Boy, are you gonna hate this.



Zippy the Pinhead <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> On 13 Feb 2004 15:19:17 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >No skippy here - just me, Ed Dolan. You and I are on the same page.
>
> Well --- yeah...
>
> "Damn Skippy" is a bit of slanguage I picked up from Marines. (I too was a Corpsman but the Navy
> attached me to the Gyrenes).
>
> It means basically "damn right". Or as I suppose you say in Minnesota, "Yahh, shooor. You betcha".

Yeah, you bet or you betcha is about right. When I was at the Seattle VA recently being treated for
my prostate cancer I met another former Hospital Corpsman who was there being treated for lung
cancer. He also went with the Fleet Marine Force. I managed to avoid that particular catastrophe and
stayed in the Navy Hospitals all the time I was in the Navy (four extremely long years).

By the way, the movie "Fargo" really captures Minnesota very nicely as does the more recent movie
entitled "A Simple Plan". Both movies are Minnesota Gothic tales and you can clearly see why the
weather here drives us stark raving mad. I highly recommend both of these movies if anyone here is
ever the least bit interested in why I am as crazy as I am.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
David:

Ought to be a way to sue the kid's parents for their bullying. I mean, if that's the game...

One of the biggest deterents to actually using a handgun in a violent encounter is that your
financial losses, including legal fees, are likely to amount to $10,000 no matter who's at fault.
That's something of a travesty. There used to be a legal precedent that if someone broke into your
home you could use deadly force no questions asked. Now they have to do a whole forensic thing to
determine whether the perp threatened you with at least serious bodily injury or death. You aren't
allowed to use deadly force to protect property. As a result of that caveat hearings and legal fees,
as well as a long drawn out investigation that probably includes having your handgun "confiscated,"
are almost certain.

So, you use the weapon to protect your life. The cost is too high to use it for anything else. My
guess is that the "caveats" have less to do with mercy, than with providing lawyers an income.

--
--Scott
"david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I can confirm that a shotgun is a very effective detterent, just be very
> careful where you fire it.
>
> Fire it in an enclosed space and you can kiss your eardrums goodbye.
>
> My wife's uncle used to load his with rock salt for when youths used to
> scrump apples from his orchard.
>
> Of course when I was a lad scrumping apples was simply high spirits,
> these days it juvenile deliquency.
>
> I think a lot of the problems with juvenile crime today is that there
> are too many lawyers involved.
>
> To give a specific example, I lit a bonfire where I shouldn't have when
> I was young. I was walloped by the land-owner. I was walloped by the
> policeman to whom he reported it. When the headmaster of my school found
> out about it I he walloped me in front of the whole school and when I
> was stupid enough to go crying to my mother she said "you must have
> deserved it" and walloped me for getting myself into a situation that
> got me walloped. Guess who never did it again.
>
> I'll tell you how it is today. My wife was a teacher. She stopped some
> kids bullying a younger kid. They told her to F off knowing that if she
> did anything she would be sued. They told their parents, who came in and
> gave her a dressing down in front of the whole class, thus undermiming
> her authority. The education authority got involved and warned her that
> she could be sued etc etc etc.
>
> Kids aren't any better or worse than they were 30 years ago but what has
> happened is that they have been given a fantastic amount of power and no
> responsibility for wielding it.
>
>
>
> --
 
I was able to escape a wild bore attack once. It took a trip to the fridge for a cold Guinness and
a quick exit out the back door. When I came back around to the front door again, he was boring
someone else.

"david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... snip
>2. Being chased by a wild boar. Great if you want to break you previous
> best speed record. Not so great if your shorts were clean on!
>
>
>
> --
 
"harv" <harv*no_spam*@spininternet.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I was able to escape a wild bore attack once. It took a trip to the fridge for a cold Guinness and
> a quick exit out the back door. When I came back around to the front door again, he was boring
> someone else.

In all my many years of hiking in the wildernesses of America I have imagined myself being stalked
by wild animals but I have not ever been afraid. The only wild animals I have ever feared in my life
are my fellow humans who are truly capable of anything including murder.

I was once surrounded by a herd of peccaries in the mountains of New Mexico. They were cute little
creatures and I feared them not although they have a fearsome reputation. Respect is the byword when
having to deal with the natural kingdom. Carrying a concealed weapon is the byword when having to
deal with the human kingdom.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
By the time a man thinks his father may have been right he probably has a son who thinks he is wrong:rolleyes:

My thing against handguns is that I can't honestly say who I would trust to hold one. Possibly a police officer (preferably one who doesn't look young) and possibly a soldier in uniform with at least three stripes on his arm.

Human beings generally react in one of three ways to life threatening situations.
  • They panic
  • They freeze
  • A small percentage react calmly and sensibly.

My two examples will have been around long enough to stand a good chance of being in the small sensible percentage.

I have no objection to guns used for hunting or in clubs, but when tempers are running high hand guns aren't going to do anyone any favours.

On a tangent, an American, Englishman and Frenchman were arguing over the meaning of savoir faire.
The American said "It's when you come home to find someone sleeping with your wife and you don't shoot the SOB. That's savoir faire".
The Englishman said "No, its when you come home to find someone sleeping with your wife and you invite him to carry on. That's savoir faire".
The Frenchman said "Zut alors non, its when you come home to find someone sleeping with your wife and you invite him to carry on and he can! That's savoir faire".
 
"My thing against handguns is that I can't honestly say who I would trust to hold one."

And I can't honestly say who I would trust to have the vote. But it doesn't matter who I would or
wouldn't trust, because I'm not the arbiter. I live in Virginia, where once you've passed the 5-
minute background check required to purchase a firearm you can "open carry." You don't even need a
permit. As long as people can see you have a weapon, it's legal. (And most people don't even notice
that you're carrying. They're just not that observant.) It is also a "shall issue" state, where once
you've passed a more extensive background check that can take up to 45 days the state has no
discretion whatsoever about whether to issue you a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Virginia has
one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

This is right next to the District of Columbia, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the
country. If you are caught with so much as a spent .22lr cartridge in your car you can be sentenced
to six months in prison. DC has one of the highest property crime and murder rates in the country,
if not THE highest. Crime isn't caused by the presence of guns, but by other factors entirely.
However it is suppressed by a society that is legitimately armed, possibly giving enough respite
that the causes of crime can be addressed effectively and a decent social structure established that
can resist crime in the long run.

So far the Supreme Court has chosen not to take on the issue of whether the "may issue" statutes and
other restrictive and arbitrary laws against firearms in the various states violate the 2nd
Amendment. The conventional wisdom is that they do not, but I wouldn't be so sanguine about the
position the USC might take on this, once they choose to address it. The concealed carry movement
was completely unforeseen by the NRA, but has now made significant inroads in approximately half of
the states in the US. It may actually be more, but those are the ones in a discontinuous and
somewhat disorganized reciprocity network. Sooner or later this issue will go to the USC.

In my opinion the wording of the 2nd Amendment, when illuminated by the writings of the founders
themselves, is unambiguous.
--
--Scott
"david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> By the time a man thinks his father may have been right he probably has a
son who thinks he is wrong:rolleyes:
>
> My thing against handguns is that I can't honestly say who I would
> trust to hold one. Possibly a police officer (preferably one who
> doesn't look young) and possibly a soldier in uniform with at least
> three stripes on his arm.
>
> Human beings generally react in one of three ways to life threatening
> situations.
>
> - They panic
> - They freeze
> - A small percentage react calmly and sensibly.
>
>
> My two examples will have been around long enough to stand a good chance
> of being in the small sensible percentage.
>
> I have no objection to guns used for hunting or in clubs, but
> when tempers are running high hand guns aren't going to do anyone
> any favours.
>
> On a tangent, an American, Englishman and Frenchman were arguing over
> the meaning of savoir faire. The American said "It's when you come home
> to find someone sleeping with your wife and you don't shoot the SOB.
> That's savoir faire". The Englishman said "No, its when you come home to
> find someone sleeping with your wife and you invite him to carry on.
> That's savoir faire". The Frenchman said "Zut alors non, its when you
> come home to find someone sleeping with your wife and you invite him to
> carry on and he can! That's savoir faire".
>
>
>
> --
 
Originally posted by david.poole


(snip)...

My thing against handguns is that I can't honestly say who I would trust to hold one. Possibly a police officer (preferably one who doesn't look young) and possibly a soldier in uniform with at least three stripes on his arm.

...(snip)

Sadly, your trust in people seems to be based on what I personally feel are some flawed factors. You'd trust a police officer because he's undergone 14 weeks of training, some percentage of that spent on firearms training? Perhaps you haven't known a large number of police officers but they're people, much like you and I and many know comparatively little about firearms. I don't distrust them with firearms because they're officers but you might be surprised to explore the psyche of the person who desires to be a police officer. It's not because they have an overwhelming desire to help people. It's because they have an overwhelming desire to be in charge and have attention focused upon them. That's 21 years of working with them talking.

Is a soldier with stripes on his arm automatically more competent with a firearm than joe citizen with a desire to be able to counter a lethal threat should one present itself? A soldier is paid to have an interest in the weapons. A citizen's interest and competency level are determined by their own interest in self-defense, weapons, tactics and whatever else goes into the mix.

Certifications, titles, registrations and licenses don't turn incompetent people into competent ones. Train and idiot and you get a trained idiot.

Your concerns are valid but experience and history suggest that the average person is more than competent enough to carry a firearm. I live in a state which passed a concealed carry law over a decade ago. I remember several people, (politicians and police officers among them), predicting "blood in the streets". It's has been a very calm and quiet decade plus since CCW permits became available to the public.

I applaud you for caring enough to be concerned and for having the intelligence to explore the issue further, (which I assume you're doing through this thread). But, as Freewheeling already pointed out, states/areas where the citizens are or may be armed are safer places to be. Studies have been carried out in prisons wherein violent offenders have been interviewed and asked about what their concerns are and what kind of laws they prefer should they continue with their criminal careers. The vast majority have bluntly stated that they prefer citizens who cannot, by law, be armed. It makes for easy victims. They have the same distrust you have of armed citizens. They're afraid they'll get shot by one and, as a result, the crime rates in every state, (in the U.S.), which has passed a permit for concealed carry, has dropped.

Disarming citizens makes for easy targets of crime. Letting them be armed scares the criminals. Certainly some crime will always continue but I prefer knowing that if there are those around me who are armed with dishonorable intentions, there are likely those around me who are also armed with honorable intentions. It doesn't make sense to give up your means of defense. Guns will never go away. But, if you create laws that take them out of the hands of good, honest people, then only bad, dishonest people will have them.
 
Thanks for giving a considered response, rather than flame mail.

They say that America and Britain are nations divided by a common language.

What I meant by trusting a policeman who doesn't look young with a fire arms is trusting someone old enough and hopefully wise enough to know when to use the firearm, and more importantly, when not to.

The police over here don't generally have firearms. Those who do are part of a special unit who are carefully selected for that duty.

The sergeant in the army thing was in a similar vein. I believe that the American marines have a soldiers prayer (unofficial) which goes something like "Lord please let me not f***up"! A good sergeant is a man who will take an officers orders and "interpret" them in such a way as to save God the bother of having to answer the prayer.

There is a phrase in the army "looking after Rupert". Historically it was extremely rare for an enlisted man to become an officer. Officers were historically came from the gentlemans class hence the phrase an officer and a gentleman. Rupert being regarded as an upper-class name.

In the recent past I have travelled through Massachusets, Pennsylvania and New York state. This summer I am looking forward to a trip to Texas and North Carolina. Hopefully I'll get some cycling done.
 
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:24:34 -0500, "Freewheeling"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[In D.C.] If you are caught with so much as a spent .22lr cartridge in your car you can be
>sentenced to six months in prison

Is this hyperbole or is it the truth? A spent 22lr cartridge?

Amazing.
 
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

> One of the biggest deterrents to actually using a handgun in a violent encounter is that your
> financial losses, including legal fees, are likely to amount to $10,000 no matter who's at fault.
> That's something of a travesty. There used to be a legal precedent that if someone broke into your
> home you could use deadly force no questions asked. Now they have to do a whole forensic thing to
> determine whether the perp threatened you with at least serious bodily injury or death. You aren't
> allowed to use deadly force to protect property. As a result of that caveat hearings and legal
> fees, as well as a long drawn out investigation that probably includes having your handgun
> "confiscated," are almost certain.
>
> So, you use the weapon to protect your life. The cost is too high to use it for anything else. My
> guess is that the "caveats" have less to do with mercy, than with providing lawyers an income.

Yes, I think you are quite right in what you say. I look upon using a deadly weapon only as a last
resort. I am just too civilized to kill someone over a bit of property. The barbarians always have
the advantage over us if all they want is our property. They are contemptible for their base desires
of course. But not everyone in society is capable of rising to the levels of a decent human being.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "My thing against handguns is that I can't honestly say who I would trust to hold one."
>
> And I can't honestly say who I would trust to have the vote. But it doesn't matter who I would or
> wouldn't trust, because I'm not the arbiter. I live in Virginia, where once you've passed the 5-
> minute background check required to purchase a firearm you can "open carry." You don't even need a
> permit. As long as people can see you have a weapon, it's legal. (And most people don't even
> notice that you're carrying. They're just not that observant.) It is also a "shall issue" state,
> where once you've passed a more extensive background check that can take up to 45 days the state
> has no discretion whatsoever about whether to issue you a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
> Virginia has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
>
> This is right next to the District of Columbia, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the
> country. If you are caught with so much as a spent .22lr cartridge in your car you can be
> sentenced to six months in prison. DC has one of the highest property crime and murder rates in
> the country, if not THE highest. Crime isn't caused by the presence of guns, but by other factors
> entirely. However it is suppressed by a society that is legitimately armed, possibly giving enough
> respite that the causes of crime can be addressed effectively and a decent social structure
> established that can resist crime in the long run.
>
> So far the Supreme Court has chosen not to take on the issue of whether the "may issue" statutes
> and other restrictive and arbitrary laws against firearms in the various states violate the 2nd
> Amendment. The conventional wisdom is that they do not, but I wouldn't be so sanguine about the
> position the USC might take on this, once they choose to address it. The concealed carry movement
> was completely unforeseen by the NRA, but has now made significant inroads in approximately half
> of the states in the US. It may actually be more, but those are the ones in a discontinuous and
> somewhat disorganized reciprocity network. Sooner or later this issue will go to the USC.
>
> In my opinion the wording of the 2nd Amendment, when illuminated by the writings of the founders
> themselves, is unambiguous.

Scott, you have persuaded me 100% of the correctness of your position. I say this so that others on
this newsgroup will know that I am not unreasonable and that I can be persuaded by cogent argument.

I notice that Imus (of Imus in the Morning on MSNBC) carries a pistol on his person and that you can
plainly see it. At first I was a bit shocked by this, but I have not gotten used to it and I am
thinking yes, everyone is safer because Imus is carrying a weapon. He is a screwball of course, but
he is more or less sane and I trust him as I do most people. Without that minimum of trust living in
society would not be possible.

I did not know about that Virginia stipulation that you had to "open carry". Is this an option or a
requirement I wonder? That is not a bad idea, although conceal and carry seems to make more sense to
me. It is the idea of not knowing who is carrying and who is not carrying that will be the greatest
deterrent to crime.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Beastt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

> Disarming citizens makes for easy targets of crime. Letting them be armed scares the criminals.
> Certainly some crime will always continue but I prefer knowing that if there are those around me
> who are armed with dishonorable intentions, there are likely those around me who are also armed
> with honorable intentions. It doesn't make sense to give up your means of defense. Guns will
> never go away. But, if you create laws that take them out of the hands of good, honest people,
> then only bad, dishonest people will have them.

An excellent post to this newsgroup Beastt. That is why I stay here because of posts like yours. I
am saving your message to My Documents and it will be ammunition for me in the future.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
david.poole <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Thanks for giving a considered response, rather than flame mail.

I only flame those who are begging for it by their odious posts.

> They say that America and Britain are nations divided by a common language.

I have been reading English literature all of my life and watching English movies too and there is
no disconnect whatsoever. By the way, the English language is the greatest language in the world
(don't judge it by how I use it) and the sooner it becomes the universal language of all mankind the
better. The main thing is to get rid of the execrable French language.

[...]

> In the recent past I have travelled through Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York state. This
> summer I am looking forward to a trip to Texas and North Carolina. Hopefully I'll get some
> cycling done.

For cycling you need to get away from the crowded sections of the US. West Texas would be good and
New Mexico would be even better.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Please! There is no hyperbole here on ARBR or in the realm of gun-control.

The finest analogy that I have recently heard is, "We should also control sports cars to minimize
the awful auto death rate. Then we could ban those horrible Ford Camaros!"

"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:24:34 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >[In D.C.] If you are caught with so much as a spent .22lr cartridge in your car you can be
| >sentenced to six months in prison
|
| Is this hyperbole or is it the truth? A spent 22lr cartridge?
|
| Amazing.
 
Zip:

Hyperbole? Check out http://www.packing.org and read the entry for DC.

--
--Scott
"Zippy the Pinhead" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:24:34 -0500, "Freewheeling"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >[In D.C.] If you are caught with so much as a
> >spent .22lr cartridge in your car you can be sentenced to six months in
> >prison
>
> Is this hyperbole or is it the truth? A spent 22lr cartridge?
>
> Amazing.
 
David:

Texas and NC are "shall issue" states. In fact if I have a permit in Virginia it's also good for NC.
If I want a permit for all the states on the east coast from Virginia south I have to also apply for
a non-resident permit in Florida. There are some shall issue states that don't have reciprocity with
anyone, like Oregon and Washington, even though other states seem to honor *their* non-resident
permits. By judiciously making non-resident applications to various states besides your own you can
be permit legal in quite a number of US states. Permit fees (really they're application fees because
you aren't reimbursed if you're denied) vary, from about $50 to around $150.

--
--Scott
"david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for giving a considered response, rather than flame mail.
>
> They say that America and Britain are nations divided by a common
> language.
>
> What I meant by trusting a policeman who doesn't look young with a fire
> arms is trusting someone old enough and hopefully wise enough to know
> when to use the firearm, and more importantly, when not to.
>
> The police over here don't generally have firearms. Those who do are
> part of a special unit who are carefully selected for that duty.
>
> The sergeant in the army thing was in a similar vein. I believe that the
> American marines have a soldiers prayer (unofficial) which goes
> something like "Lord please let me not f***up"! A good sergeant is a man
> who will take an officers orders and "interpret" them in such a way as
> to save God the bother of having to answer the prayer.
>
> There is a phrase in the army "looking after Rupert". Historically it
> was extremely rare for an enlisted man to become an officer. Officers
> were historically came from the gentlemans class hence the phrase an
> officer and a gentleman. Rupert being regarded as an upper-class name.
>
> In the recent past I have travelled through Massachusets, Pennsylvania
> and New York state. This summer I am looking forward to a trip to Texas
> and North Carolina. Hopefully I'll get some cycling done.
>
>
>
> --
 
Ed:

Concealed carry in Virginia requires a permit, but since the state is "shall issue" the permit just
costs about $50 for the application and as long as you aren't nuts or a felon it has to be issued.
Lots of states are becoming "shall issue." Check http://www.packing.org for details.

Also, even if you have a concealed carry permit you can't carry a concealed weapon into a place that
serves alcohol. However you *can* open carry, so one procedure is to simply tuck in your shirt or
remove your jacket or vest. There are a few (very few) places where you can't carry at all. The
Dulles corridor and airport is one.

You'd also better be very careful about knowing exactly where you are, and that you don't
inadvertently cross into DC or Maryland where the gun laws are very restrictive.

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > "My thing against handguns is that I can't honestly say who I would
> > trust to hold one."
> >
> > And I can't honestly say who I would trust to have the vote. But it
doesn't
> > matter who I would or wouldn't trust, because I'm not the arbiter. I
live
> > in Virginia, where once you've passed the 5-minute background check
required
> > to purchase a firearm you can "open carry." You don't even need a
permit.
> > As long as people can see you have a weapon, it's legal. (And most
people
> > don't even notice that you're carrying. They're just not that
observant.)
> > It is also a "shall issue" state, where once you've passed a more
extensive
> > background check that can take up to 45 days the state has no discretion
> > whatsoever about whether to issue you a permit to carry a concealed
firearm.
> > Virginia has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
> >
> > This is right next to the District of Columbia, which has the most
> > restrictive gun laws in the country. If you are caught with so much as
a
> > spent .22lr cartridge in your car you can be sentenced to six months in
> > prison. DC has one of the highest property crime and murder rates in
the
> > country, if not THE highest. Crime isn't caused by the presence of
guns,
> > but by other factors entirely. However it is suppressed by a society
that
> > is legitimately armed, possibly giving enough respite that the causes of
> > crime can be addressed effectively and a decent social structure
established
> > that can resist crime in the long run.
> >
> > So far the Supreme Court has chosen not to take on the issue of whether
the
> > "may issue" statutes and other restrictive and arbitrary laws against
> > firearms in the various states violate the 2nd Amendment. The
conventional
> > wisdom is that they do not, but I wouldn't be so sanguine about the
position
> > the USC might take on this, once they choose to address it. The
concealed
> > carry movement was completely unforeseen by the NRA, but has now made
> > significant inroads in approximately half of the states in the US. It
may
> > actually be more, but those are the ones in a discontinuous and somewhat
> > disorganized reciprocity network. Sooner or later this issue will go to
the
> > USC.
> >
> > In my opinion the wording of the 2nd Amendment, when illuminated by the
> > writings of the founders themselves, is unambiguous.
>
> Scott, you have persuaded me 100% of the correctness of your position.
> I say this so that others on this newsgroup will know that I am not
> unreasonable and that I can be persuaded by cogent argument.
>
> I notice that Imus (of Imus in the Morning on MSNBC) carries a pistol
> on his person and that you can plainly see it. At first I was a bit
> shocked by this, but I have not gotten used to it and I am thinking
> yes, everyone is safer because Imus is carrying a weapon. He is a
> screwball of course, but he is more or less sane and I trust him as I
> do most people. Without that minimum of trust living in society would
> not be possible.
>
> I did not know about that Virginia stipulation that you had to "open
> carry". Is this an option or a requirement I wonder? That is not a bad
> idea, although conceal and carry seems to make more sense to me. It is
> the idea of not knowing who is carrying and who is not carrying that
> will be the greatest deterrent to crime.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 

I have been reading English literature all of my life and watching English movies too and there is
no disconnect whatsoever. By the way, the English language is the greatest language in the world
(don't judge it by how I use it) and the sooner it becomes the universal language of all mankind the
better. The main thing is to get rid of the execrable French language.

[...]


I can forgive the French many things but not Gustav Flaubert or Charles de Gaulle.

I heard a quote where Mrs de Gaulle was asked what the most important thing in marriage. "A penis" she replied. "No my dear" said the general "I think it is pronounced 'appiness."

Just to keep this thread going into infinity and beyond, how are your presidential candidates shaping up. Whose **** is Tony Blair going to have to crawl up:D
 
David:

"Whose **** is Tony Blair going to have to crawl up"

That really *is* an English thing. Most folks in the US who were in favor of the Iraq War are
grateful to, and admire Blair, for making a principled stand. Most of those who were opposed to the
Iraq War barely notice that Blair was in the alliance. They're 100% focused on Bush.

--
--Scott
"david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wrote:
> > I have been reading English literature all of my life and watching
> > English movies too and there is no disconnect whatsoever. By the way,
> > the English language is the greatest language in the world (don't
judge
> > it by how I use it) and the sooner it becomes the universal language
of
> > all mankind the better. The main thing is to get rid of the execrable
> > French language.
> > [...]
>
>
>
> I can forgive the French many things but not Gustav Flaubert or Charles
> de Gaulle.
>
> I heard a quote where Mrs de Gaulle was asked what the most important
> thing in marriage. "A penis" she replied. "No my dear" said the general
> "I think it is pronounced 'appiness."
>
> Just to keep this thread going into infinity and beyond, how are your
> presidential candidates shaping up. Whose **** is Tony Blair going to
> have to crawl up:D
>
>
>
> --
 
Let's see, if I apply for a resident permit in Virginia and a non-resident permit in Florida that
makes me legal to carry concealed in a total of 25 states, or half the states in the country. That
excludes a few other "shall issue" states like Washington and Oregon, which I can add as loners. So
ultimately I could be CCW legal in a majority of states with three or four state permits.

--
--Scott
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David:
>
> Texas and NC are "shall issue" states. In fact if I have a permit in
> Virginia it's also good for NC. If I want a permit for all the states on
> the east coast from Virginia south I have to also apply for a non-resident
> permit in Florida. There are some shall issue states that don't have
> reciprocity with anyone, like Oregon and Washington, even though other
> states seem to honor *their* non-resident permits. By judiciously making
> non-resident applications to various states besides your own you can be
> permit legal in quite a number of US states. Permit fees (really they're
> application fees because you aren't reimbursed if you're denied) vary,
from
> about $50 to around $150.
>
> --
> --Scott
> "david.poole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Thanks for giving a considered response, rather than flame mail.
> >
> > They say that America and Britain are nations divided by a common
> > language.
> >
> > What I meant by trusting a policeman who doesn't look young with a fire
> > arms is trusting someone old enough and hopefully wise enough to know
> > when to use the firearm, and more importantly, when not to.
> >
> > The police over here don't generally have firearms. Those who do are
> > part of a special unit who are carefully selected for that duty.
> >
> > The sergeant in the army thing was in a similar vein. I believe that the
> > American marines have a soldiers prayer (unofficial) which goes
> > something like "Lord please let me not f***up"! A good sergeant is a man
> > who will take an officers orders and "interpret" them in such a way as
> > to save God the bother of having to answer the prayer.
> >
> > There is a phrase in the army "looking after Rupert". Historically it
> > was extremely rare for an enlisted man to become an officer. Officers
> > were historically came from the gentlemans class hence the phrase an
> > officer and a gentleman. Rupert being regarded as an upper-class name.
> >
> > In the recent past I have travelled through Massachusets, Pennsylvania
> > and New York state. This summer I am looking forward to a trip to Texas
> > and North Carolina. Hopefully I'll get some cycling done.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
>
 

Similar threads