Ban gasoline!

Mark Simpson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Still, do the numbers. Yours may differ by a factor of three or maybe four, but we're still talking about a very small quantity of gasoline per stroke.

len.

Unfortunatly, the government has virtually unlimited resources when it comes to courts. I mean, the ATF can spend a billion bucks on a lawyer if they can justify it. All it will become is playing word games in the court and the federal government is really good at it. Then if they fail they will somehow get congress to remove rockets from PADs, or rewrite the law so that rockets wont be PADs (like "blah blah blah... that cannot fly up in the air" or something like that) or even worse they can rewrite the National firearms act (you know using the terrorist acts and stuff) to include rockets. That means paying the 200 dollar tax and all that stuff just to get ONE rocket/motor! They did all kind of funny stuff with gun laws, nothing to stop them from doing that with rocketry. By the way the NFA DID list "rockets with propellant of more than 4 ounces" as destructive device! so be careful here...

Here's the definition in 18 USC 921 (a) (4) (4) The term "destructive device" means - (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

"tai fu" wrote in news:bogh8u$gvg$ snipped-for-privacy@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu:

No. Read the definition you supplied. If you expand the hierarchy, it says "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces"

len.

Take a close look at the subsection numbering. The section prohibits any of several delivery devices if used to carry an "explosive", an "incendiary", or "poison gas".

We don't build the kind of rockets (or grenades, mines, etc.) that they are specifying here...

-dave w

but its not hard for the ATF to change the law to say "readily convertable to" which is already there (something thats almost a machine gun is considered a machine gun to the ATF, you know, like open bolt sten, AR-15 with M-16 trigger group in it but cant fire full auto) and whats to stop them from saying that a high power rocket is readily convertable to a destructive device?

Say if they were to raid your house and told the society at large you're a illicit explosive manufacturer, and you beat them on technicalities, then they go looking in stuff they take from you, and oops, finds a illegal copy of Photoshop or some movie you borrowed and copied. Then they hit you with that and gives you some time as well... One thing is, when they raid they take anything that can be potentially be used to create indictments. This includes your computers, any igniters you have, fireworks, ammo, guns, rocket motors, CD-RW's.. Then there's the nasty conspiracy stuff that apprantly (from what I heard) all they need is 2 people testifying against you and they can give you time with _no_ evidence whatsoever.

Here is my quick mental math.

My 6cyl (4 stroke) car cruises at 60 mph at 2000 rpm and gets 25 mpg.

at 60 mph and 25 mpg, 1 gal is burned in 25 minutes.

so, 6000 * 25 = 150000 sparks to burn 1 gallon, or .0000067 gal per cyl spark.

I wander if my eyes could even make out a puff of mist that small.

Curtis

Curtis Reynolds wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@tctc.com:

Nice work. A gallon is about 4 liters, or 4000 cc, so that's the equivalent of about .027 cc. Using the approximate conversion of

len.

Yes "we" are.

Read NAR S&T requirements Read NAR policy re HPR motor access Read NFPA codes Read TRA TMTrequirements Read TRA policy re HPRmotor access.

Lying does not help Ray and Len.

With NO consequences at all ever.

Just a question.

If you were to get in the cockpit and try to fly this 747 boeing airplane could it be possible ?

Could it be possible to fly it all the way directly into these buildings they did?

I believe it hard to do with out aircraft control or pevious training on a flight simulater and have to remember all the lungitude and latitude points they took and follow the so pricisely .

You think any of the terrorist could have flown the air plane into the building ?

Were was the flight controllers

Gene Costanza wrote in news:L_wsb.81896$Gq.13300345 @twister.nyc.rr.com:

Yup, we probably had better ban that too!