The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Neil Harrington on 29 Sep 2009 10:41 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:kke3c55qr6117r0vmt1qb9fgjsv6j73949(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:44:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> >>"frank" <dhssresearcher(a)netscape.net> wrote in message >>news:9df306e6-ac35-44d6-af9d-f285d4f89483(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... [ . . . ] >> >>Be sure to write the first time you encounter a CHP officer with your >>idea that you have an inherent right to carry a concealed weapon >>without a permit. I'd be interested to see how that plays out. >> >>I have spent many happy hours arguing exactly that with California Police >>officers......My wife's grandson-in-law happens to be one. In many cases >>they agree with my position on the matter. It's the supreme court >>decisions >>that have disagreed with me. But the wording of the second amendment is >>easily interpreted by anyone who understands English, and many intelligent >>people (including some policemen) agree with me on this. > > I forget - did you mention which well-regulated militia you were in? In the U.S., "militia" has a somewhat different meaning than it does in most other countries. "Militia" is legally defined as both the *organized* militia (National Guard, etc.) and the *unorganized* militia (essentially, all male citizens of military age). This has always been part of the federal code and it still is, up to the latest revision in 1970, I believe. The modifying expression "well-regulated" can be taken to mean almost anything, and as far as I know has never been defined. For example, the Militia Act of 1792 required all men of military age to own a *regulation* musket, bayonet and accouterments. Such ownership in itself might have satisfied the "well-regulated" requirement.
From: J. Clarke on 29 Sep 2009 12:44 tony cooper wrote: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:44:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> Be sure to write the first time you encounter a CHP officer with your >> idea that you have an inherent right to carry a concealed weapon >> without a permit. I'd be interested to see how that plays out. >> >> I have spent many happy hours arguing exactly that with California >> Police officers......My wife's grandson-in-law happens to be one. In >> many cases they agree with my position on the matter. > > This is the ChrisH School of Reasoning. If you know one person who > shares your opinion, that means "everyone" agrees with you. I had a police officer explain matters to me this way: "If you shoot me when I come to enforce a gun ban, I won't hold it against you." Many police disagree with some of the laws that they are required to enforce, but they do their jobs anyway.
From: Neil Harrington on 29 Sep 2009 13:09 "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message news:fI-dnVrWwvvYp1_XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2009092908424593099-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... [ . . . ] >> >> My understanding was Colt's first rifles were .44 cap&ball revolver >> actions based on the 1860 Army. Our old pals Horace Smith and Daniel >> Wesson had produced a lever action repeating pistol, the "Volcanic >> pistol". They failed as a business and the design was incorporated into >> the Henry rifle and Winchester eventually ate them up. They went their >> own way producing the first rimfire pistols in 1863. > > I thought a little earlier than that, but I could be wrong. No, I was right. Just Googled it and this source says S&W started manufacturing their first revolver in 1856: http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-wesson That's actually a bit earlier than I thought. I thought it was about 1859. But I was fairly sure that some Union officers were buying S&W Model 1s as personal weapons at the very beginning of the so-called Civil War (1861).
From: Savageduck on 29 Sep 2009 18:08 On 2009-09-29 10:09:13 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> said: > > "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message > news:fI-dnVrWwvvYp1_XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2009092908424593099-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > > [ . . . ] >>> >>> My understanding was Colt's first rifles were .44 cap&ball revolver >>> actions based on the 1860 Army. Our old pals Horace Smith and Daniel >>> Wesson had produced a lever action repeating pistol, the "Volcanic >>> pistol". They failed as a business and the design was incorporated into >>> the Henry rifle and Winchester eventually ate them up. They went their >>> own way producing the first rimfire pistols in 1863. >> >> I thought a little earlier than that, but I could be wrong. > > No, I was right. Just Googled it and this source says S&W started > manufacturing their first revolver in 1856: > http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-wesson > > That's actually a bit earlier than I thought. I thought it was about 1859. > But I was fairly sure that some Union officers were buying S&W Model 1s as > personal weapons at the very beginning of the so-called Civil War (1861). Well I am relieved to find some common ground in this current polarized mess we are living in. Who ever said guns weren't fun? -- Regards, Savageduck
From: mikey4 on 29 Sep 2009 18:28
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2009092915080580278-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2009-09-29 10:09:13 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> > said: > >> >> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in message >> news:fI-dnVrWwvvYp1_XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>> news:2009092908424593099-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> >> [ . . . ] >>>> >>>> My understanding was Colt's first rifles were .44 cap&ball revolver >>>> actions based on the 1860 Army. Our old pals Horace Smith and Daniel >>>> Wesson had produced a lever action repeating pistol, the "Volcanic >>>> pistol". They failed as a business and the design was incorporated into >>>> the Henry rifle and Winchester eventually ate them up. They went their >>>> own way producing the first rimfire pistols in 1863. >>> >>> I thought a little earlier than that, but I could be wrong. >> >> No, I was right. Just Googled it and this source says S&W started >> manufacturing their first revolver in 1856: >> http://www.answers.com/topic/smith-wesson >> >> That's actually a bit earlier than I thought. I thought it was about >> 1859. >> But I was fairly sure that some Union officers were buying S&W Model 1s >> as >> personal weapons at the very beginning of the so-called Civil War (1861). > > Well I am relieved to find some common ground in this current polarized > mess we are living in. > Who ever said guns weren't fun? > > -- > Regards, > > Savageduck > I have a 30-40 Craig as well as several handguns and I try to shot as often as I can. Target shooting, for me at least, is relaxing, like fishing; a chance to empty ones mind of the day to day BS. |