DaVinci

Except you want to punish them for a crime they were not even charged with.

I would not call it 'unlawful'... Stupid sure. But the point is you admit it happens. It was a very basic description. It served to make the point. And if you were an E5 and the 1SG told you and you alone to go blast 10 AT4's... What would you have done? Told him no?

Find where I suggested cutting MX on bridges? I said to cut WASTE. Bridge MX is not WASTE. Blowing off 10 AT4's with no training value is waste.

Yes, talking to you is like that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. It does not take 15k of ordnance to figure out skipping an AT4 round off the ground or using it as indirect fire is a bad idea. They wanted me to shoot 10 AT4's, or throw a hundred Grenades, or shoot 10k rounds in one day. Hell, on Full Auto it STILL took all day to shoot 10k rounds. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. We had done all the training we were planned to do... this was to get rid of the EXCESS AFTER THE PLANNED TRAINING WAS DONE. Military conversations go like this: 1SG: Go to the armory and then go to range G and shoot these 10 AT4's DV: Who else should I take? 1SG: Just you, there is an RO there already. DV: Rog' top. Seriously... Anyone that military wanna chime in and tell him how his 'suggestion' in this situation would have played out?

Where did I say I want them? I just said that the police can pull you over for violating the law *IF* you are actually violating it. You want to be able to make people do things when they have not even been charged with a crime.

Are you suggesting that the FAA get involved with paper airplane construction and flight?

Try to take a paintball gun into an elementary school and let me know if they considered it a gun.

The main question is why did he do what he did... anything else is secondary. You want to focus on the act, not the reason. You want to blame the item, not the individual.

Read the US v Miller decision.

Number of guns submitted for tracing 2007-2008: 11,000 Number of guns successfully traced: 6,000 Number of guns traced to the US from that 6k: 5,114 The "90%" number comes from how many that were successfully traced that were traced to the US. So, they tried to trace 11,000 guns. They could only trace 6k of them. 90% of the ones they WERE ABLE TO TRACE came from the US. BUT, 29,000 guns were found at crime scenes. So they only TRIED to trace 38% of the weapons found. Of the 11,000 (38% of the total) they TRIED to trace, they could only trace 6k (20% of the total) Of the 6K they could trace, 5114 (90%) were from the US, but 5114 is only 17.6% of the total number of guns found at crime scenes (29000) They were not submitted because they had no markings that could be traced. Weapons made (for sale) or imported into the US have to have markings. The same is not true for many other areas of the World. Also, if the weapon WAS marked, but marked in a way that shown that it was not from the US (say in Russian) they didn't even try to trace them to the US. "Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) But any gun in the US (minor exceptions) has to have a serial number. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), at Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 923(i), and the National Firearms Act (NFA), at Title 26, U.S.C., section 5842(a), require all licensed importers and manufacturers to identify each firearm imported or manufactured by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the frame or receiver of the weapon, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe. Federal regulations at 27 CFR 478.92(a) and 479.102(a) prescribe the requirements for serialization and other marks of identification that must be placed on firearms. Minimum height of 1/16th inch1 and a minimum depth of .003 inch for serial numbers and a minimum depth of .003 inch for all other required markings It must include: 1. The model, if such designation has been made; 2. The caliber or gauge; 3. The name (or recognized abbreviation of same) of the manufacturer and also, when applicable, of the importer; 4. In the case of a domestically made firearm, the city and State (or recognized abbreviation thereof) where the licensed manufacturer maintains its place of business; and 5. In the case of an imported firearm, the name of the country in which manufactured and the city and State (or recognized abbreviation thereof) where the importer maintains its place of business 18 U.S.C. 923(i): IDENTIFICATION OF FIREARMS 26 U.S.C. 5842(a): IDENTIFICATION OF FIREARMS 27 CFR 478.92(a): IDENTIFICATION OF FIREARMS 27 CFR 478.92(a)(4)(i): ALTERNATE MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION 27 CFR 479.102(a): IDENTIFICATION OF FIREARMS 27 CFR 479.102(c): ALTERNATE MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION So, if it came from or through the US since 1968, it had to be marked. If it was not marked, it didn't come from/through the US.

If trying to REMOVE them didn't work, "harder to have access" will work even less.

No, my answer was: "You are confusing your desires with mine. you want interlocks." You want to try again?

The planes I listed are not flexible wings which is kinda the definition of parachute. You seemed to have missed he is not agreeing with you.

I did what I was ordered to do. Again, you have no clue about the military. Instead of admitting that, you go off on some tangent. And who is to say there was no useful skill learned? You? I now know that skipping an AT4 is not something that would be a good tactic. I know that I can throw 4-5 grenades before the first one goes off.... so I could decimate a large area without getting myself fragged. Basically (once again) you are talking about a topic you have ZERO clue about. When your 1SG tells you to do X, unless it is illegal, you do X. Sure it does.... As I have shown (which you ignored on went off on some tangent) when you increase funding you increase waste. So if you want to make headway, you need to cut waste FIRST. You are like the guy that wants to get out of debt... So he gets a second job and then buys a flat screen TV with the extra money and then wonders why he is not out of debt yet. I am the guy that sees my budget is not working, so I drop my cable TV, I stop eating out, and THEN I get additional income.

1. You are not John 2. Point is they *are* planes. A handgun and a rifle are not the same thing, but they are both firearms.

Still waiting: Do you have a problem with the phrase "Shall not be infringed"? You love to claim that the SC is the final say.... Cool. But I have shown, using ONLY SC cases, the SCOTUS has said that an individual is allowed an M-16. You have not been able to counter that claim. United States v. Miller: "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." DC v Heller: that it is "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia," "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause" McDonald v. Chicago: that it applies to the States You have shown that it is not an unlimited right.... Yes, and to cite the SC they mentioned prohibitions 'against felons and the insane'. But the fact remains that the SC has ruled that it is an individual right to own a 'military-type weapon' in all of the United States. Can you provide a SINGLE SCOTUS quote that proves your position against my comment? Remember, "Shall not be infringed" is already there as well.

You are confusing your desires with mine. You want the interlocks.

Still waiting John.... Is this still not a real plane? http://affordaplane.com/ nor this one? http://www.quicksilveraircraft.com/sport.htm You do not need a license or insurance to own AND TO FLY THEM.

Or why he wanted to kill people is the main question. It is illegal for felons to have guns, yet they still get them. Drugs are banned, yet the US has a drug problem. Mexico bans 'assault rifles' but they have a violence problem. It is illogical to think banning something actually removes it. Didn't work with prohibition. Does not work with prostitution. Does not work with felons and guns Does not work with drugs Banning 'assault weapons' did not work in Mexico. It is a pipe dream from people unable to see reality.

To imagine a politician is not telling the truth!!!! "More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.-- Obama April 16, 2010. "California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States." In 2007-2008, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing of those, 90 percent (5,114) were found to have come from the U.S. - TRUE BUT According to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes in 2007-2008. 68% of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. Take out the 6k that could not be traced and you have 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S. So why do some people keep trying to sell the 90% figure when the truth is about 18%?

You are confusing your desires with mine. You want the interlocks. *I* don't. Why do you want to interfere in my life with interlocks?

I see, you stuck your foot in your mouth and instead of admitting it you asked for ketchup.

You have no clue about the military do you? Show me where I would be allowed to disobey a LAWFUL order? Nothing ILLEGAL happened. Yes. Ah, flip it: Then expenditures lowered and then taxes raised to meet the requirements of that law.

Not my point at all. YOU asked Rush: "I know it's tough having to realize there are places outside the USA." To which I replied to you: "The fact that YOU seem obsessed with *US politics* makes me question if YOU know there are places outside the US. " To compare my posts (or Rush's) about Canada to yours about the US would support my claim that YOU may not know there are other places than the US. So, you didn't get the point, and your posts argue against you. You know who we work for?

And until the left wing admits that the problem has two sides, income will never keep up with what we owe. They are the ones pushing MORE entitlement programs.