage. That has been known to
happen quite frequently to those folks with a handgun tucked in their
waistband.

*Our UK readers should translate "cart-jackings" to
"trolley-jackings".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/17/2014 12:14 PM, James Silverton wrote:
On 6/17/2014 11:52 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:02:54 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the
UK an
"ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns?

Some ordinary citizens are dangerous to themselves and/or others.

Seventy year-old L.C. Williams shot himself in the foot yesterday. The
Orlandoan was carrying his gun tucked in the waistband of his trousers
and it dropped to ground. It discharged wounding Williams.
The round ricocheted and did $500 of estimated damages to a Dodge
Charger in the supermarket parking lot where the incident occurred.

I feel badly for the owner of the Dodge Charger.

I trust the insurance company is pursuing Williams to collect damages.
He is lucky that he did not shoot off some of his external equipment.


In many cases the gun is a substitute.

--
PeterN

On 6/17/2014 12:14 PM, George Kerby wrote:


snip



Whiskey does not discern between long arms and handguns...


Many gun owners enjoy regular short arms inspections.

--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
On 6/17/2014 12:14 PM, George Kerby wrote:

Whiskey does not discern between long arms and handguns...


Many gun owners enjoy regular short arms inspections.

Size doesn't matter for them, and perhaps these are the
only tools they have that are ever rigid?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
says...

On 6/11/2014 1:15 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:13:07 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
George Kerby wrote:
On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L.
Davidson"
wrote:


Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT
"cornering",
please.

You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
what it is that is ridiculous.

For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
much in favor of significantly increased control of
guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
gun ownership.

But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
about hunting?

We are not permitted to own assualt weapons. Assault weapons are automatic.
This constant drone about "assault" weapons is a lie. Just because a rifle
resembles a military rifle doesn't make it an assault rifle. You should
know that.

To be a "nut" on either side requires distorting language and ignoring
meaning to make a case.

The anti-gun nut says "Why do you need an assault rifle to hunt deer?"

The gun nut replies "This constant drone about 'assault' weapons is a
lie."

The anti-gun nut is not concerned that the NRA lobby has squeezed the
definition of "assault weapons" down to certain types of weapons:
those which fire on an automatic setting. The M4A1 is an assault
rifle, and the AR-15 is not. The question is *not* "Why do you need
an M4A1 to hunt deer?" The question is "Why do you need either to
hunt deer?".

By achieving a limited definition of "assault rifle", the NRA has
accomplished creating a gap in the logical interpretation of the
language.

What is the function of either the M4A1 or the AR-15 if not to be used
in assault tactics? In what situation would anyone not engaged in a
military action need an AR-15? That's the question in the mind of the
anti-gun nut.

The gun nut is incapable of providing any reason to own a M4A1 other
than "A bunch of guys in wigs and knee breeches in the 1700s were
worried that the citizens who revolted against the King might need
weapons to revolt against the next group of rulers.". Or, in other
words, "because I can".


Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
killing people?

Where does the Constitution indicate that a citizen must demonstrate a
"need" in order to exercise his/her rights? If I want to get myself a 357
Magnum like Dirty Harry used, then I can. I don't have to demonstrate to
anyone whether or not I need one.

Of course the Second Amendment indicates a need: to provide a well
regulated militia.

Are you a member of a militia? You want to ignore one part of the
statement, but use the other part.

The current form of "militia" is the military. We don't deny them the
right to carry an assault rifle.


I'd generally agree with you in that the "militia" is the National
Guard in the US. I think the British call it the "Territorial Army" or
"National Reserve"

The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the
"military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia,
in separate articles.

However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has
ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right
that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you
can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion
overrides yours.

I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole
"militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look
like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income
tax violates the Constitution.

On 6/17/2014 10:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

snip

The Founders made a clear distinction between the "militia" and the
"military". They provided for an Army, for a Navy, and for a militia,
in separate articles.


We should note that there is no Constitutional provision for an Air Force.


However, your opinion matters not one iota. The Supreme Court has
ruled, that ruling is that the right to bear arms is a personal right
that has nothing to do with participation in a militia, and unless you
can muster enough votes to change the Constitution, its opinion
overrides yours.

I really wish you people would accept reality and drop this whole
"militia" line of argument, because all it is doing is making you look
like the same kind of deep-in-denial nutters who claim that the income
tax violates the Constitution.


WHO ARE "YOU PEOPLE."



--
PeterN

On 6/17/14 11:49 AM, in article
201406170949556752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-06-17 15:52:17 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:02:54 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

I'm not sure what "facts" you're speaking of. Am I wrong that in the UK an
"ordinary citizen" like you and I are not permitted to won handguns?

Some ordinary citizens are dangerous to themselves and/or others.

Seventy year-old L.C. Williams shot himself in the foot yesterday. The
Orlandoan was carrying his gun tucked in the waistband of his trousers
and it dropped to ground. It discharged wounding Williams.
The round ricocheted and did $500 of estimated damages to a Dodge
Charger in the supermarket parking lot where the incident occurred.

I feel badly for the owner of the Dodge Charger.

Tucked in the waistband of his trousers! What an idiot!
There are too many irresponsible gun owners who get their concept of
how to carry a pistol from Hollywood and TV. If you insist on carrying
a handgun inside your waistband, which is probably the most insecure &
dangerous way of concealing a handgun, consider an *inside the
waistband holster*. They exist.

http://www.galcogunleather.com/walka..._8_7_1336.html


For my two carry weapons (I only use one at a time) I have three types
of holster:
1: A handmade belt loop holster made by Andy Aratoonian an English
leather artist who makes his holsters one at a time, and has a nine
month backlog on filling orders.
http://www.holsters.org/covert_22-holster.htm

2: A less exclusive Galco *Paddle* holster which is a grab and go rig
and both my Kimber and Glock live in one of these.
http://www.galcogunleather.com/ccp-c..._8_5_1054.html

3: Then there is the one I seldom use these days, and was only used
when there was a specific need at work, a *Small of Back* SOB holster
which makes a good concealed carry holster, with a few drawbacks. For
one, you don't want to use one of those if you are going to be sitting
in a car any length of time.
http://www.desantisholster.com/S-O-B-SMALL-OF-BACK

And there is always this model, made for those with double-digit IQ
scores...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...un-waistband-n
131666

On 6/17/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/17/2014 12:14 PM, George Kerby wrote:


snip



Whiskey does not discern between long arms and handguns...


Many gun owners enjoy regular short arms inspections.

;-)