"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


I'm pretty sure I can't turn the thumb safety on on my CZ unless the
hammer is in the firing position but on my Ruger Mark III, I can flip
the safety on or off no matter what. I'll have to check that, though.

--------------------------------------------------

Sounds like the CZ is a decocker only. Makes sense.

When I took the safety course we used the instructor provided Glock
9mm and his Ruger Mark II .22LR.
I like them both but sure enough, neither one (the newer Ruger Mark
III or the Glock) are MA compliant.

On 4/3/13 7:45 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...


I'm pretty sure I can't turn the thumb safety on on my CZ unless the
hammer is in the firing position but on my Ruger Mark III, I can flip
the safety on or off no matter what. I'll have to check that, though.

--------------------------------------------------

Sounds like the CZ is a decocker only. Makes sense.

When I took the safety course we used the instructor provided Glock 9mm
and his Ruger Mark II .22LR.
I like them both but sure enough, neither one (the newer Ruger Mark III
or the Glock) are MA compliant.



No, you cannot operate the trigger or the hammer when the thumb safety
is on.

On 4/3/2013 5:48 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/3/13 5:39 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:31:58 -0400, Hank©
wrote:

On 4/3/2013 2:24 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:47:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/3/13 1:42 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:06:25 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

On 4/3/13 1:06 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:34:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:


have a home, plenty of food, a car or three, 3 TVs, cable,
computer,
internet, air conditioning, washer dryer, bicycles, boats,
clothes,
shoes, hand tools, fishing poles, cupboard full of dishes,
VCRs, hobby
materials, electronic test equipment, electricity, stove,
storage shed/work shop, furniture, freezer, money for gas,
wifi radio,
communication receiver, fax machine, cordless phone, health
insurance,
HSA SEP, riding mower, push mower, electric gokart, portable
radio,
books, binoculars, sewing machines, storage cabinets, table
saw, jig
saw, band saw, greenhouse, irrigation system, water pump,
water/sewer,
living close to local consumer services.


Please add to the list and tell me what good things are
you missing.


Mikek



The phrase typically does not refer to those sorts of things.

Does it refer to safeties on handguns? You know, neither of my
revolvers, one of which is the
"Highway Patrolman" has a safety. They must be 'bad' guns, huh?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.


Have you figured out the difference between polymer and alloy
yet? Or
whether you should winterize your outboard's innards with WD 40? Or
whether you should use two cycle oil in your four stroke outboard?

If I were in your shoes I'd be doing the same thing.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.



I learned this trick from you:

Have you figured out the difference between polymer and alloy yet?
Absolutely! That was a rhetorical question for Tim.

Or whether you should winterize your outboard's innards with WD 40?
Absolutely! That was a comment made by a Dutch mechanic which I
posted for comments. Got 'em too!

Or whether you should use two cycle oil in your four stroke outboard?
That was never an issue. One of our other readers questioned that,
after misreading a post.

Now, see how easy that was? Perhaps you'd care to expound on just
why you put the safety on after
loading a round on the range. Do you stand around and bull****?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.


I'd keep pressing him until he gives you a thoughtful answer, right or
wrong.

He backed himself into a corner. He'd have to admit that his thumb
safety is unused, and therefore
useless.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.


No, John, it is not unused, nor am I in a corner. If you bothered to try
to understand what you read, you'd realize I offered up *one* way to use
the thumb safety on a pistol. There are others. But I told you I'd offer
one way. And that's all you got, and all you are getting, no matter how
many times you and your buddy FlaJim/Meyer/Hank fluff each other.

That's enough. Now that we have you side stepping and qualifying your
statements with here to fore unmentioned differences in weapons that
might alter conditions and readiness. But the valid question that John
asked of you remains unanswered.
You are just a windbag and a poser Krause.

On 4/3/2013 6:19 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/3/13 6:06 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"J Herring" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:31:58 -0400, Hank©
wrote:



I'd keep pressing him until he gives you a thoughtful answer, right or
wrong.

He backed himself into a corner. He'd have to admit that his thumb
safety is unused, and therefore
useless.

----------------------------------------

John, correct me if I am wrong but I am under the understanding that
you do all your live round gun handling at a shooting range. You do not
have a permit for concealed carry. Is that correct?

The reason I ask is because I think it depends on what you are doing
with regard to a safety. At the range a thumb safety isn't used much
in the normal protocol of shooting but if you carry, it may be.

Some people carry with the safety off. Some with it on. Some with a
round in the chamber, some with the chamber empty. Me? The few times
I carry, I have a full clip inserted, but the chamber is empty and the
thumb safety is "on". People will disagree, but I feel it is safer that
way, for me and for others. If I ever had to use it, the time it would
take to snap the safety off and rack the slide would be a matter of a
second or two.




I've carried outside of the house with a round in the pipe and the
safety on. I've only done that a few times under special circumstances.
When I do carry, typically, I have a mag inserted but I haven't yet
racked the slide, so there's no need to use the safety. I have a belt
carry holster so when I do carry, I have to wear a jacket to keep the
firearm covered. It's a custom molded holster, and while it holds the
weapon snugly, the trigger guard is completely free of the holster. It's
not an expensive holster. I think it was about $75.

Scary Bananas Krausie baby. One of the obvious reasons to holser a
weapon is to protect the trigger guard from obstacles like fingers and such.

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:52:45 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:06:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:39:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:58:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:51:08 -0400, wrote:


It is running a $85 billion dollar deficit and no plan to fix it,. How
is that not an immediate problem?


$85B? Why does that number sound familiar? I know, I know. It's the
big oil subsidy. Eliminate that, and we're good to go. What's more
important, big oil getting money it doesn't need or people getting
their Social Security? Hmmmm....

Cite that.

I lied. $52B in direct subsidized costs, plus $1.6T in related costs
of the fossil fuel industry.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

... or $10B

"In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel
subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually,"

Nice cherry picking tho.



So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per
year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help
the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what
you're claiming? Nice try.

When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy"
like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be
spending that money anyway.
The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct
payments or tax credits

So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the
infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums
that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't
pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable. Good god you're
so amazingly either right wing crazy or deliberately stupid just so
you can "win" the argument in your little brain (because you can't
"win" the argument with anyone who spends more than five minutes
looking up the actual facts).

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 18:06:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

The few
times I carry, I have a full clip inserted, but the chamber is empty

===

Unless you are doing law enforcement work I think that's a good
strategy. I'd argue that without a round in the chamber, you don't
even need the safety.

On 4/3/2013 6:03 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:18:05 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 3/30/2013 4:01 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:17:23 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the
government to borrow more money and raise taxes more.
There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it
is unclear how they will ever pay it back.

Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus
and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how.

If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they
made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate?
.

I would not willingly put money in a Ponzi scheme in the first place.

That's not even close to what I asked.

If you are asking whether I will cash my SS checks, yes I will but I
do wonder how they are actually getting the money. Unfortunately a lot
of it is simply created out of thin air and I know that is the road to
runaway inflation.

Most of the poor and the middle class will get more back from SS then
they paid in. Myself, should get it all back in about 7* years, the next
14 are on your kids back.

*does not factor in inflation.

Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox.

http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know

Reread the article with this in mind, "will get more back from SS then
THEY paid in" You will then find what I said is true.
Also, I've been paying for about 40 years, I didn't make anywhere near
$50.000 for many of those years and I'll get 30% more than the article
states. If you started today, made $50,000 every year for 45 years, your
check would be way more than $1200 a month. The numbers are just plain
wrong.
Mikek

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:33:02 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 4/3/2013 6:03 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:18:05 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 3/30/2013 4:01 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:17:23 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:34:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:16:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:45:59 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:49:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

What "facts"? The whole program is based on the ability of the
government to borrow more money and raise taxes more.
There is no "trust funds" they spent every dime of that money and it
is unclear how they will ever pay it back.

Feel free to dispute the facts. That don't make you right.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

That demonstrates that the federal government spent all of the surplus
and they promise to pay it back but they have not said how.

If you loan someone or some entity money, do you really care how they
made the money to pay you back as long as it's legitimate?
.

I would not willingly put money in a Ponzi scheme in the first place.

That's not even close to what I asked.

If you are asking whether I will cash my SS checks, yes I will but I
do wonder how they are actually getting the money. Unfortunately a lot
of it is simply created out of thin air and I know that is the road to
runaway inflation.

Most of the poor and the middle class will get more back from SS then
they paid in. Myself, should get it all back in about 7* years, the next
14 are on your kids back.

*does not factor in inflation.

Complete bull****. Stop listening to fox.

http://open.salon.com/blog/sickofstu..._you_t o_know

Reread the article with this in mind, "will get more back from SS then
THEY paid in" You will then find what I said is true.
Also, I've been paying for about 40 years, I didn't make anywhere near
$50.000 for many of those years and I'll get 30% more than the article
states. If you started today, made $50,000 every year for 45 years, your
check would be way more than $1200 a month. The numbers are just plain
wrong.
Mikek

You are a ****ing idiot. It's quite clear that you have no interest in
actual facts. Feel free to live in your fox-induced illusion.

On 4/4/2013 2:00 AM, wrote:


So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the
infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums
that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't
pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable.

Complete bull****... Solar pollutes way more than fraking. Look at
China, near the manufacturing plants.

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 18:06:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"J Herring" wrote in message
.. .

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:31:58 -0400, Hank©
wrote:



I'd keep pressing him until he gives you a thoughtful answer, right
or
wrong.

He backed himself into a corner. He'd have to admit that his thumb
safety is unused, and therefore
useless.

----------------------------------------

John, correct me if I am wrong but I am under the understanding that
you do all your live round gun handling at a shooting range. You do
not have a permit for concealed carry. Is that correct?

Not all my shooting is at a shooting range. I do have a permit for concealed carry.

The reason I ask is because I think it depends on what you are doing
with regard to a safety. At the range a thumb safety isn't used
much in the normal protocol of shooting but if you carry, it may be.

If I carried with a round in the chamber it would be because I was in a situation where I thought I
needed to do so...say walking the streets of Chicago at 2 o'clock AM or strolling the back roads of
Prince Georges County, MD, at the same time. If I had to draw the weapon, my finger would not be in
the trigger guard until I was ready to pull the trigger. I would not use a holster with the
flexibility to shoot the pistol, nor would I keep Sharpies, or other similar objects, in the
holster.

Some people carry with the safety off. Some with it on. Some with a
round in the chamber, some with the chamber empty. Me? The few
times I carry, I have a full clip inserted, but the chamber is empty
and the thumb safety is "on".

That's good. But, if there is no round in the chamber then there is really no need to have the
safety on. A little extra precaution never hurt, however.

People will disagree, but I feel it is
safer that way, for me and for others. If I ever had to use it, the
time it would take to snap the safety off and rack the slide would be
a matter of a second or two.

If I ever had to use the P250, it would, as you say, take only a second or two to rack the slide.

My comments to Harry were based on his essay safeties and conditions. I won't regurgitate.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling' - the liberals' last stand.