Pointy Sticks are next

"charlie b" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LRod wrote:
> >
<SNIP>

> As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.
> Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

AH yes - then we can be like Japan where the guy on the street does not have
guns but the gangsters do . . .

<SNIP >

> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
> bullets?

Because ANY projectile could be deemed as "armor piercing" if
travelling fast enough. It's a back door way to ban everything.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>
> Crap like that pisses me off. All in the name of political correctness, people
> have checked their brains at the door. If a green woman robbed a bank, it is a
> waste of resources to stop pink or brown men in order to check them out. You
> stop green women!

Crap like that pisses me off. If a crime has been comitted police
will stop persons who phyusically resemble the suspect. That is
NOT racist profiling. Racist profiling, for example is the NJ state
police using 'black' in their profile for drug courier despite the
fact that statistically blacks were underrepresented among drug
couriers arrested in NJ.

>
> If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
> need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
> little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors. If that offends
> other middle eastern men who are innocent, so be it. Life will go on.
>

Exactly how the bomb got on board Pan Am flight 103 has never been
positively established. But as I recall one of the leading threories
is that the bomb was carried on board by a White European woman
who didn't even know she was carrying a bomb.

There is a conclusion that appears obvious to me, but some other
people seem to have a hard time with it.

--

FF

> [email protected] wrote:
>

> >
> >
> > Exactly how the bomb got on board Pan Am flight 103 has never been
> > positively established. But as I recall one of the leading threories
> > is that the bomb was carried on board by a White European woman
> > who didn't even know she was carrying a bomb.
> >
>

Then

Randy wrote:
> Actually they have determined that it was one of the girlfriends of the
> conspirators, who carried an altitude triggered bomb on board in her
> checked baggage. That is where the old, pre 9-11, questions about: has
> anyone else had control of your luggage, and did someone else pack your
> luggage came from.
>

Ok, checked baggage rather than carry-on. IIRC she was told it was a
gift she was to give someone in the US. Otherwise like I thought--
the girfriend was European, right?

I probably had confabulated that story with this one:

In 1986 a bomb was found in a false bottomed bag a pregnant
Irish woman was trying to carry onto a flight in London:

http://www.rosenblit.com/ADC_letter.htm
... hen Hindawi was arrested he revealed that he was
a paid agent for Syria and claimed that he had been
specifically instructed by Syria to romance and then
impregnate a naive woman who could be utilized as a
completely unwitting human bomb and thereby more likely
avoid detection by airport security (who then operated
according to standardized terrorist profiles). ...


--

FF

In article <[email protected]>,
charlie b <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
> bullets?

To discourage the manufacture, sale, and _use_ of *cheap* armor?

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 04:31:01 GMT, the inscrutable Lew Hodgett
<[email protected]> spake:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> The bottom line: All of this isn't about terrorism, it's about total
>> control of the public by the PTBs. (Powers That Be)
>
>So are you suggesting that these mentally deficient fish fucks really
>want total control and if they don't get will take their bat and ball
>back to their Sunday night prayer meeting where every one agrees with them?

One could only WISH that to happen, and immediately at that. ;)
I'm for a much more limited government, aren't you?

--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design

On Mon, 30 May 2005 13:32:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:08:24 GMT, Dave in Fairfax <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>> In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
>>> followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
>>> could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
>>> clubs.
>>
>>I'm more worried ... snip ... and, oh yeah, the jawbones of asses.
>
> ... and heaven knows there's no shortage of those.

Don't you need a pointy knife to separate the jawbone from the ass?

Lee

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:48:35 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Mundt
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "It had BETTER be...
>> we're both Clerics!".
>
>ROFL! I got that first time through!


Scary isn't it? Signs of a geekspent youth. ;-)




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Mundt
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "It had BETTER be...
> we're both Clerics!".

ROFL! I got that first time through!

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

The message <[email protected]>
from "mike hide" <[email protected]> contains these words:



> The English bill of rights [after which the US one was modeled] was signed
> into law around 1680.

> In it the individual had the right to bear arms for "self
> protection"......This right was overruled by the UK government based on a
> case in Dumblain Scotland 10 or so years ago

England and Scotland have different legal systems. And I take it you
meant Dunblane.

But guns had to be licensed before anyway, and only the tiniest
fraction of the population in the UK have the slightest interest in
owning a gun of any sort and those who would want a handgun are a mere
"handful".

Now, the ban on kids owning pocket knives is something that does make
life difficult for guys -- can't even buy a Stanley knife or chisel!

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:06:47 GMT, Dave Mundt <[email protected]> wrote:

> But then, I am one of those "gun nuts" who believes that
> the problem on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons
> on those planes, but, that there were too few. I suspect that
> having a few folks on the plane with CCW permits AND their
> weapons would have changed the outcome of the event considerably.

Absolutely correct. It's absolutely mind-boggling that people get in a
tizzy about the thought of - gasp - pilots arming themselves if they
choose to. Hell, we trust 'em with a plane full of people, I _think_
they can be trusted with a firearm, FFS. There seems to be a common
thread; people see the object as the threat, rather than the person
using it. It's cliche', but dammit, the machine doesn't do anything
it's not told to do. In the criminal/terrorist's hands, it's a danger
to you. In my hands, it's a danger to _them_.

Me, I'd prefer to keep our criminals and terrorists ...uneasy...

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:41:06 GMT, Badger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Niel, former 1911 (note NO suffix, it was that old) shooter, the old
> girls long gone, now a manhole cover :-(

Come on over, I've got one of those... groups about 3" at 25 yards; not
bad for GI issue everything.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:15:33 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

>> Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

> That's nonsense. *People* kill people. The gun, or the bullet if you
> prefer, is simply a tool, the implement by which the intent to kill is
> made a reality.

Right. If guns (and bullets) are for killing, I must be using all of
mine wrong. Anyone have a cite on how many rounds of ammo are produced
in the US in a year, vs. the number of murders using a gun?

>> I propose a compromise re: gun control. Everyone can have as
>> many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
>> carrying it

> Which obviously renders it useless.

Well, that's not the biggest problem - it comes down to the fact that
the criminals are already doing something illegal, and will just add a
possession crime to the other things they're doing wrong. Criminals, by
definition, _ignore laws_. That's why/because they're criminals, y'see.

>>and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
>> disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
>> have a firearm anyway.

> Easy for you to say - but it's obvious you've never been in a situation
> where you felt threatened enough to need to draw a gun. When the
> adrenaline gets pumping, it's tough to aim carefully, especially when
> there's very little time to do so.

Not to mention the above problem about criminals and laws.

>> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
>> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
>> bullets?

> Defense against
> a) criminals wearing body armor
> b) invading foreign troops
> c) our own government, should it prove a greater threat to liberty than
> the hypothetical foreign invaders in b) above
> and also in target practice, to prepare for any of the above cases.

Well, OK, but that's not the only reason. Another reason is that you
can define "armor piercing" as pretty much any rifle bullet, and many
handgun bullets. Then, you just have to outlaw "expanding, flesh
ripping bullets", and you've got everything banned.

If a criminal wants to commit a crime, they won't be dissuaded from
doing so by the fact that they're using a bullet that is or isn't of any
particular variety. Last I checked, not a lot of them are into the
intricacies of ballistics.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:58:13 GMT, BillyBob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Greetings and Salutations...
>>
><SNIP>
>> Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
>> me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
>> that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
>> However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
>> and that will never change.
>
> Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at airports
> is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our government!

Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
employed people, when all is said and done, right?

I'm just sayin... your argument sounds a lot like the people griping
about "shooting all that there money off into space", without
considering the direct and secondary benefits of space research.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:15:34 -0400, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2005 16:13:01 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
>>that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
>>employed people, when all is said and done, right?
>
> Are we saying that the government buying goods and services is somehow
> better for us than private citizens getting to spend that money
> directly?

No, I'm just saying it's not all _totally_ wasted money.

charlie b wrote:
<snip>
>
> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
> bullets?

Well, some is heavily restricted:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/armor.htm

Of the ammo that isn't restricted, which ones are you curious about?

Maybe I'm reading too much into your question, but are you
suggesting that if people can't prove that they need something, then
that's sufficent reason to ban it? I've got an awful lot of power
tools that I might not be able to prove a need for.

R,
Tom Q.
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
>> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
>> bullets?
>>
>I hope you are kidding!
>If you ban armor piecing bullets, it is just a hop skip and a jump to
>banning other gun related items.
>And then where would we be?
>

In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
clubs.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

LRod wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Since, those, who in the past have derided gun control as going after
> >the wrong probelm by asking "what are they going to ban next, knives?"
>
> Yes, I actually have said that for nearly 40 years.
>
> > The keeper of the Pointy Stick web page better take care, he may be
> >considered a violence enabler in the future.
>
> Maybe in the past. Nowadays they'll arrest him as a terrorist and
> process him under the Patriot Act (should be called the Kafka Act).
>
> --
> LRod

Get it while you can folks - The Pointy Stick Compendium Project

http://home.comcast.net/~charliebcz/PointyStick/PS1TableOfContent.html

As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

I propose a compromise re: gun control. Everyone can have as
many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
carrying it and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
have a firearm anyway. If you're worried about mulltiple
assailants then carry two or three firearms of the type and
size suggested.

Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
bullets?

charlie b
donning his Poo Suit

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
> followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
> could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
> clubs.

I'm more worried about my mechanics tools, 'specially the 3/4' and 1"
drives. My turning tools come to mind. Wood splitting equipment,
chainsaws, pry bars, and, oh yeah, the jawbones of asses.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.com

CW wrote:
> Wait till they ban rocks.

Ya know, Clint, every once in a while you say something that I agree
with whole-heartedly. This is one of those times. This PC crap has to
stop, hopefully before we're overrun by the barbarians.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.com

Mark & Juanita wrote:
> ... and heaven knows there's no shortage of those.

My thoughts exactly.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.com

Lee DeRaud wrote:
> Don't you need a pointy knife to separate the jawbone from the ass?

Geez, I usually use my 45. Or I try not to vote for them. Neither
seems to work too well though. %-(

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.com

BillyBob wrote:
> Can I see that 3/4 foot drive??????? ('specially the 3/4' )

I caught between an "Oops, my bad." and some joke about it being for
private viewing only and not by people named BillyBob. %-)

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.com

BillyBob wrote:
> In Japan the guy on the street cannot own a gun - murder is rare by guns to
> say the least - knives and all other manner of other "impliments" are used
> however - during the bubble in Japan a "agressive" realitor who could not
> get some people to move so he could sell the property killed them and ground
> them up with an industrial size meat grinder to get rid of the bodies -

See, guns don't kill people, realtors do.

Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.com

Greetings and Salutations...

On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:13:10 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>
>> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
>> department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
>> pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
>> "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
>> drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
>>
>It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
>years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
>knives, but never on the big ones.
>If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
>crimes of passion; why not?
>
>
Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
and that will never change. I think it is a far better course
of action for us to accept that, and learn to use caution and
treat dangerous things with respect, and, to find ways to build
impulse control in our citizens. That will go a lot further
towards truely making life safer for all of us.
Too...there is the problem that the last time I looked,
the criminal elements that would misuse tools as weapons are
not deterred by laws making it illegal. The danger of punishment
is simply looked upon as a cost of doing business, and, in some
cases, being caught and punished cranks up their reputations.
As for using the point or not...I, too, have been cooking
and baking for decades, and, while I might not use the point EVERY
time I pick up a knife, I have to say that I DO use it to start
cuts quite often. So...my solution, if this silly law were to
go through, and if I happened to NEED a new knife, would be to
go out to the shop, and put a nice point on it with my grinders,
etc.
Just remember that it is NOT doing anyone a favor to
wrap them in cotton wool to "protect" them from the difficulities
and dangers of life. At some point they will have to deal with
it, and, the older they are when that happens, the harder it will
be for them to adapt to the needs of the moment. Teaching folks
about the uses and dangers of a tool, and, its proper use is very
important. Also, of course, as mentioned earlier, teaching impulse
control from a very early age is vital, otherwise we will become
a herd of animals, randomly and instinctively striking out when
irritated...not dealing with other folks on a more rational
level.
Regards from the voice crying in the wilderness.
Dave Mundt

Greetings and salutations...

On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:13:10 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>
>> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
>> department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
>> pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
>> "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
>> drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
>>
>It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
>years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
>knives, but never on the big ones.
>If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
>crimes of passion; why not?
>
>
Actually, it reminds me of a time when, in a D&D campaign, one
of the players saw two guys beating the living daylights out of each
other. Being a peacemaker, she ran up to the fighters and yelled
"Stop it! This Violence is Pointless!". From the middle of the
whirlwind of fists, maces, etc, a chorus came: "It had BETTER be...
we're both Clerics!".
Now after this moment of geekiness...back to the topic
at hand...
Regards
dave mundt

Greetings and Salutations....

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:35:10 -0400, "firstjois"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Prometheus wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> Someone with whom I have never agreed in my life actually asked the
>>>> following question, "Can sharp stick control be far behind?"
>>>> wondered LaPierre's erstwhile opponent, Peter Hamm of the Brady
>>>> Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" Of course, he said this tongue
>>>> in cheek, but still ....
>>>
>What is tongue in cheek about this? My two-inch elementary school scissors
>were taken last time I went on an airplane. The ends were no more pointy
>than the non-business end of a ballpoint pen. "Dangerous" was what I was
>told. If I'd been wearing open-toed shoes would they have made me clip (or
>remove) my toenails?
>
>Josie
>
>
Now that we have had several years of these unconstitutional
collections, and, the Feds have displayed (with amazing pride) the
millions of nail files, blunt scissors and other items that they
have collected "to make travel safer", I wonder if anyone has
considered (or cares) that before 9/11 travellers were carrying
all these and more lethal items, yet, how many incidents of
folks being attacked and wounded or killed on airline flights
where there? How many flights have been hijacked by idiots
wielding blunt scissors, nail-files or zippo lighters?
But then, I am one of those "gun nuts" who believes that
the problem on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons
on those planes, but, that there were too few. I suspect that
having a few folks on the plane with CCW permits AND their
weapons would have changed the outcome of the event considerably.
I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
improve safety in America. It is also getting us used to the
idea of random searches as being acceptable and normal...part of
that slippery slope towards totalitarianism that America seems
to be on. I could be wrong, and, it could be that these
unreasonable searches and siezures have foiled a number of
hijack plots involving nail files and blunt scissors...but I doubt
it.
About the only thing that I can see that has really helped
the situation is the increased quality of the door and partition
between the cockpit and the rest of the plane. Making it impossible
(or at least very difficult) to get in there to take over the
controls goes a long way towards changing the threat of a hijacking.
The bottom line is that there was a time, not that long
ago, when travel in America was a pleasure and a recreation. Now,
though, it is a difficult chore that few folks look forewards to
getting caught up in. That, I think, is a sad fact that means
that the terrorists DID win.
Over this past Memorial Day holiday, I spent some time
meditating on the sacrifices made by so many Americans both for
this country and for countries around the world. I can only
hope that the citizens of today will, somehow, have it dawn
on them that security is not the responsibility of the government,
but the responsiblity of every citizen. We need to take back
responsibility and not push it off on the Feds, as that is the
only way America can survive and stay on a positive track.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Greetings and Salutations....
Of course, I had a thought about a paragraph
or two to add WELL after I hit the "send" button - So
here it is:

Along with everything else, there has been a
sea change in the minds of air travellers, thanks
to 9/11. For the 30 years or so of hijackings before
9/11, the rule was that the hijackers only wanted to
get someplace else...so if everyone hung tight,
the worst thing that would happen would be that they
would spend a day or so in a Havana airport. So...
for everyone, the attitude was to take it easy and
go along with the hijackers. The terrorists of
9/11, though, changed the rules completely. Now,
the attitude is that any hijacker is going to
be using the plane for a weapon...so no one has
anything MORE to lose, and, so will react
appropriately. That is an apple that one only
gets ONE bite at...and they took it, so, instead
of a plane full of passive passengers, from now
on, hijackers will be facing a plane filled with
really ticked off enemies who are not going to
let something like this happen without challenge.
Interestingly enough, though (and getting
back to the strange thought patterns of the governement
here), I just saw THIS article in TheRegister:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/fbi_opposes_air_mobiles/>
Of course, no mentions of this in AMERICAN news media
as of yet...and I will be interested to see if any is
made. In any case, I see it as yet another example
of the government callously using the events of 9/11
to promote their internal agenda of complete and total
control.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Mon, 30 May 2005 10:24:18 -0700, the inscrutable Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> spake:

>On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
>>> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
>>> bullets?
>>>
>>I hope you are kidding!
>>If you ban armor piecing bullets, it is just a hop skip and a jump to
>>banning other gun related items.
>>And then where would we be?
>>
>
> In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
>followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
>could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
>clubs.

...followed by things which could strange you, such as all rope, wire,
belts, bandanas, even long-sleeved pants! The horrors!


------------------------------------------------------------
California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake
--------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:43:11 GMT, Badger <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Badger wrote:
>> Hummm, I'm in the UK, more correctly B Liars "Ban'd-It" Cuntry.
>> Shopping malls have started banning anyone wearing baseball caps,
>> hoodies and the like.
>> Yoofs now carry golf clubs (and a ball in their pocket) when out and
>> about, baseball bats being a direct incitement to get arrested by the
>> police....
>> Handguns, or more correctly E.U. defined "small firearms" are now banned
>> except for a very few exceptions, even though the rest of europe still
>> has them though now licenced and the Republic of Ireland has started to
>> allow them for target shooting again!
>>
>> Niel.
>
>I should have added:
>
>The "false and designing" man of the 1990s, Tony Blair MP, who got
>himself elected as Prime Minister in part by scapegoating 57,000
>innocent law-abiding people for the crimes of one madman in his speech
>at the 1996 Labour Party Conference.

For those of us not in the UK, what's the 2 sentence summary of said
event and what law was passed against the 57k law-abiding people?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:22:32 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote:

... snip of some stuff I said too
> Interestingly enough, though (and getting
>back to the strange thought patterns of the governement
>here), I just saw THIS article in TheRegister:
><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/fbi_opposes_air_mobiles/>
>Of course, no mentions of this in AMERICAN news media
>as of yet...and I will be interested to see if any is
>made. In any case, I see it as yet another example
>of the government callously using the events of 9/11
>to promote their internal agenda of complete and total
>control.
> Regards
> Dave Mundt

You know, I was going to tell you that the concerns about terrorists
using cell phones on planes to coordinate with one another has been in the
US, including such places as Aviation Leak. Then I went to the web page
you cited -- you are right *that* hasn't been on any of the media outlets
here in the US. Given the anti-administration, flat out anti-US (see
Newsweek for example) bent of the press, that's pretty strange.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
> department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
> pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
> "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
> drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
>
> From a survey of several folks in the US,
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158032,00.html
>
> Since, those, who in the past have derided gun control as going after
> the wrong probelm by asking "what are they going to ban next, knives?"
> have now been justified in their line of questioning, the following should
> cause woodworkers, and particularly the woodworkers in this group,no
little
> concern:
>
> Someone with whom I have never agreed in my life actually asked the
> following question, "Can sharp stick control be far behind?" wondered
> LaPierre's erstwhile opponent, Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
> Gun Violence" Of course, he said this tongue in cheek, but still ....

The English bill of rights [after which the US one was modeled] was signed
into law around 1680.

In it the individual had the right to bear arms for "self
protection"......This right was overruled by the UK government based on a
case in Dumblain Scotland 10 or so years ago

Now only the crooks have guns which they use liberally . Since the
individual no longer is allow to have a gun, gun crimes have
skyrocketed....mjh

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:41:06 GMT, Badger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Niel, former 1911 (note NO suffix, it was that old) shooter, the old
>>girls long gone, now a manhole cover :-(
>
>
> Come on over, I've got one of those... groups about 3" at 25 yards; not
> bad for GI issue everything.
>
Thanks for the invite Dave, one day, one day....

Niel.

Pretty bad. I would have thought they would have paid special attention to a
9 foot pencil. Wasn't it a bit hard on your pocket?

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yeah, I walked on board with a 9' hardened weapon sticking out of my
> shirt pocket. That freshly sharpened pencil had passed by the keen
> eyes of a TSA inspector just minutes before.

On 2 Jun 2005 16:13:01 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:58:13 GMT, BillyBob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Greetings and Salutations...
>>>
>><SNIP>
>>> Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
>>> me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
>>> that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
>>> However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
>>> and that will never change.
>>
>> Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at airports
>> is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our government!
>
>Not defending the TSA and the "let's confiscate lighters" thinking, but
>that money was spent on either goods or services, right? So, it
>employed people, when all is said and done, right?

Are we saying that the government buying goods and services is somehow
better for us than private citizens getting to spend that money
directly? Unless we received appropriate value for the money spent
(and that is a separate discussion) then it was wasted and would have
been better spent by the taxpayers themselves.
>
>I'm just sayin... your argument sounds a lot like the people griping
>about "shooting all that there money off into space", without
>considering the direct and secondary benefits of space research.

If you assume that spending billions of dollars privately would not
have generated similar secondary benefits (note the word similar not
the same meaning it might not have gone into miniaturization or
computerization but might have resulted in other similarly valuable
new fields), then you have a valid point. Spending all of that money
on education or on advanced medical reasearch or on ocean research
during the 60's and 70's might have generated even more beneficial
scientific breakthroughs and more direct sociatal benefits than
spending it all to shoot stuff up into (and out of) the air. Might not
have, too.

Dave Hall
>

Larry Jaques wrote:

>
> The bottom line: All of this isn't about terrorism, it's about total
> control of the public by the PTBs. (Powers That Be)


So are you suggesting that these mentally deficient fish fucks really
want total control and if they don't get will take their bat and ball
back to their Sunday night prayer meeting where every one agrees with them?

Lew

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:17:36 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:06:47 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote:
>
>> I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
>>smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
>>something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
>>improve safety in America.
>
> Definitely agree with this sentiment, especially immediately following
>9/11 with all the NG troops in the airport.

You mean the ones carrying the unloaded M16s? Some of the ones I saw
didn't even bother to stuff in an empty magazine.

Lee

Lee DeRaud wrote:
>>> I'm more worried ... snip ... and, oh yeah, the jawbones of asses.
>>
>> ... and heaven knows there's no shortage of those.
>
> Don't you need a pointy knife to separate the jawbone from the ass?


With government officials, you generally use a crowbar.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]

Dave in Fairfax wrote:
> I'm more worried about my mechanics tools, 'specially the 3/4' and 1"
> drives. My turning tools come to mind. Wood splitting equipment,
> chainsaws, pry bars, and, oh yeah, the jawbones of asses.
>
> Dave in Fairfax

My recovery gear in the 4x4 is bad enough, axe, machete, crow/pry bar,
entrenching tool (a favourite weapon in the former eastern block)....

Don't think the local asses have much of a jaw bone, bunch of chinless
wonders the lot of them!

Niel.

Well said.

"Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Now that we have had several years of these unconstitutional
> collections, and, the Feds have displayed (with amazing pride) the
> millions of nail files, blunt scissors and other items that they
> have collected "to make travel safer", I wonder if anyone has
> considered (or cares) that before 9/11 travellers were carrying
> all these and more lethal items, yet, how many incidents of
> folks being attacked and wounded or killed on airline flights
> where there? How many flights have been hijacked by idiots
> wielding blunt scissors, nail-files or zippo lighters?
> But then, I am one of those "gun nuts" who believes that
> the problem on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons
> on those planes, but, that there were too few. I suspect that
> having a few folks on the plane with CCW permits AND their
> weapons would have changed the outcome of the event considerably.
> I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
> smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
> something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
> improve safety in America. It is also getting us used to the
> idea of random searches as being acceptable and normal...part of
> that slippery slope towards totalitarianism that America seems
> to be on. I could be wrong, and, it could be that these
> unreasonable searches and siezures have foiled a number of
> hijack plots involving nail files and blunt scissors...but I doubt
> it.
> About the only thing that I can see that has really helped
> the situation is the increased quality of the door and partition
> between the cockpit and the rest of the plane. Making it impossible
> (or at least very difficult) to get in there to take over the
> controls goes a long way towards changing the threat of a hijacking.
> The bottom line is that there was a time, not that long
> ago, when travel in America was a pleasure and a recreation. Now,
> though, it is a difficult chore that few folks look forewards to
> getting caught up in. That, I think, is a sad fact that means
> that the terrorists DID win.
> Over this past Memorial Day holiday, I spent some time
> meditating on the sacrifices made by so many Americans both for
> this country and for countries around the world. I can only
> hope that the citizens of today will, somehow, have it dawn
> on them that security is not the responsibility of the government,
> but the responsiblity of every citizen. We need to take back
> responsibility and not push it off on the Feds, as that is the
> only way America can survive and stay on a positive track.
> Regards
> Dave Mundt
>
>

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:21:01 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"toller" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> >[...]
> >
<SNIP>

> Yeah, neither one of *those* knives could do any damage to someone during
> a "crime of passion". Seems that someone who is angry and seeking to do
> mayhem would not be deterred by the lack of a sharp point. I can see it
> now, person in rage, rummaging through kitchen drawer, "Where are those
> points, dang it! Ah well, guess I'll just have to enroll in anger
> management instead. Sorry honey, please forgive me." Far more likely
they
> will grab one of the above and use it in a slicing motion about various
> important body parts of the victim. As the second item above indicated,
> "... have blades with a straight cutting edge and a shape similar to early
> *Japanese swords* (dating from the Nara period). ... and are truly razor
> sharp." Nope, no chance of serious damage there.
>
> I'm amazed that there are people who actually see this idea as a
rational
> response to violence. The fact that one person may not have used the
point
> in years of using chef's knives does not mean that no others do. In my
> original posting, the link indicated that there were a number of English
> chefs (recognizing of course the oxymoron in the preceding) who felt that
> this was an essential tool being taken away from them.

In Japan the guy on the street cannot own a gun - murder is rare by guns to
say the least - knives and all other manner of other "impliments" are used
however - during the bubble in Japan a "agressive" realitor who could not
get some people to move so he could sell the property killed them and ground
them up with an industrial size meat grinder to get rid of the bodies -

BillyBob wrote:
> I saw a United Captain getting a serious double check since he had (gasp) a
> pair of baby scissors (with the round tip) for trimming his moustache - of
> course once he is behind the reinforced door with the fire axe in the
> cockpit (used to chop his way out in an accident), a taser and or handgun,
> he could have attacked the co-pilot with it . . . a serious weapon to be
> sure -


Crap like that pisses me off. All in the name of political correctness, people
have checked their brains at the door. If a green woman robbed a bank, it is a
waste of resources to stop pink or brown men in order to check them out. You
stop green women!

If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors. If that offends
other middle eastern men who are innocent, so be it. Life will go on.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]

Prometheus wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> Someone with whom I have never agreed in my life actually asked the
>>> following question, "Can sharp stick control be far behind?"
>>> wondered LaPierre's erstwhile opponent, Peter Hamm of the Brady
>>> Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" Of course, he said this tongue
>>> in cheek, but still ....
>>
What is tongue in cheek about this? My two-inch elementary school scissors
were taken last time I went on an airplane. The ends were no more pointy
than the non-business end of a ballpoint pen. "Dangerous" was what I was
told. If I'd been wearing open-toed shoes would they have made me clip (or
remove) my toenails?

Josie

"firstjois" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And just snipping this all to heck - does anyone know what "Airplane
> Security" has cost us in the USA? I can't imagine. But I do donate a pair
> of school scissors to the cause every time I travel, maybe all the
security
> is worth that much.

I saw a United Captain getting a serious double check since he had (gasp) a
pair of baby scissors (with the round tip) for trimming his moustache - of
course once he is behind the reinforced door with the fire axe in the
cockpit (used to chop his way out in an accident), a taser and or handgun,
he could have attacked the co-pilot with it . . . a serious weapon to be
sure -

BillyB

"Dave in Fairfax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives,
probably
> > followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
> > could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
> > clubs.
>
> I'm more worried about my mechanics tools, 'specially the 3/4' and 1"
> drives. My turning tools come to mind. Wood splitting equipment,
> chainsaws, pry bars, and, oh yeah, the jawbones of asses.
>
> Dave in Fairfax
> --

Can I see that 3/4 foot drive??????? ('specially the 3/4' )

Banning swimming pools would save far more lives each year than
banning guns, and after all, they are not constitutionally protected,
nor could many people justify a "need" for one.


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]

And just snipping this all to heck - does anyone know what "Airplane
Security" has cost us in the USA? I can't imagine. But I do donate a pair
of school scissors to the cause every time I travel, maybe all the security
is worth that much.

Josie

Actually they have determined that it was one of the girlfriends of the
conspirators, who carried an altitude triggered bomb on board in her
checked baggage. That is where the old, pre 9-11, questions about: has
anyone else had control of your luggage, and did someone else pack your
luggage came from.

[email protected] wrote:

>
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>>
>>Crap like that pisses me off. All in the name of political correctness, people
>>have checked their brains at the door. If a green woman robbed a bank, it is a
>>waste of resources to stop pink or brown men in order to check them out. You
>>stop green women!
>
>
> Crap like that pisses me off. If a crime has been comitted police
> will stop persons who phyusically resemble the suspect. That is
> NOT racist profiling. Racist profiling, for example is the NJ state
> police using 'black' in their profile for drug courier despite the
> fact that statistically blacks were underrepresented among drug
> couriers arrested in NJ.
>
>
>>If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
>>need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
>>little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors. If that offends
>>other middle eastern men who are innocent, so be it. Life will go on.
>>
>
>
> Exactly how the bomb got on board Pan Am flight 103 has never been
> positively established. But as I recall one of the leading threories
> is that the bomb was carried on board by a White European woman
> who didn't even know she was carrying a bomb.
>
> There is a conclusion that appears obvious to me, but some other
> people seem to have a hard time with it.
>

Showing off yur soft brain again?

"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
."
> >
> It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
> years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
> knives, but never on the big ones.
> If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
> crimes of passion; why not?
>
>

Appin wrote:
>
> But guns had to be licensed before anyway, and only the tiniest
> fraction of the population in the UK have the slightest interest in
> owning a gun of any sort and those who would want a handgun are a mere
> "handful".
57,000 approx. or 0.1% of the population.
I was one of that 0.1% who had legal handguns, the ~8,000 pounds (about
$14,500 US) compensation paid for a new kitchen and half the wifes
secondhand 4x4, most of the money was for reloading gear, brass and the
like.
The 6 guns were a .22 single shot precision target pistol, .32 berreta
(uncles leaving present from H.M. gov'ts VIP protection service), S&W
66, Pre WW1 colt 1911, S&W .455 WW1 officers name engraved revolver and
a S&W .44 mag with the 8" barrel and optics barely made 1200 pounds of
the total, they returned my speedloader blocks and my 1911 compensator,
even though they have no other use.
Of course lots more people would have liked to have had handguns, but
the law put too many barriers in the way of them doing so legally.

Handguns however are not completely banned, certain historic metallic
cartridge guns, hunters/vets and others requiring the means to kill
animals can still have them. Muzzle loading guns are also still legal,
though my 3 legal and registered flintlock pistols seem to be causing
some angst to the police at the moment.

Illegal handguns however are plentiful according to some police officers
I meet.
>
> Now, the ban on kids owning pocket knives is something that does make
> life difficult for guys -- can't even buy a Stanley knife or chisel!

Can't buy, but not banned from owning, our Scouts still have pocket
knives, though some stupid people think non-locking folding blades are
suitable....Fixed or locking, you don't want it to close on YOU whilst
your using it!

Niel, also a Scout leader.

> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
> bullets?
>
I hope you are kidding!
If you ban armor piecing bullets, it is just a hop skip and a jump to
banning other gun related items.
And then where would we be?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.

As if there was any real difference in practice. That's akin to saying
it's ok to let people have hammers, but we're going to have to ban nails.

> Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

That's nonsense. *People* kill people. The gun, or the bullet if you
prefer, is simply a tool, the implement by which the intent to kill is
made a reality.
>
> I propose a compromise re: gun control. Everyone can have as
> many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
> carrying it

Which obviously renders it useless.

>and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
> disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
> have a firearm anyway.

Easy for you to say - but it's obvious you've never been in a situation
where you felt threatened enough to need to draw a gun. When the
adrenaline gets pumping, it's tough to aim carefully, especially when
there's very little time to do so.


>If you're worried about mulltiple
> assailants then carry two or three firearms of the type and
> size suggested.

Obviously making you an even easier target, encumbered by all that
hardware. No, one large-capacity semiautomatic handgun would be a much
more practical method of defending against multiple assailants.
>
> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
> bullets?

Defense against
a) criminals wearing body armor
b) invading foreign troops
c) our own government, should it prove a greater threat to liberty than
the hypothetical foreign invaders in b) above

and also in target practice, to prepare for any of the above cases.

On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:08:24 GMT, Dave in Fairfax <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
>> followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
>> could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
>> clubs.
>
>I'm more worried ... snip ... and, oh yeah, the jawbones of asses.

... and heaven knows there's no shortage of those.

>
>Dave in Fairfax



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

>
> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
> department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
> pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
> "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
> drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
>
It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
knives, but never on the big ones.
If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
crimes of passion; why not?

On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, the inscrutable "toller"
<[email protected]> spake:

>> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
>> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
>> bullets?
>>
>I hope you are kidding!
>If you ban armor piecing bullets, it is just a hop skip and a jump to
>banning other gun related items.
>And then where would we be?

Unarmed victims like the Brits and Aussies? Now that's scary.

I hope charlieb reads some books like "The Coming Anarchy", Crichton's
"State of Fear", and anything by Gary Kleck, such as "Armed--New
Perspectives on Gun Control" for a bit of perspective. I used to be
anti-handgun until I did more research on it. Talk about a lot of
propaganda to cut through before finding the truth. Michael Crichton
blows away all sorts of other false truths in his book. It's quite a
ride, and though it's a work of fiction, it is LOADED with sources for
getting to the truth.


--
If you turn the United States on its side,
everything loose will fall to California.
--Frank Lloyd Wright

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:


> Since, those, who in the past have derided gun control as going after
>the wrong probelm by asking "what are they going to ban next, knives?"

Yes, I actually have said that for nearly 40 years.

> The keeper of the Pointy Stick web page better take care, he may be
>considered a violence enabler in the future.

Maybe in the past. Nowadays they'll arrest him as a terrorist and
process him under the Patriot Act (should be called the Kafka Act).

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

In article <[email protected]>, "mike hide" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The English bill of rights [after which the US one was modeled] was signed
>into law around 1680.
>
>In it the individual had the right to bear arms for "self
>protection"......This right was overruled by the UK government based on a
>case in Dumblain Scotland 10 or so years ago
>
>Now only the crooks have guns which they use liberally . Since the
>individual no longer is allow to have a gun, gun crimes have
>skyrocketed....mjh

I very much wish that the "keep and bear arms" language in the U.S.
Constitution were more like that in the Constitution of my State (Indiana):

"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
themselves and of the State."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

If the knife is properly sharpened, which it should be so as to negate the
need for a point to beging a cut, it would be a savage weapon in a crime of
passion. African nations with strong gun laws and few guns have seen
machetes used to hack people to death. Where there is a will there is a
way. Blugeoning by toaster or electric can opener would be better? We are
an ingenious species and will use whatever is at hand.


"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
> > department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
> > pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
> > "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
> > drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
> >
> It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
> years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
> knives, but never on the big ones.
> If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
> crimes of passion; why not?
>
>

toller wrote:

>
>>
>> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
>> department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
>> pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
>> "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
>> drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
>>
> It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
> years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
> knives, but never on the big ones.
> If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
> crimes of passion; why not?

One normally uses the edge of the saber, not the point. And a skilled hand
with the saber can make anyone not similarly armed or wearing armor messily
dead in about 5 seconds.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

charlie b wrote:

> LRod wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Since, those, who in the past have derided gun control as going after
>> >the wrong probelm by asking "what are they going to ban next, knives?"
>>
>> Yes, I actually have said that for nearly 40 years.
>>
>> > The keeper of the Pointy Stick web page better take care, he may be
>> >considered a violence enabler in the future.
>>
>> Maybe in the past. Nowadays they'll arrest him as a terrorist and
>> process him under the Patriot Act (should be called the Kafka Act).
>>
>> --
>> LRod
>
> Get it while you can folks - The Pointy Stick Compendium Project
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~charliebcz/PointyStick/PS1TableOfContent.html
>
> As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.
> Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
>
> I propose a compromise re: gun control. Everyone can have as
> many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
> carrying it and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
> disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
> have a firearm anyway. If you're worried about mulltiple
> assailants then carry two or three firearms of the type and
> size suggested.

Same rule for the police? After all, with all their training they should
only need one shot shouldn't they? And I guess that they should quit
teaching police the double-tap?

And I presume from your comment about size that you favor legalizing open
carry?

> Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
> should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
> bullets?

Define "armor piercing bullet" in such a way that it does not subsume the
majority of bullets.

> charlie b
> donning his Poo Suit

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

BillyBob wrote:

>
> "Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Greetings and Salutations...
>>
> <SNIP>
>> Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
>> me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
>> that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
>> However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
>> and that will never change.
>
> Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at
> airports is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our
> government!

Well, considering that any moron can figure out several ways to smuggle
weapons as or more effective than those used to implement the 9/11 attack
through airport security, yes, it's pretty much wasted if the intent is to
deter Al Qaeda or their equivalents.

> <SNIP>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Wait till they ban rocks.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
> followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
> could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
> clubs.
>
>
>
>
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:15:46 -0400, the inscrutable "firstjois"
<[email protected]> spake:

>And just snipping this all to heck - does anyone know what "Airplane
>Security" has cost us in the USA? I can't imagine. But I do donate a pair
>of school scissors to the cause every time I travel, maybe all the security
>is worth that much.

Would you like that figure rounded to the nearest billion dollars?
<sigh>


------------------------------------------------------------
California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake
--------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards

On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:50:49 -0700, Lee DeRaud <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 31 May 2005 21:17:36 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:06:47 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote:
>>
>>> I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
>>>smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
>>>something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
>>>improve safety in America.
>>
>> Definitely agree with this sentiment, especially immediately following
>>9/11 with all the NG troops in the airport.
>
>You mean the ones carrying the unloaded M16s? Some of the ones I saw
>didn't even bother to stuff in an empty magazine.
>

Yep, them's the ones.

>Lee



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 06:06:56 -0500, the inscrutable Prometheus
<[email protected]> spake:

>On the way home after work tonight, the BBC was running a story about
>attempts to ban comedians from making religious jokes, to prevent them
>from inciting riots. What are you brits doing over there? Pretty
>soon you'll all be sitting around wrapped in bubble wrap and drinking
>cold tea! :)

No, bubble wrap could cause suffocation death and tea could cause
drownings. They'll have none of that! I hope to Buddha that the USA
never becomes as PC as that. What a crock!


------------------------------------------------------------
California's 4 Seasons: Fire, Flood, Drought, & Earthquake
--------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com NoteSHADES(tm) glare guards

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
> followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
> could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
> clubs.

Hummm, I'm in the UK, more correctly B Liars "Ban'd-It" Cuntry.
Shopping malls have started banning anyone wearing baseball caps,
hoodies and the like.
Yoofs now carry golf clubs (and a ball in their pocket) when out and
about, baseball bats being a direct incitement to get arrested by the
police....
Handguns, or more correctly E.U. defined "small firearms" are now banned
except for a very few exceptions, even though the rest of europe still
has them though now licenced and the Republic of Ireland has started to
allow them for target shooting again!

Niel.

"Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greetings and Salutations....


> But then, I am one of those "gun nuts" who believes that
> the problem on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons
> on those planes, but, that there were too few. I suspect that
> having a few folks on the plane with CCW permits AND their
> weapons would have changed the outcome of the event considerably.
> I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
> smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
> something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
> improve safety in America.

> Regards
> Dave Mundt
>

Dave

You're right. after a day of shooting I had a full box of 22's in the car.
Not wanting them to spill I put the box in my briefcase and forgot it. A few
weeks later I flew from Newark to Ohare. Through security both ways with the
full box. They even did a routine nitrate check on the way back at Ohare.
Looking through the case a few days later I discovered the 22's and called
Newark security and the Newark police to report the lapse. I was told I'd
get a call back. It came 3 weeks later. I should say they have removed nail
clippers and screw driver on other flights. Makes me feel safe

Ken

"Lawrence Wasserman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:wI%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> toller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
> >> department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
> >> pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability,
saying,
> >> "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
> >> drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
> >>
> >It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for
30
> >years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
> >knives, but never on the big ones.
> >If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
> >crimes of passion; why not?
> >
> >
>
> Lets not forget that we would have to license and register the owners
> and users of grinders and sharpening devices of all types. lest they
> illegally convert round-nosed knives to pointed ones.
>

Will parliment try to hold the manufacturers of knives reponsible should a
knife be used to commit a crime? That's what NY state wants to do with guns

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "mike hide"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The English bill of rights [after which the US one was modeled] was
signed
> >into law around 1680.
> >
> >In it the individual had the right to bear arms for "self
> >protection"......This right was overruled by the UK government based on a
> >case in Dumblain Scotland 10 or so years ago
> >
> >Now only the crooks have guns which they use liberally . Since the
> >individual no longer is allow to have a gun, gun crimes have
> >skyrocketed....mjh
>
> I very much wish that the "keep and bear arms" language in the U.S.
> Constitution were more like that in the Constitution of my State
(Indiana):
>
> "The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
> themselves and of the State.

That was it's intent but they didn't feel the need to spell it out. They
assumed, incorrectly, apparently, that people's reading comprehension would
do nothing but improve over the years and a concept that was that easily
understood at the time would be crystal clear in the future.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
> And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Badger wrote:
> Hummm, I'm in the UK, more correctly B Liars "Ban'd-It" Cuntry.
> Shopping malls have started banning anyone wearing baseball caps,
> hoodies and the like.
> Yoofs now carry golf clubs (and a ball in their pocket) when out and
> about, baseball bats being a direct incitement to get arrested by the
> police....
> Handguns, or more correctly E.U. defined "small firearms" are now banned
> except for a very few exceptions, even though the rest of europe still
> has them though now licenced and the Republic of Ireland has started to
> allow them for target shooting again!
>
> Niel.

I should have added:

The "false and designing" man of the 1990s, Tony Blair MP, who got
himself elected as Prime Minister in part by scapegoating 57,000
innocent law-abiding people for the crimes of one madman in his speech
at the 1996 Labour Party Conference.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:31:24 GMT, Badger <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
>> followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
>> could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
>> clubs.
>
>Hummm, I'm in the UK, more correctly B Liars "Ban'd-It" Cuntry.
>Shopping malls have started banning anyone wearing baseball caps,
>hoodies and the like.
>Yoofs now carry golf clubs (and a ball in their pocket) when out and
>about, baseball bats being a direct incitement to get arrested by the
>police....
>Handguns, or more correctly E.U. defined "small firearms" are now banned
>except for a very few exceptions, even though the rest of europe still
>has them though now licenced and the Republic of Ireland has started to
>allow them for target shooting again!

On the way home after work tonight, the BBC was running a story about
attempts to ban comedians from making religious jokes, to prevent them
from inciting riots. What are you brits doing over there? Pretty
soon you'll all be sitting around wrapped in bubble wrap and drinking
cold tea! :)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:21:01 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"toller" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
>> years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
>> knives, but never on the big ones.
>> If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
>> crimes of passion; why not?
>
>It would also keep you from having some nasty accidents, and there are
>very nice knifes without a point, e.g
>http://www.dick.biz/cgi-bin/dick.storefront/429b3093002e0b86273f50f33609061b/Product/View/719040
>or
>http://www.dick.biz/cgi-bin/dick.storefront/429b3093002e0b86273f50f33609061b/Product/View/719055


Yeah, neither one of *those* knives could do any damage to someone during
a "crime of passion". Seems that someone who is angry and seeking to do
mayhem would not be deterred by the lack of a sharp point. I can see it
now, person in rage, rummaging through kitchen drawer, "Where are those
points, dang it! Ah well, guess I'll just have to enroll in anger
management instead. Sorry honey, please forgive me." Far more likely they
will grab one of the above and use it in a slicing motion about various
important body parts of the victim. As the second item above indicated,
"... have blades with a straight cutting edge and a shape similar to early
*Japanese swords* (dating from the Nara period). ... and are truly razor
sharp." Nope, no chance of serious damage there.

I'm amazed that there are people who actually see this idea as a rational
response to violence. The fact that one person may not have used the point
in years of using chef's knives does not mean that no others do. In my
original posting, the link indicated that there were a number of English
chefs (recognizing of course the oxymoron in the preceding) who felt that
this was an essential tool being taken away from them.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

mike hide wrote:

> The English bill of rights [after which the US one was modeled] was signed
> into law around 1680.
>
> In it the individual had the right to bear arms for "self
> protection"......This right was overruled by the UK government based on a
> case in Dumblain Scotland 10 or so years ago

Dunblane, Scotland, multiple murders of school children with multi-shot
handguns, the right to carry a firearm for self protection was
effectively removed many years before by Home Office/Police colusion in
not issuing firearms certificates for self protection, the phrase "as
allowed by law" is important here.
>
> Now only the crooks have guns which they use liberally . Since the
> individual no longer is allow to have a gun, gun crimes have
> skyrocketed....mjh

The influx of foreign criminals has accelerated it, but yes it was a
growing trend anyway. As is assualt and murder by youths who've been
"diss'd" by other yoofs and a growing number of older people.
Your safer holidaying in the states than London, let alone Manchester
(known locally as gunchester)....

Take a look at:
http://www.cybershooters.org/
Gives a better idea perhaps.

Niel, former 1911 (note NO suffix, it was that old) shooter, the old
girls long gone, now a manhole cover :-(

"Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greetings and Salutations...
>
<SNIP>
> Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
> me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
> that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
> However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
> and that will never change.

Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at airports
is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our government!

<SNIP>

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:54:09 -0400, the inscrutable "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> spake:

>BillyBob wrote:
>
>> "Dave Mundt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Greetings and Salutations...
>>>
>> <SNIP>
>>> Well, I have to say that it does not sound silly at all to
>>> me...but it DOES sound rather sinister and misguided. It is part of
>>> that continuing trend towards making life "safe" and not scary.
>>> However, the problem with that is that life *IS* dangerous and scary
>>> and that will never change.
>>
>> Gee does that mean that the $30 BILLION dollars spent by the TSA at
>> airports is wasted? I'm shocked to hear that there is waste in our
>> government!
>
>Well, considering that any moron can figure out several ways to smuggle
>weapons as or more effective than those used to implement the 9/11 attack
>through airport security, yes, it's pretty much wasted if the intent is to
>deter Al Qaeda or their equivalents.

Yeah, I walked on board with a 9' hardened weapon sticking out of my
shirt pocket. That freshly sharpened pencil had passed by the keen
eyes of a TSA inspector just minutes before.

What really pisses me off about the whole thing is that the terrorists
now know that there are many more possible ways to get caught if they
even THOUGHT of trying another passenger airline hijacking. Everybody
EXCEPT the US gov't knows that they won't try another one again for a
long, long time. Everything that has been done has been fruitless.
What a waste of taxpayer money, time, effort, and frustration.

The bottom line: All of this isn't about terrorism, it's about total
control of the public by the PTBs. (Powers That Be)

--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-
http://www.diversify.com Wondrous Website Design

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 05:52:45 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 06:06:56 -0500, the inscrutable Prometheus
><[email protected]> spake:
>
>>On the way home after work tonight, the BBC was running a story about
>>attempts to ban comedians from making religious jokes, to prevent them
>>from inciting riots. What are you brits doing over there? Pretty
>>soon you'll all be sitting around wrapped in bubble wrap and drinking
>>cold tea! :)
>
>No, bubble wrap could cause suffocation death and tea could cause
>drownings. They'll have none of that! I hope to Buddha that the USA
>never becomes as PC as that. What a crock!

It sure seems like it's on it's way some days. I remember when I was
a little kid (not so long ago, really) we had rusty steel jungle gyms
set over asphalt at school, and liked to shoot one another with bb
guns on the weekends. Imagine the lawsuits that would ensue if any of
that was still going on today.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:06:47 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mundt) wrote:

> Greetings and Salutations....
>
>On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:35:10 -0400, "firstjois"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Prometheus wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone with whom I have never agreed in my life actually asked the
>>>>> following question, "Can sharp stick control be far behind?"
>>>>> wondered LaPierre's erstwhile opponent, Peter Hamm of the Brady
>>>>> Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" Of course, he said this tongue
>>>>> in cheek, but still ....
>>>>
>>What is tongue in cheek about this? My two-inch elementary school scissors
>>were taken last time I went on an airplane. The ends were no more pointy
>>than the non-business end of a ballpoint pen. "Dangerous" was what I was
>>told. If I'd been wearing open-toed shoes would they have made me clip (or
>>remove) my toenails?
>>
>>Josie
>>
>>
> Now that we have had several years of these unconstitutional
>collections, and, the Feds have displayed (with amazing pride) the
>millions of nail files, blunt scissors and other items that they
>have collected "to make travel safer", I wonder if anyone has
>considered (or cares) that before 9/11 travellers were carrying
>all these and more lethal items, yet, how many incidents of
>folks being attacked and wounded or killed on airline flights
>where there? How many flights have been hijacked by idiots
>wielding blunt scissors, nail-files or zippo lighters?

I've said this since 9/12 -- it's just another example of the government
learning the wrong lesson and applying the wrong solution to the problem.


> But then, I am one of those "gun nuts" who believes that
>the problem on 9/11 was not that there were too many weapons
>on those planes, but, that there were too few. I suspect that
>having a few folks on the plane with CCW permits AND their
>weapons would have changed the outcome of the event considerably.

Had an event like this occurred after the founding of the country (or even
less than 100 years ago), your solution would have been that advocated by
the country's leaders. However, at that time we had real leaders who
understood that their right to govern rested in the hands of the people and
not that the rights of the people rested in the hands of the government.



> I also think that this "airport security" thing is more
>smoke and mirrors, designed more to make the citizens THINK that
>something is being done, rather than a strong effort to actually
>improve safety in America.

Definitely agree with this sentiment, especially immediately following
9/11 with all the NG troops in the airport.

>It is also getting us used to the
>idea of random searches as being acceptable and normal...part of
>that slippery slope towards totalitarianism that America seems
>to be on. I could be wrong, and, it could be that these
>unreasonable searches and siezures have foiled a number of
>hijack plots involving nail files and blunt scissors...but I doubt
>it.

That started years ago with instilling the idea that random searches were
OK in schools, getting the youngsters used to the idea that checking them
out for their own safety was a good idea. OTOH, this whole concept was
exacerbated and initiated by the actions of those from the drug culture of
the 60's who used their freedom to mask activities detrimental to our
country's youth.



> About the only thing that I can see that has really helped
>the situation is the increased quality of the door and partition
>between the cockpit and the rest of the plane. Making it impossible
>(or at least very difficult) to get in there to take over the
>controls goes a long way towards changing the threat of a hijacking.

Yep, it gives the rest of the passengers time to get to the nuts before
they can cause problems. As several instances following 9/11 showed,
although our government didn't get it, the *citizens* did get it. It
wasn't that some nutbars got on the plane with weapons that caused the
mayhem, it was the fact that citizens had been conditioned and told by
their leaders and others in authority that when in the situation of a
hijacking (or other crime for that matter), one should not fight the
criminals doing the hijacking, but submit -- that way noone, or only a few
would be hurt. The citizens figured out after 9/11 that that was a
bald-faced lie (if it ever was true), and you can pretty well rest assured
that in the future should such a stunt be attempted again, the passengers
of those planes will use whatever means are in their possession, no matter
how they have been disarmed by the government, to protect themselves and
prevent the hijackers from achieving their objective. That is what I meant
by the government learning the wrong lesson.

> The bottom line is that there was a time, not that long
>ago, when travel in America was a pleasure and a recreation. Now,
>though, it is a difficult chore that few folks look forewards to
>getting caught up in. That, I think, is a sad fact that means
>that the terrorists DID win.

I used to love flying. Now I absolutely hate it and will do whatever I
can to avoid it. Actually, I still like flying, I just hate getting to the
airplane. I'm one of those balding middle-aged white guys who seems to
get singled out for the "random" search almost whenever I fly (I think I'm
at about 75%). My theory is that they "randomly" search x number of people
like me, a few 90 year old grandmothers, some toddlers, and some elderly
people in wheelchairs so that they can search 1 person who actually looks
like a potential threat in order to avoid being accused of profiling (but
then I'm probably just being paranoid). If the trip would take 10 hours or
less to drive, I pretty much prefer to drive.

> Over this past Memorial Day holiday, I spent some time
>meditating on the sacrifices made by so many Americans both for
>this country and for countries around the world. I can only
>hope that the citizens of today will, somehow, have it dawn
>on them that security is not the responsibility of the government,
>but the responsiblity of every citizen. We need to take back
>responsibility and not push it off on the Feds, as that is the
>only way America can survive and stay on a positive track.

Yep.

> Regards
> Dave Mundt
>
>



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article <[email protected]>, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
>need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
>little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors.

Or war heros with the Medal of Honor.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/news/archives/2002_0100_foss.html

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
>department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
>pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
>"Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
>drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
>
>From a survey of several folks in the US,
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158032,00.html
>
> Since, those, who in the past have derided gun control as going after
>the wrong probelm by asking "what are they going to ban next, knives?"
>have now been justified in their line of questioning, the following should
>cause woodworkers, and particularly the woodworkers in this group,no little
>concern:
>
> Someone with whom I have never agreed in my life actually asked the
>following question, "Can sharp stick control be far behind?" wondered
>LaPierre's erstwhile opponent, Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
>Gun Violence" Of course, he said this tongue in cheek, but still ....

Ick. From the various snippets I've heard about wood harvesting in
England, it may already be a non-issue, but I can't imagine that'd
make it any easier to get a chain saw!

> The keeper of the Pointy Stick web page better take care, he may be
>considered a violence enabler in the future.
>
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

BillyBob wrote:

> "charlie b" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>LRod wrote:
>>
> <SNIP>
>
>> As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.
>> Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
>
>
> AH yes - then we can be like Japan where the guy on the street does not have
> guns but the gangsters do . . .
>
> <SNIP >

Its not much different in the UK either, the russian mafia have been and
at the moment its the turn of yet another former eastern bloc lot to run
the brothels/drug trade etc etc, killing the previous lot along the way
if they have to.....

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:45:30 GMT, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:09:41 GMT, "toller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> In a few years hence, discussing the banning for pointy knives, probably
>> followed by pointy sticks, then various pieces of sports equipment that
>> could cause blunt force trauma; say things like baseball bats or golf
>> clubs.
>>
>Wait till they ban rocks.
>

Man, if they do that, I'm in deep trouble, my house and property sit on
nothing but rocks with a little bit of dirt in between them.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> BillyBob wrote:
>
>>I saw a United Captain getting a serious double check since he had (gasp) a
>>pair of baby scissors (with the round tip) for trimming his moustache - of
>>course once he is behind the reinforced door with the fire axe in the
>>cockpit (used to chop his way out in an accident), a taser and or handgun,
>>he could have attacked the co-pilot with it . . . a serious weapon to be
>>sure -
>
>
>
> Crap like that pisses me off. All in the name of political correctness, people
> have checked their brains at the door. If a green woman robbed a bank, it is a
> waste of resources to stop pink or brown men in order to check them out. You
> stop green women!
>
> If middle eastern looking males are trying to hijack or blow up jetliners, you
> need to look at middle eastern males. Don't waste my tax money shaking down
> little old ladies or airline captains with mustache scissors. If that offends
> other middle eastern men who are innocent, so be it. Life will go on.

Back in the 80's when a gulf air jet was "lost" over the desert I spent
several weeks at heathrow searching cabin crew and the bags for that
airline, one captain was so up for it he insisted on strip searches for
all the crew, including himself!
The females were searched by female security, but inductive metal
checked by me (after dressing again), we never quite had a handle on
what to do if we got a positive detection, secreted grenades or small
handguns in body cavities were not unknown even then....

On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:15:42 -0400, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:
> toller wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
>>> department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
>>> pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
>>> "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
>>> drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
>>>
>> It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
>> years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
>> knives, but never on the big ones.
>> If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
>> crimes of passion; why not?
>

HAH! EVERYONE knows that the best stabbling knife is the boning knife,
which MUST be pointy.

In article <[email protected]>,
toller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> As many of you may be aware, (from the "you can't make this stuff up
>> department"), several physicians in England are advocating that "long
>> pointy knives" be banned from the general public's availability, saying,
>> "Government action to ban the sale of such knives," they wrote, "would
>> drastically reduce their availability over the course of a few years."
>>
>It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
>years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
>knives, but never on the big ones.
>If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
>crimes of passion; why not?
>
>

Lets not forget that we would have to license and register the owners
and users of grinders and sharpening devices of all types. lest they
illegally convert round-nosed knives to pointed ones.


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]

"toller" <[email protected]> writes:


[...]

> It is not "quite" as silly as it sounds. I have used chef's knives for 30
> years and have never used the point; occasionally on one of the smaller
> knives, but never on the big ones.
> If the point serves no purpose, and eliminating it would prevent a few
> crimes of passion; why not?

It would also keep you from having some nasty accidents, and there are
very nice knifes without a point, e.g
http://www.dick.biz/cgi-bin/dick.storefront/429b3093002e0b86273f50f33609061b/Product/View/719040
or
http://www.dick.biz/cgi-bin/dick.storefront/429b3093002e0b86273f50f33609061b/Product/View/719055

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

"toller" <[email protected]> writes:


[...]

> If you ban armor piecing bullets, it is just a hop skip and a jump to
> banning other gun related items.
> And then where would we be?

Totaly in the unsafe region. You'd be absolutely screwed up if a moron
came down on you with his tank and you unable to get him with you DU
ammo firing gun...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:21:01 +0200, Juergen Hannappel

[...]

>>It would also keep you from having some nasty accidents, and there are
>>very nice knifes without a point, e.g

[...]

> important body parts of the victim. As the second item above indicated,
> "... have blades with a straight cutting edge and a shape similar to early
> *Japanese swords* (dating from the Nara period). ... and are truly razor
> sharp." Nope, no chance of serious damage there.

See? No point in this discussion...

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

CW wrote:
> Wait till they ban rocks.


They will never ban rocks. Otherwise Parliament would have nothing to stuff
their heads with to avoid that "hollow" sound when you thump them.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[email protected]

Larry Jaques wrote:

> One could only WISH that to happen, and immediately at that. ;)
> I'm for a much more limited government, aren't you?

It depends.

Gov't creates the environment that either allows society to flourish or
collapse from lack of proper care.

Gov't is also a lot like making sausage, very messy business.

Right about now, the country could use a good dose of Harry Truman, but
unfortunately, one isn't available right now.

Lew