I do not. It is relevant, but I think the interpretation of parts of
it is totally off. Specifically the ignoring of the well regulated
militia.

and

> Admit that you think the
> constitution is archaic and should be ignored.  At least then I would know
> not to waste my time in discussion.

That is utter crap. That is a totally inaccurate and taking things to
a ridiculous extreme. As much as if I said that you wanted everyone to
be armed with mass bloodletting every Wednesday at 3pm. You know
better than that.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sorry should say "isn't something easy".
>
> Also, Larry could you please answer the last legal question I asked you.
> Answer it honestly, even to yourself.  Admit that you think the
> constitution is archaic and should be ignored.  At least then I would know
> not to waste my time in discussion.
>
> With out the baseline foundation of the constitution we don't have common
> grounds to even debate the laws suggested, as without the constitution the
> government could do lierally whatever the hell it wanted.
> On Jan 10, 2013 1:52 PM, "LRS Scout" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I've heard this was a problem in the 70s and 80s, but have never seen it
>> myself.  I'm an expert rifleman, you don't do that without single aimed
>> shots, and proper BRM, breathing, site picture and squeeze.
>>
>> You know as well as I do that real shooting is something easy and takes
>> training and practice.
>> On Jan 10, 2013 1:44 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My own opinion is that I've never liked the spray and pray approach I
>>> experience when on exercise with the US military (this is when I was
>>> with the Canadian Forces - at NATO Reforger and Able Archer). Our own
>>> emphasis was on "musketry" and aimed suppression fire. A very
>>> different approach.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Bruce Sorge <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > That was more if a rhetorical statement and was not pointed at you Tim.
>>> >
>>> > Sent from my iPhone 4S.
>>> >
>>> > On Jan 10, 2013, at 1:01 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> I know this man, I speant a couple of years in weapons squads in the
>>> 82nd
>>> >> and the 29th.  Yes the crew served weapons are our most casualty
>>> producing
>>> >> weapons.  That doesn't really pertain to our current discussion
>>> however as
>>> >> legal machine guns have been used in exactly 1 crime since the
>>> inception of
>>> >> the NFA in the 30s.  Beofre that you could mail order them.
>>> >> On Jan 10, 2013 12:42 PM, "Bruce Sorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That's why we have machine guns. To spray the enemy and keep their
>>> heads
>>> >>> down.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sent from my iPhone 4S.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I'm saying that yes, a capable man with a 10 shot bolt gun with
>>> optics
>>> >>> can
>>> >>>> do far more damage than someone with a 30 round semi-auto.  Trained
>>> >>> people
>>> >>>> don't spray and pray, we fire single aimed shots at point targets,
>>> and
>>> >>> with
>>> >>>> a bolt action 300 win mag you can tap people near a mile away,
>>> through
>>> >>>> armor.  Something you certainly could never do with that AR.
>>> >>>> On Jan 10, 2013 12:10 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" <[email protected]>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> So you're telling me that someone with a single shot bolt action
>>> rifle
>>> >>>>> can do as much damage as an AR-15.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Trained rifleman late 19th century using such a rifle (Martini-Henry
>>> >>>>> Rifle for instance) could fire around 10-20 rounds per minute on a
>>> >>>>> good day. A bushmaster in the hands of someone with minimal training
>>> >>>>> is anywhere from 45 to 120 rounds per minute.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> BTW that chart I noted previously showed that even though Canadian
>>> >>>>> firearms laws became increasingly more restrictive, the homicide
>>> rate
>>> >>>>> by other means remained relatively stable or even declined.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> It's funny, Larry mentioned several failed states and genocides
>>> >>> earlier.
>>> >>>>>> However if you look to sme of the very incidents he mentions you
>>> see it
>>> >>>>> is
>>> >>>>>> a person with a motive that kills, not the gun.  How many hundreds
>>> of
>>> >>>>>> thousands, even millions, were killed, tortured and disfigured with
>>> >>>>>> machetes?  How many would still be alive today if they had an AK
>>> under
>>> >>>>> the
>>> >>>>>> bed and a pistol on the night stand?
>>> >>>>>> On Jan 10, 2013 11:42 AM, "Jerry Barnes" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> "Gun control works if it's area wide.....country wide......it
>>> hasn't
>>> >>>>>>> worked in
>>> >>>>>>> America because it's isolated."
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Maybe we should mimic Mexico's gun control program.  It's
>>> nationwide
>>> >>> and
>>> >>>>>>> very restrictive.  Works great.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> J
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> -
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to
>>> achieve
>>> >>> the
>>> >>>>>>> national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a
>>> >>>>> civilian
>>> >>>>>>> national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong,
>>> just
>>> >>> as
>>> >>>>>>> well-funded. - Barack Obama
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359945
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to