Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

ezra_

gunny123 wrote: »

Did one years ago. I remember standing the tin of wax in a pot of boiling water. When the wax had melted i rubbed it into the jacket with a small sponge. If you can warm the jacket even better. Hanging it in an airing cupboard might work.

I would never buy another barbour jacket again. Like landrovers, they are completely over rated and much too expensive for what they are. I have one that i use on the bike, last time i looked at it in the wardrobe, it was falling asunder.

Rewaxed it. Looks much better.

Its an old barbour (Beaufort, with the game pocket) that I picked up second hand from the UK. Was used for shooting but is in good nick.

Will see how it works out in Autumn

Cass

But, but, but ............................. if you ban all guns then criminals won't have guns cause they obey the la.................................. oh yeah, RIGHT. :rolleyes:

gunny123

Looks like a showdown is brewing between the EUSSR and Switzerland.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-08/swiss-firearm-diehards-resist-charlie-hebdo-inspired-gun-reform

Grizzly 45

And Pro Tell Will get those 50k worth of sigs in a heartbeat.You do not feck about with Swiss gun owners, and the majority of concessions that were made in the directive were for countries that do have the citizen's militia tradition. Nice to see the graph that shows the Socialist Utopia f Venezuela as being the most gun crime-ridden country and the US fourth.

Cass

ezra_ wrote: »

Reported. If they say it doesn't violate standards, report that.

Not sure how to report that as there is no "report" function, but i sent feedbacka dn reported the page again.

According to FB's own rules, section 5, Regulated Goods:

We also prohibit the purchase, sale, gifting, exchange and transfer of firearms, including firearm parts or ammunition, between private individuals on Facebook

ezra_

Cass wrote: »

Not sure how to report that as there is no "report" function, but i sent feedbacka dn reported the page again.

According to FB's own rules, section 5, Regulated Goods:

When you report something, they give you an answer (normally) and if you aren't happy with it, you can send in direct feedback. This seems to actually be read and acted on (if valid).

Cass

Done it, twice, but getting the same responses. Does not violate our community standards.

Should start a gun sale page and see how long it lasts and then cite their reposnes to the buy back page if they try or do close it down.

Cass

On a separate note, was reading USA today about the Texas school shooting and they basically stopped just shy of saying "well done" [to the shooter] for only using a shotgun, revolver and bombs.

They still tried to tie ARs into the story even though the early reports of the use of an AR were quickly rubbished, and later found to be completely untrue. Towards the end they say how ARs cause much more casualties than pistols or shotguns. Funny because numbers from the FBI and CDC show:

• Pistols - 8294
• Rifle (not just ARs, all rifles) - 320 deaths

Statistics also say that revolvers and shotguns (combined) were used 30% more than rifles (all kinds) with semi auto PISTOLS used twice as much as the next closest.


All of this while almost ignoring the threat of the IEDs the shooter had. Viable devices by all accounts.

The fact that 10 were killed and dozens injured until the shooter was stopped by a cop (good guy with a gun) does not seem to me to be "less lethal".

Grizzly 45

And again,it turns out to be another little fukker off his meds again! Seriously the pharma industry in the US has more to answer for than the NRA ever will.

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And again,it turns out to be another little fukker off his meds again! Seriously the pharma industry in the US has more to answer for than the NRA ever will.

There is a programme on during the week on one of the uk channels about that very subject. The doctors answer to every problem ýoung people have is medication. No matter what the side effects or long term problems it may bring. But of course there is big money to be made so peoples lives do not matter.

Sparks

gunny123 wrote: »

The same company also make tools, so you can equip yourself with a set of dick files !

Already did. And a few other bits and pieces...



:P

gunny123

BUT BUT BUT they are Stanley tools aren't they ? I hope they are the old ones, most new tools are chinese tat with good names on them. Like Record vices, now Irwin and nowhere near as good as they were, Moore and Wright ditto, and the excellent Mitutoyo brand is being faked right left and centre.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Already did. And a few other bits and pieces...



:P

Lovely set of spoke shaves and planes, Sparks.

Moved on to electric myself, but still keep the old stuff for some reason I don't know why.

Nothing like as comprehensive as what you have, BTW.

Respect to the man who knows how to use those tools.

Sparks

gunny123 wrote: »

BUT BUT BUT they are Stanley tools aren't they ? I hope they are the old ones, most new tools are chinese tat with good names on them. Like Record vices, now Irwin and nowhere near as good as they were, Moore and Wright ditto, and the excellent Mitutoyo brand is being faked right left and centre.

Naw, there are only two Stanleys in there (the two black block planes over on the far left), both pre-WW2, there's two preston spokeshaves in the middle that are 1800s or so, and the chisels are various names like Ward and Footprint (and two new Narex butt chisels and two japanese chisels) and are all 1970 or earlier (some much much earlier), but everything else is from Record, not Stanley and from before they got Thatcher'd in the 80s. I think the newest second-hand tool I have is from around 1960? And the oldest is from 1830 or so. Oh, and the vice is a Record 53A from somewhere around the 1930s I think (it's mostly hidden behind the vice jaws).

It's kindof nice to make something that doesn't have a half-life of 3 months

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Nothing like as comprehensive as what you have, BTW.

Necessity - the shed's so small you can't really get much in the way of electric tools in there. I do have a tiny bandsaw and a bobbin sander I don't use much, and a cordless drill (but I have a few non-electric cordless drills too )

Respect to the man who knows how to use those tools.

Ah, I wouldn't go *that* far
I do small bits for fun, that's about it. I've seen what people who know what they're doing can do and it's just another league entirely I aspire to potter

yubabill1

"Non-electric cordless drills" brings back memories of aching arms when I was shown how to use a bit-and-brace. The same man - Auld Joe everyone called him - showed me how to use his soldering iron, it was nearly two feet long and his bar of solder about 3/4".

Got a bit nostalgic seeing the hand tools. Auld Joe's neighbour bar one, Tommy, set a handsaw for me well over thirty years ago - it's still sharp. Always wanted to know how to do that. It was a working-class terrace where skills were respected.

I suppose I could google how to set saw teeth, never bothered, it was a lad thing - learning about skills and all that. Bit of a bodger myself by times even though I try not to be.

Sparks

It's surprisingly easy to learn these days - look for Paul Sellers on youtube for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA5DixEaaUo

Few minutes watching a video, buy a saw file (there's a specific one for this, normal ones are harder to use for the task) and away you go. It's fiddly, but feck it if I can do it, a trained chimp could do it

gunny123

yubabill1 wrote: »

I suppose I could google how to set saw teeth, never bothered, it was a lad thing - learning about skills and all that. Bit of a bodger myself by times even though I try not to be.

Nothing wrong with being a bodger, it was a rural craft, don't know how it became a negative term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUv3OwY5Etg

gunny123

Private tool museum.



https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/scots-hardware-shop-owner-reveals-12547454

solarwinds

Can anyone help me to get rid of the updated terms banner at the bottom. I have clicked I agree many times but its still fec*ing there.

gunny123

solarwinds wrote: »

Can anyone help me to get rid of the updated terms banner at the bottom. I have clicked I agree many times but its still fec*ing there.

Same for me on the mobile, no matter how often you click, it still sits there.

Cass

Lads it's a site issue. Try this forum/thread.

Cass

Seen this and i'm not getting into a political/President Trump debate, but will this ruling not have much more reaching consequences?

I'm not proficient enough in legal jargon to know but if if you say someone has no right to block you for fear of infringement of their rights then surely it cuts both ways? Can Twitter, Facebook and all other media now not hide behind self/site made rules and block content they deem unsuitable?

I realize this will be an American issue because while we have freedom of speech (article 40.6.1 of the Constitution) it is restricted in some parts and for issues relating to social media, etc. there are laws that limit what can be said and consequecnes of saying the wrong thing (as we found with the court case) and there are requirements of the site owners with financial and legal penalties for not doing so in a timely manner.

However this is a ruling by a Federal Judge which i assume can be cited in future cases? So if you put something on Twitter or Facebook, they remove it, you can sue them for infringing on your first amendment right?

Grizzly 45

A federal judgement in this matter isn't enough. For it to be law of the land and a legal standing, it has to be a Supreme court decision with a majority in favour. So if anti-gun, daughter abusing Rosie O Donnell wants to make it law, she can go take it to the supreme court to get a binding decision.SCOTUS won't want to touch this with a 20 foot pole. It's as controversial as the 2nd amendment issue on whether individual states or counties can ban ownership of "assault rifles", or whether Ar15 could now be considered "militia arms" and exempt from any confiscation attempts as they are in common usage.
Plus, add the situation where even the SC cant decide even is the US constitution a "live" document or as Scalia ruled a fixed document of rights. So this is a major can of worms to be opened.

Cass

But would it be like here, and a court of record that can be cited at future hearings? Should they arise.

Grizzly 45

Not really, US law while similar to English law diverges off on certain points. In the fact it works on case law and constitutional law more on these issues.IOW a Federal judge in CA might declare"assault rifles" as a non-sporting firearm and therefore not covered under the 2A for civilian ownership. But when it comes to a supreme court case the counter-arguments would be numerous established precedents under Supreme court rulings on an issue. This is why you see so many "Versus" cases mentioned in US law.[EG DC Vs Heller,the people Vs Larry Flynt etc] So while a state can enact it's own legislation on an issue,it does not set precedent on a Federal level for the remaining 49 states.

The Supreme court, like ours, gives an interpretation and a majority ruling based on constitutional and Federal precedent case law, not on State law. Nor can it be repugnant to the Constitution on an issue like 2A matters.IOW while the SC might, somehow agree with the CA law, they cannot declare it law of the land until 35+[?]States agree with it, and both houses have a majority decision in favour and the president signs it into law and doesn't veto the bill. Then it becomes an amendment to the constitution. see prohibition and the amendment repealing such.

The reason SCOTUS is reluctant to hear arguements like these is simply it is too much of a hot potato politically wise and with Supreme court judges being political appointments by the POTUS,there is never a chance of saying it is a fair hearing for either arguement pro or anti.

Sparks

Even without the SCOTUS ruling, I think it's not going to be widely applicable; there's a chunk of stuff applying solely to the president over there because everything they say in public is meant to be recorded (there's a bit of law called the Presidential Records Act and they expanded it to include tweets for the current officeholder IIRC). So if your every public word carries the weight of the office, you don't get to say who can and can't hear it, because that'd be insane given than this guy is literally declaring policy on twitter before telling his cabinet or government officials about it (even if firing or hiring heads of departments or making other major policy... initiatives).

gunny123

Poor old David Hogg, i'll bet he likes firearms even less now



http://time.com/5301668/david-hogg-swat-swatted/

Sparks

Given the number of people who've been killed by that idiotic "prank", it's not really funny (and says a hell of a lot about their training as well).

BattleCorp

gunny123 wrote: »

Poor old David Hogg, i'll bet he likes firearms even less now



http://time.com/5301668/david-hogg-swat-swatted/

Seems like It's pretty easy nowadays to get a human rights award.