New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 2 Aug 2006 17:44 John Woodgate wrote: > > In message <u6t1d2pp82griqp2q4rt96eukqpr6ihcb7(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 2 > Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes > > >Somehow, I got you confused with "tapwater". > > You can't tell the difference between a fictitious stuffed donkey and > tap water? (;-) > -- > OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk > 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. > > John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK You haven't been back long enough to meet the latest round of trolls, etc... -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 2 Aug 2006 17:52 On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:40:08 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:15:04 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >>"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >>> Eeyore wrote: >>> > >>> > Phat Bytestard wrote: >>> > >>> > > Yes. Our "civil militias" arm themselves with legal firearms, not >>> > > military hardware. >>> > >>> > Rubbish. 'Military hardware' is legal under your clueless firearms regulations. >>> > >>> > Graham >>> >>> Since when? I want a B52 fully equipped with nuclear warheads, and >>> enough fuel to reach Europe, if it is. >> >>Automatic assault weapons are certainly legal. >> >>Graham > >Possession of an automatic weapon (or a bazooka, or explosives, or a >sawed-off shotgun) is a Federal felony here. My neighbor here fires a number of fully automatics he owns every few days when the weather is good. It's legal, or certainly seems to be because I called the local police department about this situation and was told so. But you need an ATF license and, I believe, the weapon must already be in circulation or else you must be the manufacturer of it (here, see [27 CFR 479.62-66 and 479.84-86]). They aren't cheap. But they are available, as I gather it. Also, [26 U.S.C. 5845] discusses the types of firearms that must be licensed and this specifically _includes_ machine guns, silencers, anti-tank guns (classified over caliber 50, I think), bazookas, mortars, and so on. Note also that if the machine gun was lawfully registered and possessed before May 19, 1986, it may be transferred by an approved ATF Form #4, [18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2), 26 U.S.C. 5812]. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ Jon
From: Eeyore on 2 Aug 2006 18:02 John Fields wrote: > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:22:17 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >A former pet, whose behaviour had improved somewhat since George's > >father gave up ownership. > > --- > Between periods of malevolent behavior, a rabid dog remains a rabid > dog. The US shouldn't have got into bed with one in the first place then ! That's one of many problens with your ' my enemy's enemy is my friend ' foreign policy. Graham
From: Eeyore on 2 Aug 2006 18:03 Don Bowey wrote: > On 8/2/06 1:32 PM, in article 4jcgfhF7b5jsU1(a)individual.net, "Dirk Bruere at > NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Especially when it has become apparent that the way the military is > > being used in both arenas has done nothing except increase and > > strengthen terrorist orgs. > > I disagree. I believe what it has done, however, is to cause the terrorist > organizations to focus their resources such that there *appears* to be more. > But with skill and some luck, the appearance should appear as smaller and > smaller. You don't understand much about 'freedom fighters' do you ? Graham
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 2 Aug 2006 18:29
Eeyore wrote: > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> On 8/2/06 1:32 PM, in article 4jcgfhF7b5jsU1(a)individual.net, "Dirk Bruere at >> NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Especially when it has become apparent that the way the military is >>> being used in both arenas has done nothing except increase and >>> strengthen terrorist orgs. >> I disagree. I believe what it has done, however, is to cause the terrorist >> organizations to focus their resources such that there *appears* to be more. >> But with skill and some luck, the appearance should appear as smaller and >> smaller. > > You don't understand much about 'freedom fighters' do you ? Maybe a list of all guerilla/terrorist/freedom-fighter orgs that have been defeated militarily would be in order. I can only think of one, which was the Communist insurgency in British Malaya. Only took (IIRC) about 15yrs. Also, the number of such orgs that have been defeated militarily by forces external to their own nation, within that nation. Dirk |