CS: Misc-instant incapacitation
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do my chickens thrash about when I have severed the spine? They thrash their wings for up to a minute, with considerable force, despite the complete severance of the spine. Steve, Good point. Looking about it from the head end, there is a story from the French Revolution where a prominent scientist who had been condemned to death on the guillotine decided to make the most of it in the interests of science. He arranged for his assistant to count the number of time he could blink his eyes when the deed was done. It was 16 IIRC. Regards, John Hurst. -- But I dare say he couldn't pull the trigger on a pistol. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Crime-Getting the guns off the street!!
From: "Tim Jeffreys", [EMAIL PROTECTED] A police source said they found "enough weapons to start a war" at the semi-detached cottage I seem to recall that some rather large dust-up in 1914 was largely started by a young chap with one pistol... Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Target-Gallery Rifle power limits
From: "D.F.Mallard", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vince Steve According to TAS Warminster drawing SDS 003 Centrefire Pistol NDA Range, the ammunition limitations are: Max calibre 0.455 inch Max muzzle velocity 1675 feet/sec Max muzzle energy 1496 foot/lbs Hope this helps. Mally Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-The march in March
From: N J Francis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simply because people _want_ something banned is never a particularly good reason to ban something. There must be a _reason_ to ban it. As the handgun ban amptly demonstrated. There was no sensible reason to ban them so not surprisingly it didn't work. Up to now its worked. There have been no more massacres with legal pistols. Pistols weren't banned to reduce gun crime. They were banned because for the second time in 10 years somebody took a legally held gun and killed a load of people with it. It was political appeasment, a gesture, a safeguard to make sure it would not happen again. After Dunblane the public's perception of shooters was rock bottom - it could not have got any worse. People were not bothered about the guns the criminals had - they were not the ones killing 16 kids in a school. As weak as the BSSC are as a shooting body they did have a point about keeping a respectful silence. The last thing a greiving public want is a bunch of gun nuts prattling an about the right to shoot their 'toys' after 16 kids went to school and got massacred by a gun nut. Whether it is liked or not PR is very important. Unfortunately from recent posts it seems that lessons have still not been learned here. --- Neil Francis Trowbridge, UK -- I've got to say I think you're totally wrong on the last point, silent for a couple of weeks afterward, okay, but eight months? Don't write to the Inquiry? It was totally stupid. Banning handguns was a political decision, not Cullen's decision, we needed to make a noise then, and if it ever happens again we need to make a noise _immediately_. Maybe people would get upset - who cares? People get upset about lots of things, should we sit back and let them come to an emotionally based kneejerk decision without a comment? Do you think you can change the minds of the public without treading on a lot of toes? And what precisely had we got to lose, exactly? Our credibility? We were being compared to a mass murderer! Our sport? If we lost the argument, the outcome would have been a ban regardless! I can think of 57,000 people who were a hell of a lot more upset than your average member of the public! And while it may be plausible to argue that the tories intended the handgun ban to be about stopping offences with legal guns, certainly that is not the case with Labour, read Hansard if you don't believe me. Read that press release from 27/2/98 about taking handguns "off the streets". Labour made the point repeatedly that a ban on handguns would reduce the number of guns criminals could steal and use in crime. And the only effect appears to have been to strengthen the channels of the black market, thereby making handguns more available to criminals, not less. I used to work in PR and I know a balls up when I see one, BSSC made one. Certainly some members of shooting organisations I spoke to were of the opinion that handguns would be banned anyway, so it made more sense to stay quiet and simply argue the technicalities of any ban so it only affected target shooters. If you look at BSSC's position from that standpoint, it starts to make a lot more sense. I have to say I have much greater faith in the Campaign for Shooting, because they have advertised in all the gun magazines, including Target Sports, and I get the impression they know that selling out one segment of the sport hurts all the others. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-The march in March
From: Neil Francis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] As over 75% of people in the UK cannot stand the silly game of Foot Ball Completely and utterly incorrect. You have just made this statistic up haven't you? - Neil Francis Trowbridge, UK - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Target-Head stamp Markings
From: Pete Ansbro, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can someone kindly identify these markings for me please? RORG (Royal Ordnance something or other?) 89 (or possibly 68 but unlikely) A circle containing a cross of St George I'm guessing it to be a military .223 case. TIA Pete -- Standard military brass. The cross in the circle is not a cross of St George, it is the NATO standardisation symbol. RORG means Royal Ordnance Radway Green, they changed it from "RG" when the powder type was changed as I recall. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-The march in March
From: "matthew.wright7", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Re. Richard and Neils comments: Why do the scruffy ordinary Joes always following on foot or in their cars. Why are the scruffy ordinary Joes never riding to the hounds? I put it to you the scruffy ordinary Joes would soon go find something else to follow, hence fulfilling their 'follower' needs. So banning hunting would only effect the 'toffs' that the original poster remarked on. This hardly constitutes an objective argument. Most hunting is on foot and most people who hunt are ordinary, but frankly it doesn't matter whether people are ordinary or toffs. Nor does it matter if they are "followers", as everybody follows one interest or other. There are toffs in fishing and shooting as well, yes they can be annoying, but any law that banned something because of labelling one section of the community would be unjust and an abuse of power suggesting a potential threat to everyone from the Govt. If hunting is not cruel, why then am I prosecuted if I set a pack of large dogs onto a smaller, solitary dog? The question of cruelty does not follow from this argument. The organised hunting of any domestic dog by any method including guns would lead to prosecution. Wild animals can be hunted by a variety of methods so long as they comply with commonly realted ethics. The fox, as the Burns Inquiry says, is killed in seconds by hunting. We can aslo hunt animals with hawks and there is little difference. All that the Hunting Bill really can be said to be doing is simply extending to wild mammals the protection that domestic mammals have enjoyed since before the Kaiser's War. There is a clear distinction between domestic animals and wild animals in a whole range of matters. I also believe that yes, hawking is also cruel. Interesting, so falconry would be banned if you had your way. Our ranks reduced further in stages. Exactly the game the antis are playing because they know some people don't complain until its their turn. I shall also not be going to the march in March. Why? Because I am not one of those who wish to see my sport - live quarry shooting - hijacked as "marching fodder" by the houndsports lobby.. Many shooters I speak to recognise clearly the risks to shooting and the trends against all fieldsports and are asking to be on the march. They are not being hijacked by anyone. whilst almost every day I am subject to hearing or reading letters from the red coated fraternity in my local press justifying their method of "fox control" because "shooting is cruel"! Suprisingly I agree - anyone that tries to justify their pursuit by demeaning another are not fit to be in our ranks. We heard target shooters doing the same to other target shooters. People should develop informed arguments from knowledge of sports. The point is that any method is likely to be cruel if it is poorly used, including shooting. Illogical bans that prevent a mixed set of management methods make the likelihood of cruelty greater. You cannot equate a natural kill by an animal with what is basically a human sport with rules, conventions and a yearly fixturekilling animals in a sporting or gaming environment for fun is something that high order civilized societies should not partake in. Humans create symbols and routines for everything they do and also the skills they enjoy they take pride in doing properly. This is true also of shooting, fishing, falconry etc as well as hunting. There is a balance between man still being part of nature, thus undertsanding and conserving it, and him having a level of civility. To be divorced from nature is not possible nor would it help nature. The use of close seasons and other conventions in hunting, shooting and fishing reflect this balance. It is a civilising force and something to be proud of and this is a component of enjoying a fieldsport. Is it not evidence itself that there is no "hidden agenda" against shooting that the Government itself has modified the Hunting Bill specifically to remove any risk of deer stalking with dogs being "caught" in the Hunting Bill? Not really no. .the "rules" of fox hunting by mounted packs are concerned with prolonging the hunt and thus seeing hounds "work" and not with controlling foxes. You stereotype hunting and misinform, possibly that is why you hedge your comment with "mounted packs". Arguably most hunting occurs on foot, especially in Wales, it is often hard work, most often the fox takes some finding and then most often there is a realtively short chase and the fox gets away or is killed. If it goes to earth it is bolted and shot. It goes without saying that I haven't been fortunate enough to follow every pack but those I have followed do not subscribe to your description. Other than that you criticise people enjoying hounds but people also enjoy fishing and shooting. Why shouldn't they? When it becomes not a "necessity" to either kill vermin or an edible quarry species but a "pleasure"
CS: Target-Gallery Rifle power limits
From: Peter H Jackson, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vince, From the Y2k Bisley Bible, rule 165: Calibre .23" to .455", MV 2,150 ft/sec and ME 1,496 ft lbs, (same as the Army limit for outdoor c-f pistol ranges). Rgds, Peter. www.jacksonrifles.com Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-The march in March
From: "Andrew Chastney", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why have you never ridden? Because a serious accident I was involved in years ago has left me incapable of sitting with my back unsupported for anything more than a few minutes without debilitating pain. Whether it's a saddle, a stool or a bale of straw makes no difference. As a result the majoritty of the 'hunting' I do is for hares, either following beagles or basset hounds, or else coursing. Why do the scruffy ordinary Joes always following on foot or in their cars. Why are the scruffy ordinary Joes never riding to the hounds? Obviously I can only speak for those that I am acquainted with. Some of their reasons are as follows - # Don't like horses # Too old still to be riding # Like riding but don't like jumping # Horse injured, in foal or otherwise temporarily out of action # Horse been stolen and can't afford to replace it # Inexperienced rider and don't feel sufficiently confident # Tried it but prefer to be on foot because you can see more of the actual hunt that way And my milkman falls into both camps. He doesn't like being mounted when there's a big field out, so he's on horseback - looking very smart - at the midweek meetings which tend to be quieter, but on a Saturday when there are a lot more people out, he's in his car wearing his scruffy old jeans. And of course there are dozens of packs of hounds where _none_ of the followers are mounted, even if they would like to be. All the beagles, basset hounds and minkhounds for starters, plus all the foxhunting footpacks from Wales and the fells. I put it to you the scruffy ordinary Joes would soon go find something else to follow, hence fulfilling their 'follower' needs. So banning hunting would only effect the 'toffs' that the original poster remarked on. The implication that banning hunting won't affect footfollowers is completely untrue. I know scores of 'ordinary' people who hunt on foot who would be every bit as devastated if their sport is banned as all pistol shooters were post Dunblane. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you are saying it's OK to legislate against 'toffs'. How do you define a 'toff' anyway? Someone who speaks with a pound of plums in their mouth? They can't help the way they speak any more than can a Geordie or a Brummie. Or is a 'toff' someone with a certain amount of money? Like Sir Paul McCartney perhaps, or maybe Carol Vorderman? Certainly not in my book. Or is a toff someone who is arrogant? I'm sure we can all think of plenty of 'celebrities' and MPs who fall into that category. Whatever a 'toff' means to you, you can't legislate against them any more than you can against blacks, gays or Jews. Andrew Chastney Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Target-Gallery Rifle power limits
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] According to TAS Warminster drawing SDS 003 Centrefire Pistol NDA Range, the ammunition limitations are: Max calibre 0.455 inch Max muzzle velocity 1675 feet/sec Max muzzle energy 1496 foot/lbs Damn! I suppose this excludes one of Peter Sarony's cute little galley rifles in 50 AE and I really fancied one of those (if only to upset Alex :-)). Kenneth Pantling -- You'd be able to use it on a rifle range though. Going by this specification most .22 Magnum loads wouldn't be allowed on a pistol range! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Target-Any old brass?
From: Norman Bassett, [EMAIL PROTECTED] You had teeth? Why, during the Great War the Germans reckoned 40% of the British Army should have been in sanitoriums because of malnutrition. Teeth? The Army chest X-rays showed NO SKELETON AT ALL with some of the men - on dissection they had a gelatinous gristle instead. Some men were so malnourished their walk was rubbery and they threw their arms around from the shoulders like TENTACLES and caught hold of things. I hope nobody thinks I'm making this up. Regards Norman Bassett drakenfels.org Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-The march in March
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] a) Just because you find something distasteful is not a good enough reason to prevent other people who happen to enjoy that activity from engaging in it. But if - say - 70% of the country find it distasteful - does it become reasonable to look at preventing that activity from being engaged in? At what time does it become good enough reason to look at? No to the first and "never" to the second. It dosen't matter how few people partake in an activity or how many people don't like it, it dosen't make it right to ban it. If you follow that line then the persecution by the Nazis was perfectly legit because the Nazis were voted in by the people who knew they had these political leanings. If someone's activties aren't harming anyone they should be restricted regardless of how much society disapproves. b) The perception that hunting is the sole preserve of the wealthy is way off the mark. Go to any meet and for every toff on horseback you'll see half a dozen scruffy ordinary Joes who are following on foot or in their car. I'm a case in point - I've been hunting for nearly twenty years yet never once have I ridden to hounds nor have I ever had much more than two brass farthings to my name. Seems to illustrate the original point I was making. Why have you never ridden? Why do the scruffy ordinary Joes always following on foot or in their cars. Why are the scruffy ordinary Joes never riding to the hounds? Many people who are not rich toffs do ride to hounds. You seem to be implying that it should be banned *because* the scuffy ordinary joes don't do it. Jonathan Laws Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Misc-The Story of The Passenger Pigeon
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hunters put the screws to a bird called the Passenger Pigeon. It went extinct about 1900. I remember reading about it as a youth in disbelief. I thought surely it couldn't have been hunters it must have been habitat loss. Being a hunter I have always felt apologetic for that loss, but only recently while watching a documentary did the size of the genocide hit me. The commentator claimed 13 billion birds were extinguished from the earth. I couldn't believe it. I must have mis-heard him. No army could pull the triggers that many times. It was impossible. Hunters were re-deemed. It must have been some other force that committed that evil. I decided to do some research to discover the truth about the Passenger Pigeon genocide. The following facts are list relevant and, in my opinion, about as interesting as anything gets, but I'll understand if you yawn and hit the delete key, however, you won't learn about "stool pigeons" or the original "trap shooting" or ... Its highly condensed knowledge, I assure you. Their name was derived from the French word meaning pigeons of passage. And pass they did indeed, in staggering numbers sometimes reaching 2 BILLION BIRDS IN A SINGLE FLOCK (beak to tail in a single line that 2 billion birds would have stretched around the world 23 times). That single flock closed over the sky horizon to horizon like "a giant eyelid" eclipsing the light and all the while flying in near perfect unison at 60 mph. Despite their speed they took three days to pass a given point. A virtual poop sleet storm traced their movements over the ground. Close your eyes and imagine the sheer majesty of that sight and sound. God, I wish I could have seen and heard that, I surely do. They were MORE NUMEROUS THAN ALL THE OTHER NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS COMBINED, an estimated FIVE BILLION birds right here in the good old USA, not Africa, not India or China but right here in our own back yards. The MOST ABUNDANT LAND BIRD ON THE PLANET. Let that number sink in a minute. In contrast, there are only about 100 million ducks in the USA right now. There were fifty times that number of pigeons. I am not sure where the 13 billion figure came from. I believe it to be some kind of total figure of birds over a number of years, but I have no data to back that theory up as yet. The 5 billion seems to be the correct value for total peak population. Loss of habitat or natural disasters played only a minor part in their demise. By far the greatest cause of their extinction was slaughter from hunting and netting. EUROPEAN SETTLERS TOOK ONLY ABOUT 50 YEARS TO WIPE OUT THE MOST NUMEROUS SPECIES ON EARTH AND HUNTING PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE. As the species neared extinction the zeal to kill increased (do we have a list psychiatrist to explain that phenomena?); i.e., the last remaining flock of 250,000 birds was killed by shooting in (guess how many days.. ) ONE SINGLE DAY, yes one single day brought them to the brink (only 5,000 survived that day) thanks to the inventions of the telegraph and the railroad. The story of the Passenger Pigeon is the story of THE BIGGEST WILD LAND ANIMAL SLAUGHTER IN HISTORY. Most of the slaughter was from "market hunters", a distinctly different breed than sport hunters. They would stop at nothing to make their meager profits. They would do things like SEW THE EYELIDS SHUT ON THE LIVE DECOY PIGEONS CALLED "STOOL PIGEONS" which were perched on little stools as decoys. The stools were pulled out from under them at the proper moment so they would flutter and attract the wild flock to the nets and to their subsequent deaths. They employed thousands to cut down and burn down a whole forest to force the squabs out of the nests. They would destroy whole nesting sites. The market was glutted with a tremendous quantity of birds from the "market hunters" and subsequent wastes of this exquisite species for pitifully small profits was nothing short of monumental. People reported walking through large wherehouses filled with rotting birds 3 to 4 feet deep. No thought was ever given to conservation by these "market hunters", it was waste to the very end. Although the market hunters were far more damaging to the species, many sport hunters often shot and wasted tremendous numbers of birds for nothing more than fun or bragging rights. These birds were, in fact, the pigeons that made "trap" shooting wildly popular. They, of course, were the targets that were released from the "traps". They were often mutilated first to provide a more "spritely" target. Mechanical "cats" or "agitators" were meant to scare the pigeons to fly. From 1825 to 1880 up to 30 million wild pigeons were netted for contest use. One of the best trap shooters was Captain Adam Bogardus who dispatched 500 pigeons in 528 minutes while reloading his own gun. A single competition in Coney Island killed 20,000 birds. A man might have shot 30,000 in a career of trap shooting. The birds were
CS: Target-Help with CofF!
From: John Howat, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there anyone out there who has done the basic work to produce a CofF* for (a) Practical Pistol Shooting and (b) UIT (ISSF) 25m shooting?? Here in New Zealand this information is now reqired to prove the safety of military ranges if they are to be used by civilians for civilian shooting competitions. IMO it is likely that such procedures will become necessary on an international basis. Would appreciate any help you could offer. (I have the IRSAG Discussion Document 7/98 as well as JSP 403 Issue 11) *CofF stands for "Cone of Fire" and it is the basis for calculating such things as Range Danger Areas etc. Cheers John Howat. -- The ones used in this country are based on the NATO spec as adopted by the MoD. There are no doubt ranges that don't meet it (probably most) but they were established prior to NATO coming up with the spec. New ranges have to be built to the MoD spec adopted from NATO, is my understanding. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-The march in March
From: "Alex Hamilton", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve, In response to email written by Richard Loweth about justification of foxhunting, you wrote:- -- My response to all arguments against hunting no matter how reasoned is that most people don't reason, in fact most people don't care, except the hunters. So if the hunting of that species is forbidden the species that is hunted is infinitely worse off, because it will be neglected and at the mercy of someone building a shopping centre in the middle of its habitat, or a farmer deciding to use that land for something else. Hunters will conserve the species they hunt, whereas it will be in the hands of an underfunded government agency staffed by civil servants who largely don't care otherwise. Whether or not the hunt is "cruel" is purely academic. Compared to what will happen to that species otherwise it is small potatoes. You have a point, but only to a degree because there are many examples of species that were hunted to extinction, or very near extinction without any evidence that the hunters understood or cared for any level of "stock management" - buffalo, whales, dodo to name just a few. I really cannot imagine many farmers nowadays refusing a capital sum from a property developer that would enable them to retire and live in comparative luxury to save the habitat of foxes or any other animal, wild or domestic. Farming is a major destroyer of countryside and wildlife. Alex -- But those are more examples from the 19th century - I think it is naive to say hunters (at least in this country) have not learned from that, plus the countryside in this country is not exactly "wild" anyway. I have yet to hear LACS use the argument that fox hunting may endanger the species - but I'm pretty certain of my point that a ban on it is more likely to threaten it. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Legal-Section 5(1)(b)
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now you see _this_ is what Section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 was intended for. ;) Steve, I take your rhetorical point but the debates on the Firearms Act of 1920 which the '68 Act amends refereed to "deathless gas" being used for robberies. My understanding is that strictly speaking the Act only applies to barrelled weapons discharging toxins. Apparently a Jif lemon container full of ammonia solution was not covered by Section 5. Come to think of it, is CS in an aerosol spray covered? Regards, John Hurst. -- I haven't got my copy of the 68 Act in front of me but I think in Section 57 it defines a firearm as "any lethal barrelled weapon" _or_ any prohibited weapon. Stun guns are banned under Section 5(1)(b) because it says "designed to expel a noxious substance... or any other thing". Electricity apparently being "any other thing". For some reason people are always saying to me: "Oh, I'll just fill a water pistol with ammonia." When the subject of self-defence comes up. If you do that you have "designed or adapted" your water pistol into a "weapon designed to expel a noxious substance" and you have violated Section 5(1)(b). It doesn't have to have a barrel or any characteristics of a firearm to be banned under 5(1)(b), it must merely be designed or adapted to be a weapon designed to expel a noxious substance or any other thing. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-Face values..
From: "bob blake", [EMAIL PROTECTED] While defending an individuals rights to wear what they like, I do, however, consider that those, who insist on wearing camo gear on range, to be doing the sport a grave dis-service. To use cost and warmth and suitability as an excuse is nonsense, try getting on to a Golf course wearing a pair of cut off jeans, or camo gear for that matter. For any sport to have respectability it needs to have a code of conduct, which includes a dress code, clearly "camo style clothing" is seen by the press and the anti's as sinister, why give them ammunition to harm us. Keep up the good work Bob Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
