If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
In message , B2431
writes From: "Paul J. Adam" Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm into the front waist of one's pants. Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days I keep forgetting some things don't translate into Brit. It's an old joke, sorry. Right - got it on the second try. Cheers. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
In message , "Gord
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote: Dan may have been joking a little Paul Yes, he said so too - my mistake for being too literal. now a question, do you know how "flash in the pan" originated? Matchlocks and flintlocks again: the priming fires but doesn't ignite the charge in the barrel (blocked vent, for instance). So you get the flash in the pan, but no shot. Me gun nut, me know these things Even if my sense of humour occasionally needs recalibration when reading Americanese -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , B2431 writes From: "Paul J. Adam" As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase "going off half-cocked". Paul, that term comes from having an accident while stuffing one's side arm into the front waist of one's pants. Sorry, Dan, but it dates back to the flintlock days: back when you'd half-cock your firelock so you could charge the pan, and a fumble-fingered soldier or one cursed with a badly-made weapon (remember, this was before mass production and interchangeable parts) could discharge his weapon at an inopportune moment. Apparently, firing off ramrods, particularly in the excitement of battle, was another fairly common error. There doesn't seem to be an idiom derived from it, so I suppose it must have been a much less common event than "going off half-cocked". SMH |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
... I believe that to be only a recent (i.e. past century) issue. Until WW2 I think it was legal for UK residents to own firearms, I owned firearms until 1997. Still could now, shotguns, rifles or repeating handguns, if I had the time and spare cash. I meant without restriction and licencing. That's its design role, just as the role of a sword is to kill people (hence no more sports fencing) and the bow had no purpose other than turning living creatures into dead meat (so no more archery either). For that matter, let's ban the javelin from athletics (throwing spears were only ever designed for killing!). I have no problem with offensive weapons in sport. I'm not against ownership either, so long as you can guarantee responsibility. But, bear in mind you're going to get in serious trouble walking down the road with a bow, sword, or even a javelin in the UK these days. As it happens I think the government was dead wrong in banning the legal ownership of handguns for sport. It was complete overkill driven by media hysteria. Being a Brit myself, I actually wish we did have the right to bear arms, at least on our own property, and the legal back up to use them if necessary. Closer than you might think now, tabloid hysteria notwithstanding. Don't know about that. It would take such a shift in the legal rights of home owners to enable them to use a potential deadly force in defence of their property, and I just don't see a change in the law coming that'll stop favouring criminals. (I think the government's too worried about loosing out on all that VAT they get from burglary victims having to go out and buy new appliances.. :-) For the moment, in the UK the overall view is different. Personally, I'd be happy with much more widespread ownership provided that ownership equalled responsibility: your weapon, your job to keep it secure. You want a weapon, it lives on your person or else properly secured. You fire that weapon, you're responsible for every round leaving the barrel. Not popular here, and oddly enough it seems to be very unpopular in the US for very different reasons I agree with you, but it comes down to: I'd be happy for everyone to own a gun if I new that they were as responsible as I know I am! But then there's no test for respect or responsibility and sooner or later kids will get access to the guns carefully stored in their parents' safes, and the genie would be out of the bottle here as well. Trouble is that it's a one-way massive culture and legal shift, and it's much easier for society and government to try and cope with the status quo rather than open Pandora's Box. Si |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: In message , Jim Yanik writes "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in m: I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of miles away. Well,we now know that 9-11 was not the first attack on the US,there was the first WTC bombing,two US embassies bombed, You have embassies in your own country? Embassies are established overseas. And embassies are considered part of the country who's embassy is sited there;IOW,those embassies are US soil. the Khobar Towers bombing, The Khobar Towers were in Saudi Arabia. Full of US troops,who the attack was directed at. and the USS Cole bombing. The USS COLE was attacked in the Yemen. An attack on a warship is an act of war. Whether it's in port,or on the open seas. As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase "going off half-cocked". Surely you cannot be this dense? You are saying that attacks on US embassies in other countries is NOT an attack on the US,or that the USS Cole attack was not an attack on the US?? -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: In message , Jim Yanik writes "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in m: I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of miles away. Well,we now know that 9-11 was not the first attack on the US,there was the first WTC bombing,two US embassies bombed, You have embassies in your own country? Embassies are established overseas. the Khobar Towers bombing, The Khobar Towers were in Saudi Arabia. and the USS Cole bombing. The USS COLE was attacked in the Yemen. As a firearms enthusiast, Jim, you might be familiar with the phrase "going off half-cocked". Addendum;I found it interesting that no one else in the NG called Mr.Adam on his statement that those attacks were not against the US. Also note that I never said "on US soil",or "US territory". -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
*White* Helicopters??!!! | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 13 | March 9th 04 07:03 PM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |