Guns, Guns, Guns.

Guns, once again. Bullet Impact. Crime. Just blowing people away in general. All this on a group dedicated to the strangely interesting life of a cartoon teenage girl.

It's fucking embarrassing how many losers there are in America.

Look, there are four reasons to mess with guns:

1) Keep the Gummint from overthrowing you. I'll tell you, flintlocks and saturday night specials do a real job on those Air Force F-14s. Now me; if I were going to overthrow the gummint, I'd depend more on Chemistry and the Internet, than I would on Winchester or Remington. The Ballot box still works pretty good, too; except for this last election.

2) Keep the criminals at bay. Oh sure. All the statistics show how useful guns are, at keeping criminals from killing you. Oh, sure. Can we all spell horse-pucky? I knew that we could.

3) Hunting and collecting. ... good reasons, I think. I don't at all mind losing 50,000 people a year to misplaced gunfire, in order to defend your right to collect flintlocks and shoot rabbits.

4) Just because I say so. ... hard to argue against this one. Of course, this *is* a nation of laws. However you or I interpret the Law is irrelevant -- the only opinions here that matter, are those of Judges and Legislators. They've ruled on Police Power, they haven't ruled on the Second Amendment.

And while "Just because I say so" conveniently releases you from actually having to deal with any logical discussion; you forget that it releases ME from that obligation as well. ... and politically, there are a lot more of ME than there is of YOU. Perhaps it is in your own personal interest to back off from all that quasi-macho schoolyard posturing that just scares the women and children; and start behaving like adults.

So what would Daria think? Tell me, Jordan; what are Daria's opinions on Guns? Tell me, Mike; do you think Daria is packing? Christopher Morton, you old texas racist; if you gave a gun to every black in Houston, would the blacks kill the cops; would the cops kill the blacks; or would the blacks just kill each other on Saturday night?

So never mind Daria: What would Quinn or Jake or the Fashion Club think? If Mister DeMartino packed; do you think he'd pack for very long before he was shot dead? I'll bet Ms. Barch is a member of the NRA -- what do you think? Given her hair-trigger hatred for men, do you suppose she'll never make a mistake with that magnum in her purse? How much help do you suppose the Second Amendment would give to her mistaken victim? How about Jane and Trent -- do you suppose Trent has a piece under the front seat of his car? If a traffic cop has ever stopped him and searched his car and found the piece, what would happen to Trent?

'Daria' just died the hypocritical death reserved for cowards and losers, a thousand great episodes short of her dotage. All you idiot loser slackjaw motherfuckers can talk about, is GUNS. If you had half the decency you pretend to have, you'd be scarlet with shame.

L&R

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:16:11 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:

Those Air Force F-14s do a real job on the tax base that funds those Air Force-F14s. Never mind the sheer stupidity of utilizing the nuclear arsenal against a rebellious faction. Besides, historically, those "flint locks and specials" have been more effective against potential lynch mobs than "the Gummint". They tend to be more useful in rural settings, too.

Why not all three? And the ballot box works fine, assuming the people with the power to enforce the results of the ballot box choose to do so, and the people with the duty of handling the ballots honestly choose to do so. I, for one, see the right to keep and bear arms as the only real safeguard against dishonest election results.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2001 23:32:12 GMT, [email] (Daryl Sawyer) wrote:

I get the impression that he thinks that my parents voted to sit in the back of the bus and that George Takei voted to grow up in a racial concentration camp.

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

Until someone drops a thermobaric warhead on your ikkle mob.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:28:11 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

I find it interesting when people CHEER for the establishment of a dictatorship by force.

That aside, no real guerrilla movement can be destroyed with ONE bomb.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Better than anarchy though. Knowing the stupidity of the general populace that is.

The thermobaric warhead could. It can destroy all known bunkers and underground forts, kill tank crews and flatten terrain. It would be used to knock out the core of a rebellion and the movement would collapse.

Failing that send in the SAS!

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:49:50 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Better for those in the pay of the dictatorship.

Was Anne Frank stupid, and did she have it coming?

Again, no real guerrilla movement can be killed with ONE bomb. Guerrillas who concentrate to that degree don't deserve the name.

A real guerrilla movement doesn't HAVE a core. It's everywhere and nowhere and it mercilessly kills its enemy one body at a time.

I'm a big fan of anonymous tips... especially when you call them in on yourself and meet the SAS halfway. Don't be concerned about that Ryder truck, somebody's probably just moving....

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

She wasn't the general populace.

to

Kill everyone in a large area of forest, no matter where they're hiding.

?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:10:10 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

That's not what I asked you.

Is it ok to murder people if they aren't the "general populace"?

I see you have a fundamental lack of understanding of guerrilla warfare. Again, any guerrilla movement that concentrated is worthless before the fighting starts. And who says the guerrillas have to be in the woods? Make sure they operate in the cities where the banks, and the soldiers' families are. See how long you have an army when it doesn't get payed, it hasn't got any food, and you've killed its dependents.

What, no comment?

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

populace

It's a utilitarian arguement. If it was to become necessary.

bomb.

used

Quite difficult to hide in urbanised areas and carry out all the heavy equipment needed. Most guerillas need to be within communications range which is about 10Km max in even reasonable terrain, and the heavy terrain favoured by guerillas reduces communication to about 2Km on easily interceptable wideband. A thermobaric warhead explodes with a concussive force of 150 Kilotonnes but due to the pressure wave ingnores the effects of dense terrain. A modern force is much harder to use guerilla war against, especially if they are able to stand off and use long range weapons like cruise missiles to knock out supply and ammo dumps (even guerillas need those) and heavy aircraft with new anti-missile systems that have rendered the SAM useless againts them as recon and strike. Satellite imaging in high red frequencies can pick out small fires under a canopy thickness of 25m and hot smoke from cave mouths. It would be an expensive but one sided war.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:55:40 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

That necessitates killing those who would. I'm so equipped. I'm equipped so supply and train others.

That's funny, guerrilla movements in Europe and Latin America have been doing it for DECADES.

NO heavy equipment is needed. Again, you obviously have little knowledge of unconventional warfare.

Really, we're just going around in circles here.

Have you been in the infantry? I have.

I feel like I'm discussing women's abortion rights with somebody who thinks that babies are brought by the stork.

I suggest you read something on the subject. Let me recommend Osanka.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

#

They are fighting extremely corrupt and effectively impotent regimes.

Guerilla war has not been used against modern armies, when I say modern I mean the most up to date such as NATO and the UN.

Been in a biological weapons lab, got friends with scholarships to Sandhurst, driven tanks, been in a chinook, got relatives who have been in the falklands wars, WW2 and the korean war. Two relatives in the SAS also.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:12:26 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Which is what you advocated, namely the creation of a dictatorship as opposed to "anarchy".

I'll be sure to tell the IRA that they aren't guerrillas and the British army that they aren't part of NATO.

Then there's Somalia, Chechniya, etc., etc., etc....

BEEN in, or WORKED in? I've been in a U-Boat. I don't claim to be a submarine commander.

So then you don't actually have knowledge or experience on the subject....

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

range

The army haven't been used since the 70's. And the IRA aren't true guerillas as they have a public front.

Not fighting NATO, they fought within and the UN intervened.

Been in, worked with dangerous strains of TB as standard classroom research.

in

also.

Nope. Only a rich load of second hand material.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:26:12 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

I'm sorry, that's outright nonsense. The British army was there right through the '80s if not beyond.

I believe you said "LIKE NATO".

So then you've never actually tried to do what would be required.

That puts you at a gross disadvantage.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

guerillas

TA regiments mostly, or jumped up police.

NATO is near unique currently.

research.

Know most of the procedures and done them on a small scale.

been

Ever fought a guerilla war?

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:40:33 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Thanks for admitting your mistake.

It has no enemies. Maybe it's looking for some?

My comment stands.

Yes, in college. Remember the giant slingshot?

It almost came to guns, but the aggressors mostly got expelled for drug offenses.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:10:10 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

I can't believe you just said that! I can't believe it! we've accused you repeatedly of being in favor of a military dictatorship that favors yourself over others, but I never expected you to admit it!

I'm done here. If you ever want to continue this argument, I'll see you on the battlefield.

(God help us all...)

Daryl Sawyer wrote in message news:[email]...

populace

I didn't. I just said it's better than anarchy.

Unfortunately you wouldn't see me on the battlefield. Having a fairly good knowledge of biochemical, viral and nuclear warfare you'd be dead before you met me.

[email] (Mark Whickman) wrote in news:9il1d7$7hh$[email]:

What? Knowledge is power, literally? Your toxic thoughts kill at a distance?

Bert Hyman wrote in message news:[email]...

I can make phosgene gas, cultivate drug resistant fast acting TB, make a half dozen powerful hallucinogens dispersable by air and with crude grade uranium I could make a low power nuke.

Kill anyone with a gun before they get up in the morning.

Mark Whickman wrote in message news:9il2n7$luc$[email]...

Just as an interesting aside

http://www.counsel.net/chatboards/2nd-amendment/topic1/8.25.00.18.36.18.html

This is good from both sides.

In news:9il2n7$luc$[email] "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Yeh... that's a problem in certain communities here too. Just cover your mouth when you cough, OK?

Bert Hyman wrote in message news:[email]...

Heh..

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:51:46 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

I can shoot you on the way to get the ingredients... or I can shoot from 600 yards away, a 1 foot by 1 foot square sandwich of aluminum foil and cardboard, wired to a battery and an electric blasting cap tied to 500lb.s of gelignite in a van parked next to your flat... or along a route you frequent.

We're the "been there, done that" crowd. Most of the anti-gunners wouldn't know phosgene from a cherry phosphate, never mind how to use a gun, bomb or other weapons.

Really, it's like you're trying to beat Bill Clinton in a bullshitting contest. You might as well concede defeat.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Heh, really.

In that case, kill me. I hereby promise not to press charges.

I live in Hawaii. Drive down Highway 11 from Hilo to Volcano, pass Keaau town center and the 8 mile marker, take the next right, then right again. My street adress is 17-236. My house is on the left side. I am a Chinese male with short hair, 19 years old.

If you are as good as you say, you can easily kill me. Any sort of revolutionary action will involve killing innocents, and since I am actually opposed to your opinions, then I shouldn't weigh on your conciounse any.

Then again, mabye you will have some trouble killing me, not because I live in Hawaii, but because of one fundimental factor that has been glossed over. If you decide not to actually kill someone who obviously hates minorities and supports a corrupt police state, tell me and I'll mention the previously unmentioned factor.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:15:35 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

Try to kill me with phosgene gas. I WAS threatened with that FIRST.

The imposition of any police state/dictatorship will involve killing innocents. Apparently THAT doesn't bother you.

Then again, maybe neither you, nor the person who threatened it, can no more make phosgene than you can justify a dictatorship that can "make the trains run on time".

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

a

I didn't threaten you.

actually

So, will you kill me then in your crusade for a Free America?

live

I'm not interested in killing you. I'm interested if you can kill me (Come on! It's killing Asians, you're used to that!)

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:29:40 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

You responded to my reply to someone else.

I'll do whatever is necessary to prevent a dictatorship coming to power here.

Never killed anyone, Asian or otherwise. Actually, at one point there was a greater likelihood of my killing a drug dealer in college who'd threatened my life (and those of some friends) than killing any North Koreans.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

First of all, North KOREANS??? Just how old ARE you?

Second, all your talk about doing what is necessary to defend one's country is very nice. Nice talk, that is. However, running a gurella war against an enemy with way more resources than you, though possible, is (to put it lightly) a pain in the ass. It will require quite a ot of dedication on everyone's part. In addition, you'll have to kill a lot of people, some of which will be bystanders. Now it is very easy to talk about killing people in an abstract sense, but most people find it difficult when all that abstraction is condensed down to a single point of lucid reality, killing A specific person, me for example.

For all my dreaming and fantasizing, I could never actually blow up the Republician National Convention, I don't have the balls. Most other people won't be able to either.

Now you, Captain Freedom. You will have to blow up quite a lot of people. Not abstractions, not an amorphous "Them" but actual people who have placed themselves on the other side of the line. People like me.

Unless you can kill me, all your talk of revolution is conviniently flushed down the toilet.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:56:28 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

43. You don't keep up much on what goes on on the Korean peninsula, do you?

It's common for North Korean commandos of the Light Infantry Brigades to infiltrate South Korea on reconaissance and sabotage missions. I used to teach classes on the subject. I had a large stack of 35mm slides of North Koreans (and their victims, to include old fishermen) who'd been caught causing mayhem all over South Korea.

Living in a military dictatorship is a bigger pain in the ass. Every live in one? I have. I'd rather fight.

If I couldn't kill people I'd have never joined the Army. If you can't, I suggest that you don't.

Don't extrapolate your squeemishness onto other people. People actually kill quite easily once they make the decision. You may not have heard of the Punic Wars, Thirty Years War, Civil War or World War Two.

If the alternative is a military dictatorship, pass the det. cord.

You've placed yourself in support of a military dictatorship? Good. I'm glad they're recruiting from the third string. : )

But I'm not in favor of a revolution. YOU are. I'm in favor of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You're apparently in favor of an authoritarian regime.

And yes, I can kill people who try to impose such a police state. And cheerfully too.

So why am I still alive then?

In article , "Fong says...

Because it's illegal to kill you?

Chris Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

And armed rebellion is perfectlly legal.

In article ,

Only if you succeed...

*yawn*

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:48:47 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

And establishing a dictatorship is perfectly legal.

You asked why you were alive. That's the only reason I could think of.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Oh, it couldn't be that you are afraid that police will catch you, are you? That would be called DETERRENCE.

What, you mean you think that we AREN'T in a dictatorship? I was always under the impression that America is a racist hotbed, rules by a corrupt government. You mean it's not the case?

*Watches as holes start popping all over his arguments."

In article , "Fong says...

It's called a cost/benefit analysis. The entertainment you provide with your incessant jackboot licking antics far outweigh the inconvenience of silencing them. Of course too, you're the one who wants a police state. Silencing you by force would only be buying into your fascist mindset.

Chris Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

your

silencing

you by

Hmm, if silencing people by force is wrong, how about taking over a country, over the objections of it's current inhabitents and instilling your own government when others like the current one just fine. Is that facist enough for you, since that's what you're proposing.

*Whistles as noose slowly draws tighter*

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:52:54 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

You're the one who wants to create a police state.

Ask yourself.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Again, that word "create." That implies that it is NOT a police state now, contrary to your previous rantings.

You're down to re-cycled statements now. I'll stop when you're down to one.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:08:52 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

You want to give it that extra nudge over the edge. You're a Justin Volpe/Lon Horiuchi fan who thinks that Singapore would be perfect if it was just a little less liberal.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

All right. Untenable statement, I have just won.

Please kindly direct me to the statement in which I stated that I want a police state. I have stated that I have diffrent ideas on how to avoid one, but tell me when I said I wanted one (except for situations which were obviously sarcasm for anyone with sentient intellegence)

Well, I won an argument against a fanatic. Frankly, I'm surprised myself.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 18:58:01 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

Declaring yourself "winner" and running away?

You must be a big fan of David Irving.

[email] (Fong Chih) wrote in news:9j2imp$lqs$[email]:

Only if your side wins.

"Fong Chih" wrote in message news:9j2imp$lqs$[email]...

"Chris Morton" wrote in message news:[email]...

Shit, talk about begging the question.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Ever heard of time and people? You'd need to get me before I got the stuff.

Phogene is pretty simple, just a chlorinated monocarbonyl made by high temperature hydrolysis. TB grows on MEA in an airing cupboard.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:16:17 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

No I don't. I need to get to you before you can EMPLOY the stuff. If I can make it well known that you plan to employ such devices, I can suitably color public perception of you.

Again, your knowledge of unconventional warfare is superficial at best.

ANFO is a lot easier.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

?

On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:29:21 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

I'll take the anarchy. And I'm perfectly willing to kill to fight a military dictatorship. I've lived in one.

The sad thing is that you probably even believe that....

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:16:11 -0700, Love and Rockets wrote:

It's embarrassing how many boot licking serfs there are in general.

Boy, it's sure a good thing for us the Air Force defeated the Viet Cong.

Of course some people are just looking for a jackboot to kiss....

As indeed they do. CCW is here to stay, and the wave of the future. Coming soon to your state.

An apt description for the premise that women have a duty to be raped rather than harm the attempted rapist.

I don't hunt. The last thing I hunted was North Koreans.

And where did that "50,000" figure come from? Sounds like an outright lie to me, but then most anti-gunners are outright liars, aren't they?

Laws like Jim Crow and the Fugitive Slave Law? I'll bet you support them too.

Why does a homosexual have a right to be a homosexual?

Because he says so.

By the way, what IS the justification for being gay? Do gays NEED one? What if you don't like it?

In your dreams.

Adults don't tell women faced with rape to just "lie back and enjoy it".

Never been to Texas. Don't like racists. They don't appear to like me either, given the volume of death threats I get from you, er, them.

You must be a BIG fan of Justin Volpe.

You must think that Abner Louima, Amadou Diallo and Patrick Dorismond got what was coming to them, huh?

I know what YOU think. You think that it's a good thing that James Byrd, Sr. didn't have a gun, or he might have hurt John William King.

----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Morton Newsgroups: alt.tv.daria,alt.society.liberalism Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 2:54 PM Subject: Re: Guns, Guns, Guns.

Where the hell did THAT come from?

Well . . . this forum WAS kind of dead . . .

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:39:08 -1000, "Fong Chih" wrote:

If you make people justify themselves to the government in one private matter, there's no reason why they shouldn't have to justify themselves in ANY.

"Love and Rockets" wrote in message news:[email]...

That's because we're all only human (Even though I occasionally spit on Mankind and think of myself as an alien hybrid), and humans throughout all time, history and culture have only known how to destroy, to kill, to crush, to smash, and to trash. Why? Because it's easy to destroy something rather than create. When there was no guns, there were swords, knives, axes, spears, flails and crossbows. And before that, just fists.

This is who we are. We're not a civilized people, we're even more barbaric people than before. At least Cavemen had class. They never saw any reason to murder any of their family or any of their tribe, they never murdered total strangers because they had shinier rocks or had the juciest dinosaur meat for dinner. As long as people have a will to kill, there will always be an instrument of murder. And believe it or not, this goes way beyond guns.

To be honest (and this is my own personal opinion), I think that if bullets were suddenly made illegal to own or sell, a lot of firearm MDKs would be prevented, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation. People collect guns because it's a hobby, right?. Let's just leave it at that and not make them dangerous (Unless if someone used it as a club, then it's still dangerous).

Chris Smith

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:01:41 -0400, "The Outsider" wrote:

And you knew this because you were there?

"Dinosaur meat"?

Was Raquel Welch there too in her sabertooth tiger bikini?

I load my own ammo. I've got 400 rounds to load for the National Matches this week.

I refuse. I'll just keep on making my own ammunition.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Are those self entirely or using bought components?

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:31:00 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Bought components of which I have a VERY large quantity, several lifetimes in fact.

The nice thing about loading your own ammunition is that it can tide you over nicely until you can begin involuntary appropriations from whomever doesn't want you to have any.

Use a pistol to get a rifle to get a machinegun to get a rocketlauncher to get a tank to....

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Strange but true logic. I still remember the incidence when a tank was stolen by a member of the public in the US.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:51:19 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

He got caught, and couldn't or didn't use the main gun.

There's at least one 105mm Howitzer missing from a California National Guard armory that's never been recovered.

Christopher Morton said:

A motorcycle gang near Red Hook, Brooklyn NY, in the late 1970's or early 1980's bought or stole a cache of military support weapons, including anti-tank rocket launchers. The police didn't know this until one member of the gang got wasted and decided it would be amusing to take a rocket launcher (*) up to the roof and start randomly blowing up cars. The police shot him and then raided the gang HQ, where they recovered enough firepower to blow up much of the neighborhood.

I know this from a friend of mine who lived in the neighborhood at the time.

Another guy, a wannabe drug desperado, one day got his hands on an automatic rifle and decided it would be amusing to shoot up a passing elevated subway train. He succeeded in hitting and paralyzing one guy.

I was friends with the brother of the fool who did this -- and knew the fool himself, casually.

Needless to say, both weapons-grade rocket launchers and fully automatic rifles are illegal for civilian possession in the whole United States of America, and had been so for over 40 years at the time these incidents happened.

Now, what were you saying about how if we banned guns, criminals couldn't get them?

(*) Presumably a reusable recoilless rifle or bazooka type weapon, since he fired several shots from it.

On 09 Jul 2001 20:43:26 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

Not illegal at the federal level, but severely restricted. Several people in the club to which I belong (and for which I'm leaving to attend a match shortly) own automatic weapons. The process for purchasing one is quite protracted.

Always wanted a watercooled Browning .50. I just can't stand to get close enough to a BATF agent to go through the process. : )

Christopher Morton said:

Didn't know that. Well, I guess Hollywood must have some means of getting their hands on the ones they use as props.

In any case, my friend's brother did _not_ go through any licensing process. He bought it illegally, and reasonably cheaply (around $2000, IIRC -- it's been years since I asked him how much it cost). And no, listening BATF agents, I did _not_ know he had the weapon until he shot up a subway train with it, and had been arrested for this crime.

Oh, and of course, sniping at subway trains is _also_ quite illegal. Didn't stop him.

On 10 Jul 2001 00:12:59 GMT, [email] (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:

It takes a special kind of thought process to believe that somebody would ignore the laws against murder and assault, but quiver in fear over gun control laws. It just goes to show the fundamental wrongheadedness of most gun control arguments.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

You need 3 crew in those tanks. Loader, gunner and driver and the safety systems means you need at least two.

There's also a legal air pressure cannon capable of lobbing an 800Kg payload of uncased high explocive 25Km.

It works on combustive detonation.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 08:07:49 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

You only need one person to load and fire the gun. It's just slower than with a full crew.

There is NO such safety system in an M-60 tank. It wouldn't be tolerated by the end users. What's the point, to render the tank useless if the vehicle takes casualties?

Most such guns are homebuilt.

I'm partial to three man surgical tubing slingshots. I once used one to fire a balloon full of bong water through a fraternity house window. : ) They can as easily be used to throw a handgrenade.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Most tanks need two crew to fire as the tank is more valuable than the crew and a misfire is intolerable.

payload

The materials needed to build it would be almost impossible to make without specialist equipment. The pressure in the gun is very high and the bidirectional carbonfibre sheeting requires utmost precision not to crack open and lose pressure. The pressure gun is being developed by a British hydraulics company under contract for the US navy as a CWS weapon

I've got a black widow catapult. I can fire small things at high velocity, it's sufficient to kill a squirrel with a fragment of metal from 20M

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:59:39 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

You didn't address my comment. There is no such system.

That's funny, people build butane powered guns here all the time. Mostly they launch potatoes. There is of course no reason why you couldn't launch a hand grenade instead. In fact, there's no reason why you couldn't pull the grenade from an M203 round and launch that. You'd just need to add papermache fins to ensure that the spin armed fuse worked.

I like the big ones better. The Allies used spring catapults during WWI to quietly through handgrenades into the German lines during WWI. On the other side, the Austrians used compressed air mortars. The advantage of the latter is that apart from the ammunition, there is no part of the device which is illegal in any way. I've always wanted to build one. Maybe some day....

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

crew

There is.

without

It doesn't lob a huge projectile though.

velocity,

It's fairly easy to build. But toe poppers are the easiest to make.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:14:06 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Describe it... or cite a publication which demonstrates that TWO people are REQUIRED to fire the main gun, not that that they're required to fire it QUICKLY.

You don't need to lob a huge projectile.

It depends upon how long you want to use them and what kind of fusing mechanism you employ.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

Friend drives Challenger two tanks.

To blow up a building or a tank you do

Bullet with a nail underneath.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:27:21 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

Ah, so that's something exclusive to BRITISH tanks.

Oh well, tank design in Britain has the same proud history as the culinary arts....

No, I don't. One 40mm grenade has the ability to disable an armored vehicle or kill a roomful of people.

Cartridge actually, and those are harder to make than you think.

You might want to purchase the CIA "Black Books"... if they're legal to possess there.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

The Challenger 2 has no world equal. For its size its the fastest, most heavilly armed and armoured tank. In simulated tests it has yet to be beaten by less than 3 of any other tank class.

Not a modern tank or a tower block.

Need fairly firm ground.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:42:34 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

But according to you, I only have to kill the gunner or loader, and it's out of action.

Yes, a modern tank or a tower block. I don't need to completely destroy either. I only need to destroy the mobility of one, and kill the people in the other.

Primers aren't as sensitive as you think. I've been loading ammunition probably since before you were born, and in almost 30 years have only popped one primer.

Love and Rockets wrote in message news:...

On further consideration, I've decided to adopt the liberal position on gun control. So...

Mike Wilson wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

The least trouble would be if all non-military held weapons suddenly disappeared, but it would need immense public cooperation to reach perfection.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:00:53 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

...if your goal was to create a military dictatorship. Have you ever lived in one? I have.

Christopher Morton wrote in message news:[email]...

When?

On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:12:42 +0100, "Mark Whickman" wrote:

1980-1981, Republic of Korea.