[Richard Jefferies]

The last gun I purchased was a Marlin M1895 in .450 Marlin, the Guide Gun model with the 18' ported barrel. It has had exactly one box of Hornady factory ammo fired through it.

My avatar shows the last gun I acutally came into possession of, a Kimber Ultra Ten II .45ACP with a double stack 10 rd. mag and a combo polymer/aluminum frame. Nov. 26th of 2002 was the 25th anniversary for my wife Deb and me. We were planning on a blowout, since we never did get a honeymoon in the traditional sense. We had reservations at a riverfront hotel in Savanah, GA, and were going to spend 4 nights clubbing at the great jazz clubs just across the river. About 2 weeks prior to our departure, she fell and shattered her right wrist, and banged the heck out of her knee and head. So, change of plans. The hotel was kind enough to refund our pre-paid reservation, and that plus the additional funds we had set aside were used for more expensive gifts than originally planned. She gave me the Kimber, and I gave her a 22" strand of pearls.

I'm a libertarian, and believe in equal rights for all. Why should the wife be the only one to get a gift on the anniversary? It takes two to make a marriage, right? Since it takes a lot of loving effort to make a marriage work for any length of time, much less 25 years, I felt we were both deserving of a special gift, and so did Deb, God bless her lovely soul. So there ya have it.

May you all have a blessed day.

 

[Richard Jefferies]

"...the Guide Gun model with the 18' ported barrel"

WOW! Is this on wheels? :shock:

OOOPS!

Yeah, got a genuine Indian Wars era Gattling Gun mount for it. The only reason there's no Gattling on the mount is because SC has a 5 rd. magazine limit on any centerfire cartridge used for hunting game animals. :lol:

I'm so glad we have a quality of people here that can gently kid each other about a typo. As Dean and some of the other old Prodigy denizens can attest, a mistake like that during a debate with the anti's on the politics board there would have constituted proof to the antis that I was an illiterate, ignorant, red-neck psycho gun nut, just itching for a chance to kill some one with a cannon.

Too bad we don't have a "Thumb your nose" smiley I could direct to Cate, Beeky, et al. (Did I use that Latin phrase correctly, Dean?)

 

[Richard Jefferies]

I haven't the foggiest clue, but bad memories last a long time. If they are still alive, I'd sure love to be able to thumb my nose at 'em. Heck, I told Cate back in '94 that my then newly purchased Colt 1991A1 was going to be named in his honor: The EradiCATEr! HAH! He replied, "Enjoy your new gun." I did, and still am, and my Grandsons will probably be still enjoying it long after Cate and I have both returned to dust.....

I'll never foget Cate and another anti "supposed lawyer" laughing about one of my posts on another board, saying how stupid I was about the Miller decision because it was a default decision without the adversarial process. It proved to me that neither of them had taken the time to research the entire Miller incident, and probably only read exerpts from the SOCUS decision. I've read Miller, several times, and in it, the Court clearly declares that the "militia" is all able-bodied men above the age of 17 capable of bearing arms, and it also clearly states at the begining that there was no representation or filed brief on behalf of the defendants. Since there was no defense presented, the justices by law had to rule on the evidence presented at trial, and thus, it was a default ruling. I don't know if that's the proper legal term for it, but that's just a semantics issue. It was clear that the SOCUS justices themselves were not even that familiar with the NFA '34 act. If it's not in violation of the Second amendment to place a tax on a firearm "which bears no relationship to a militia," then how could it possibly be Constitutional to place that SAME TAX upon weapons that, at the time of the ruling, were clearly "militia weapons" in use by the US military forces, including the National Guard? "Lawyer Cate" and company were ignorant of these facts as far as I was ever able to determine....or maybe they weren't and were just ignoring them, and their laughter was akin to that of someone whistling in the dark as he passes a graveyard at midnight; trying to build up courage when you're terrified. I prefer to think the latter. I had 'em by the short 'n' curlies, and they knew it, but were too cowardly to admit it. Like most ignorant bullies, they attempted to bluster their butt-whippin' into a victory for themselves. Closed minded Fools.

Have a blessed day, all.

 

[Richard Jefferies]

Walt, if you got the Beekster to shut up for half a day, I'd judge that to be a major admission of defeat on his part. Good on ya!!