$1500 Cash Reward

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:
kontiki writes:


I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.


Fortunately, that type of choice rarely has to be made.

However it is the goal of so many politicians in this country
to attempt to completely disarm the populace (for a number
of varied and even self serving reasons). However they
fail to grasp the fact that, by definition, criminals do
not obey laws so only law abiding people would be disarmed.

There are also several instances where, in period of crisis
and widespead lawlessness (hurricanes, riots) the businesses
and homes protected by individuals with firearms were the
only ones not looted.

Like it or not, you must accept the fact that your property
is is only yours if you are capable of keeping someone else
from taking it. In times of calm and prosperity we relegate
the task of protecting ourselves and our property to a police
force. When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.


That point is lost on MX, he owns nothing to protect.

kontiki writes:

However it is the goal of so many politicians in this country
to attempt to completely disarm the populace (for a number
of varied and even self serving reasons).

Politicians in the U.S. don't care about disarming the population. Only a
fraction of the population has guns, anyway, and they don't have enough of
them to stand against the organized law-enforcement entities of the
government.

More importantly, though, civil liberties can be removed in much easier and
more effective ways, as by dangling the illusory threat of "insecurity" and
"terrorism" before an unedcuated and cowardly population. That's how just
about everyone does it, even the Nazis, and it works extremely well. It's not
necessary to disarm anyone, although some governments take that extra
precaution.

Democracies self-destruct, when they lose interest in protecting their own
freedoms. And they die with a whimper, not a bang, usually by a stoke of the
pen.

Gun enthusiasts are so busy salivating over their right to hold firearms that
they completely ignore the ground being pulled from beneath their feet, and
they care nothing about all the other liberties they are losing. By the time
they realize that gun ownership is all they have left and isn't sufficient to
protect them, it will be too late.

When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.

Tyrants depend on the preoccupation of some with this extreme and wildly
unlikely scenario to take over in other ways. In reality, the proverbial ****
never hits the fan. Instead, like the frog in slowly boiling water, the gun
fans only discover too late that they have nothing left to protect, because
they never paid attention to anything but their guns.

Mxsmanic wrote:


Gun enthusiasts are so busy salivating over their right to hold firearms that
they completely ignore the ground being pulled from beneath their feet, and
they care nothing about all the other liberties they are losing. By the time
they realize that gun ownership is all they have left and isn't sufficient to
protect them, it will be too late.



You are wrong. The Vast majority of 'gun enthusiasts' (as you call them)
recognize very clearly the threats to freedom ... even the insidious
ones... probably more so than non gun owners. They have and always have
had a target on their back and are well accustomed to having to defend
their 2nd Amendment freedoms.

When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.


Tyrants depend on the preoccupation of some with this extreme and wildly
unlikely scenario to take over in other ways. In reality, the proverbial ****
never hits the fan. Instead, like the frog in slowly boiling water, the gun
fans only discover too late that they have nothing left to protect, because
they never paid attention to anything but their guns.

Unlikely? Obviously you weren't paying attention to what actually
happened during the Rodney King riots in LA... or the aftermath of
hurricane Andrew and Katrina. Do some research and come back and
we might discuss this intelligently.

Martin Hotze wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:58:42 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

The founders of our fair nation found it prudent for its people to
bear arms, so as not to be easily conquered, much as the insurgents in
Iraq are able to resist occupation.

why do you call them insurgents? If this - theoretically - happens in the
US and the people in the US wearing weapons to defend them against a
conquerer (as you stated above), do you then call them also insurgents?

If the fighters in the US came from Canada or Mexico they would be
insurgents. Just like the people from Iran, etc. who are streaming into
Iraq to fight.

Matt

If the Airplane is locked it is in a safe place. Now if they catch the guys
the go to federal prison.
"chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 26, 1:39 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
James Sleeman wrote:
On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish wrote:
Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?

Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
to keep your gun collection I suppose.

Not even close. A hangar is not occupied nearly as often as your house.

That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:

1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.

Both are good reasons to have a gun in an airplane, but neither are good
reasons to leave a gun in an airplane. That is just dumb.

Matt

Wow, the thought of having firearms that aren't locked away just
worries me. Here as I understand it the police won't allow you a
firearms license without showing them you have them safely locked away
in some sort of safe, and if they were to find out you kept your gun
in your hangar / aeroplane they'd go ballistic!

What is it with Americans and bloody guns???

On May 25, 9:39 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
James Sleeman wrote:
On May 26, 5:47 am, Kingfish wrote:
Sorry to hear about this Vic. I'm kinda curious to know why anyone
would keep firearms in their hangar or acft though?

Sounds to me like a gun collector, a hanagr is just as safe as a house
to keep your gun collection I suppose.

Not even close. A hangar is not occupied nearly as often as your house.

That said, there has been a recent discussion about guns and planes.
Basically it boiled down to as I remember 2 groups of people:

1. The people flying in areas where a firearm is necessary for self
preservation in the event of a downing in places where there are big
furry animals who would quite like to eat you (and probably some less
furry animals you'd quite like to eat).
2. The "this is America dammit, it's my constitutional right!" crowd.

Both are good reasons to have a gun in an airplane, but neither are good
reasons to leave a gun in an airplane. That is just dumb.

Matt

There were no guns stolen from an airplane and none kept in an
airplane. The guns stolen were taken from a hangar with an office
sometimes used as a place to over nite when the owner needs to avoid
traveling to and from the big city. The thieves had to pick three
locks to get to them. One lock to get inside the hangar, one lock to
get inside the office, one lock to get inside the desk. One of the
locks was a locked steel desk with the three handguns in the drawer.
The shotgun was used for over nite protection. This is an isolated
airport miles away from the town. None of the handguns were loaded or
had ammunition with them.

Leaving these small caliber handguns in the hangar was a mistake. I
left the hangar without them because I was ill with a fever and simply
forgot to take them along. I did not intent to store them there. I
took them there to have a friend impress them with confidential
identification numbers and to shoot them at the range. This ID
procedure is something very new and hi teck. We do not have a range
near the big city.

We are about to come up with another $500 to add to the reward.

On May 26, 9:46 am, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Morgans" wrote in message

...



I am sorry that this person got ripped off, and I would love to see the
scum that took everything apprehended and have their fingernails pulled
out one at a time. I just can not understand the choice of locations for
all of the guns.
--

I'd doubt if it was all of their guns, or even hesitate to call it a
collection. Three small caliber handguns, a shotgun and pellet gun.

You are so right. I will be packing high-caliber heat until I die.

But I do have a problem with leaving any of them laying around most of the
hangers I've seen. I certainly wouldn't do it. Stolen firearms have far too
much crime potential. Loosing tools, electronic or other hobby gear is one
thing, but we all have a responsibility to keep firearms in the hands of
responsible people.

Get all your avionics marked with secret numbers. Garmin and King
avionics are big marks for thieves. Then double up on your security.
Live with your airplane and your portable propety and guard it with
your life. This is what I am p;lanning to do.

On May 26, 9:56 am, kontiki wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
kontiki writes:

I'd rather live in place full of only 'good' people, all of
whom own firearms than a place with one 'bad' person with
a gun and all the other 'good' people have none.

Fortunately, that type of choice rarely has to be made.

However it is the goal of so many politicians in this country
to attempt to completely disarm the populace (for a number
of varied and even self serving reasons). However they
fail to grasp the fact that, by definition, criminals do
not obey laws so only law abiding people would be disarmed.

There are also several instances where, in period of crisis
and widespead lawlessness (hurricanes, riots) the businesses
and homes protected by individuals with firearms were the
only ones not looted.

Like it or not, you must accept the fact that your property
is is only yours if you are capable of keeping someone else
from taking it. In times of calm and prosperity we relegate
the task of protecting ourselves and our property to a police
force. When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.

We had an entire family murdered near Charlotte- mother, father, sons,
daughter some time back. If they had a shotgun in the corner the
murderers would not have gotten by with killing this innocent family.

On May 26, 12:07 pm, kontiki wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Gun enthusiasts are so busy salivating over their right to hold firearms that
they completely ignore the ground being pulled from beneath their feet, and
they care nothing about all the other liberties they are losing. By the time
they realize that gun ownership is all they have left and isn't sufficient to
protect them, it will be too late.

You are wrong. The Vast majority of 'gun enthusiasts' (as you call them)
recognize very clearly the threats to freedom ... even the insidious
ones... probably more so than non gun owners. They have and always have
had a target on their back and are well accustomed to having to defend
their 2nd Amendment freedoms.

When the SHTF though it will only be the individuals
themselves to assume the responsibility as there will not be
enough police to go around. One is either willing and prepared
to accept that ultimate responsibility or one is not.

Tyrants depend on the preoccupation of some with this extreme and wildly
unlikely scenario to take over in other ways. In reality, the proverbial ****
never hits the fan. Instead, like the frog in slowly boiling water, the gun
fans only discover too late that they have nothing left to protect, because
they never paid attention to anything but their guns.

Unlikely? Obviously you weren't paying attention to what actually
happened during the Rodney King riots in LA... or the aftermath of
hurricane Andrew and Katrina. Do some research and come back and
we might discuss this intelligently.

This is my kind of man. This man and Maxwell are my kind of men.

writes:

We had an entire family murdered near Charlotte- mother, father, sons,
daughter some time back. If they had a shotgun in the corner the
murderers would not have gotten by with killing this innocent family.

That would depend on who might get to the shotgun first.