CSNbbs

(12-07-2021 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Jumping to conclusions… the dude and his entire family are posing in front of a Christmas tree holding multiple types of firearms…

So?

I think you are the one jumping to conclusions.

(12-07-2021 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

I would guess this is a Christmas card sent out by a Second amendment supporting Republican to his supporters. Probably elected from a deep red district. IOW, a political ploy.

But I decided to find out a bit about him, rather than jumping to conclusions about fetishes or whatever.

Sorry that I cannot condense his life to one or two things for Lad. He will have to read the whole article. Or ignore the whole article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Massie



But I will tell Lad this much: if he reads the article he will find things about this guy that are surprising, including some things he might find admirable.

Jumping to conclusions… the dude and his entire family are posing in front of a Christmas tree holding multiple types of firearms…

Really, you cannot think of any reason to do this other than a fetish? He is just appealing to his base. Who do you send cards to? Supporters. Are his supporters likely to be offended or reassured by the guns?

What does the tree have to do with it?

I guess you didn't read the link.

(12-07-2021 05:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Jumping to conclusions… the dude and his entire family are posing in front of a Christmas tree holding multiple types of firearms…

So?

I think you are the one jumping to conclusions.

What is the conclusion I am jumping to?

He is a libertarian republican. His supporters are going to be strong 2nd Amendment supporters. This is what they want to see from him.

I haven't gotten my card from him this year, but assuming that's it, I will be totally supportive. I did get my card from Rand and Kelley Paul today. It's got a photo of Rand and Kelley on the front, and separate photos of them with Will (at the Derby), Robert, and Duncan, plus one with Ron and Carol on the back.

(12-07-2021 05:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 12:16 PM)BSWBRice Wrote: [ -> ]This site makes it way too easy to read posts from people we have on ignore lol

Ain't that the truth!

It's a lot like dieting. Takes some willpower.

It doesn't help when other people quote the ignored one.

But for those who don't like me posting links they don't like, the solution is obvious: put me on Ignore and you will never be bothered by those links again. I have suggested that 93 put me on Ignore, but he has...ignored me.

Didn't ignore you. Told you that I'm not interested in playing your ignore game. I'll comment when I see fit and will stay silent when I see fit.

(12-07-2021 05:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 03:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]If Baldwin followed all of the rules he was supposed to follow, and handled the gun in the way he was supposed to handle it,

But he didn't. That's the point.

Maybe I missed it, but what on-set firearm handling rule did he not follow?

He didn't follow the number one on-planet rule of gun safety. When somebody tells you that a gun is not loaded (or loaded with blanks) treat it as loaded (with bullets) until you personally verify that it isn't.

Pretty basic.

(12-07-2021 06:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Jumping to conclusions… the dude and his entire family are posing in front of a Christmas tree holding multiple types of firearms…

So?
I think you are the one jumping to conclusions.

What is the conclusion I am jumping to?

That a single photo equals a "gun fetish."

(12-06-2021 03:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I was at a luncheon today that went into the issue of China/Taiwan. The speaker is a rather prolific writer on world strategy and a professor at UT.

His point was that the weakness of Biden may present the best opportunity in the eyes of Beijing for the next twenty years to do the 'lets clawback the renegade province'. But, the real high tide will be right after the Beijing Olympics and prior to the US presidential election.

Looks like Putin is viewing that the same way with the massive buildup on the border with Ukraine he has gotten going and his very overt threats to NATO in the last 60 days on the Ukrainian issue.

I wouldnt be surprised that if either Taiwan or Ukraine 'tips into conflict', the other party will let loose on their thing -- that is if Putin starts tossing punches with Ukraine, China just might go forward with Taiwan. And vice versa. We have a historically weak, and historically enfeebled President currently (even the weak thing is worse than Carter imo) --- kind of a grand opportunity for the two.

Fortunately, NATO has kept its focus:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_189644.htm

(12-07-2021 06:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 12:16 PM)BSWBRice Wrote: [ -> ]This site makes it way too easy to read posts from people we have on ignore lol

Ain't that the truth!

It's a lot like dieting. Takes some willpower.

It doesn't help when other people quote the ignored one.

But for those who don't like me posting links they don't like, the solution is obvious: put me on Ignore and you will never be bothered by those links again. I have suggested that 93 put me on Ignore, but he has...ignored me.

Didn't ignore you. Told you that I'm not interested in playing your ignore game. I'll comment when I see fit and will stay silent when I see fit.

Ignore doesn't have anything to do with commenting or not commenting. It has to do with listening and engaging.

Since you are listening, what do you think the benefits will be from higher corporate taxes for your business, your employees, your customers, your family, and yourself? I will take you off Ignore so I can hear your response. Ironically, the reason I put you on Ignore originally was because of your dislike of me asking you questions.

(12-07-2021 07:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 06:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 12:16 PM)BSWBRice Wrote: [ -> ]This site makes it way too easy to read posts from people we have on ignore lol

Ain't that the truth!

It's a lot like dieting. Takes some willpower.

It doesn't help when other people quote the ignored one.

But for those who don't like me posting links they don't like, the solution is obvious: put me on Ignore and you will never be bothered by those links again. I have suggested that 93 put me on Ignore, but he has...ignored me.

Didn't ignore you. Told you that I'm not interested in playing your ignore game. I'll comment when I see fit and will stay silent when I see fit.

Ignore doesn't have anything to do with commenting or not commenting. It has to do with listening and engaging.

Since you are listening, what do you think the benefits will be from higher corporate taxes for your business, your employees, your customers, your family, and yourself? I will take you off Ignore so I can hear your response. Ironically, the reason I put you on Ignore originally was because of your dislike of me asking you questions.

Is wasn't a dislike of your asking questions. For the upteempth time it was:

1) Your going into a tizzy if questions weren't answered immediately (within hours seemingly) despite not knowing what non-Parliament stuff was on my schedule. There are also some subjects that I simply am not interested in digging into. Not worth my time if I find it boring. You will accuse me of running away from hard questions in those cases.

2) Your demanding that I (and Lad) explain to you every far-leftist viewpoint even if it wasn't something that I believed or even a subject about which I was well-versed. I would tell you that you could look up some articles just as well as I could if you were so interested but you wouldn't accept that.

So to conclude... your asking questions is fine. What wasn't fine was your freakouts when you didn't get the answers that you demanded.

(12-07-2021 03:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]1) Not following. I saw a photo of a US representative that fit the bill of gun fetish - dictionary or axe to grind be damned, as it exemplified the term.

Well now I can't tell because looking back, it seems that it was 93 who said... *looks up fetish in dictionary and sees this photo*... but you seem to be owning it... Whatever... my comment was directed at that one. Saying one saw it in the dictionary implies that it fits the very definition of the word, without question... a generally accepted truth. That is not the case here.

Quote:2) What's the point? If the entire family, before Christmas (so not posing with gifts) posed with a bunch of power tools it would be really weird as well.

They're asking for ammunition, not guns. Same concept. Like posing with a stack of lumber and asking for power tools.... or hammers and asking for nails.

Quote:3) If we're talking about proper handling of guns, you NEVER point a gun at another person, regardless of whether it has confirmed to be unloaded or not. So since we're in a situation where that flies out the window (actors have to point the gun somewhere) there's a whole different set of rules to evaluate proper behavior. I don't think Baldwin's previous exposure (or lack of exposure) comes into play here as Owl#s suggested.

First, I recognize and already spoke to the fact that he 'had' to point it... for the movie. Still, he has a duty to make sure it's not loaded. I STROINGLY suspect that his lack of exposure is what caused him to not do this. I don't think you could possibly be more wrong here. He's not 100% to blame, but he could have and should have caught it. Accidents sometimes happen... and sometimes it means people die. Happens with guns. Happens with cars. Happens with pools and stairs and drugs and doctors.

Quote:To the hunting guide - if you, the person on the hunt, are not qualified to identify species of animals at range and the guide specifically tells you it is OK to shoot the specific animal, you bet that the person who is qualified to make that determination is responsible should you follow their direct instructions.

Oh, so you're suggesting these people went out to hunt for legal animals and were 'tricked' or 'mislead' into shooting a different animal by unscrupulous guides? That's a great defense. That's why they pose with their kill, right? Sounds like some animal rights activists have a great gig going on. Trick dumb wealthy people into doing something and then use it as a prop for your cause. Great plan. Of course I kid. MAYBE the people on the hunt didn't know it was a problem. Maybe they just thought there was a different reason hunting that 'rare' animal was so expensive.

Quote:If Baldwin followed all of the rules he was supposed to follow, and handled the gun in the way he was supposed to handle it, I don't really see him as carrying any responsibility. It's like any other work place incident where the failure of another person results in a fatality. If I put myself in the swing radius of an excavator on a job site and get hit by it, it's not the operator's fault.

But as others have said, he didn't follow all the rules he was supposed to follow. Rule #1 is treat all guns as if they are loaded... regardless of what someone else tells you. Your admonition earlier about 'don't point them at people' falls from that rule and not as you have implied, the other way around.

(12-07-2021 09:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 03:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]1) Not following. I saw a photo of a US representative that fit the bill of gun fetish - dictionary or axe to grind be damned, as it exemplified the term.

Well now I can't tell because looking back, it seems that it was 93 who said... *looks up fetish in dictionary and sees this photo*... but you seem to be owning it... Whatever... my comment was directed at that one. Saying one saw it in the dictionary implies that it fits the very definition of the word, without question... a generally accepted truth. That is not the case here.

Quote:2) What's the point? If the entire family, before Christmas (so not posing with gifts) posed with a bunch of power tools it would be really weird as well.

They're asking for ammunition, not guns. Same concept. Like posing with a stack of lumber and asking for power tools.... or hammers and asking for nails.

Quote:3) If we're talking about proper handling of guns, you NEVER point a gun at another person, regardless of whether it has confirmed to be unloaded or not. So since we're in a situation where that flies out the window (actors have to point the gun somewhere) there's a whole different set of rules to evaluate proper behavior. I don't think Baldwin's previous exposure (or lack of exposure) comes into play here as Owl#s suggested.

First, I recognize and already spoke to the fact that he 'had' to point it... for the movie. Still, he has a duty to make sure it's not loaded. I STROINGLY suspect that his lack of exposure is what caused him to not do this. I don't think you could possibly be more wrong here. He's not 100% to blame, but he could have and should have caught it. Accidents sometimes happen... and sometimes it means people die. Happens with guns. Happens with cars. Happens with pools and stairs and drugs and doctors.

Quote:To the hunting guide - if you, the person on the hunt, are not qualified to identify species of animals at range and the guide specifically tells you it is OK to shoot the specific animal, you bet that the person who is qualified to make that determination is responsible should you follow their direct instructions.

Oh, so you're suggesting these people went out to hunt for legal animals and were 'tricked' or 'mislead' into shooting a different animal by unscrupulous guides? That's a great defense. That's why they pose with their kill, right? Sounds like some animal rights activists have a great gig going on. Trick dumb wealthy people into doing something and then use it as a prop for your cause. Great plan. Of course I kid. MAYBE the people on the hunt didn't know it was a problem. Maybe they just thought there was a different reason hunting that 'rare' animal was so expensive.

Quote:If Baldwin followed all of the rules he was supposed to follow, and handled the gun in the way he was supposed to handle it, I don't really see him as carrying any responsibility. It's like any other work place incident where the failure of another person results in a fatality. If I put myself in the swing radius of an excavator on a job site and get hit by it, it's not the operator's fault.

But as others have said, he didn't follow all the rules he was supposed to follow. Rule #1 is treat all guns as if they are loaded... regardless of what someone else tells you. Your admonition earlier about 'don't point them at people' falls from that rule and not as you have implied, the other way around.

Are we (the public) familiar with the details as to what when on with the movie set death?

(12-07-2021 09:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 07:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 06:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 12:16 PM)BSWBRice Wrote: [ -> ]This site makes it way too easy to read posts from people we have on ignore lol

Ain't that the truth!

It's a lot like dieting. Takes some willpower.

It doesn't help when other people quote the ignored one.

But for those who don't like me posting links they don't like, the solution is obvious: put me on Ignore and you will never be bothered by those links again. I have suggested that 93 put me on Ignore, but he has...ignored me.

Didn't ignore you. Told you that I'm not interested in playing your ignore game. I'll comment when I see fit and will stay silent when I see fit.

Ignore doesn't have anything to do with commenting or not commenting. It has to do with listening and engaging.

Since you are listening, what do you think the benefits will be from higher corporate taxes for your business, your employees, your customers, your family, and yourself? I will take you off Ignore so I can hear your response. Ironically, the reason I put you on Ignore originally was because of your dislike of me asking you questions.

Is wasn't a dislike of your asking questions. For the upteempth time it was:

1) Your going into a tizzy if questions weren't answered immediately (within hours seemingly) despite not knowing what non-Parliament stuff was on my schedule. There are also some subjects that I simply am not interested in digging into. Not worth my time if I find it boring. You will accuse me of running away from hard questions in those cases.

2) Your demanding that I (and Lad) explain to you every far-leftist viewpoint even if it wasn't something that I believed or even a subject about which I was well-versed. I would tell you that you could look up some articles just as well as I could if you were so interested but you wouldn't accept that.

So to conclude... your asking questions is fine. What wasn't fine was your freakouts when you didn't get the answers that you demanded.

1) freakout is just your hyperbolic view of me asking for your comments after a period of silence. I would have been fine with "busy now" (7 keystrokes) or " don't care"(9). but extended silence seems like dodging. How I am supposed to know that it is a busy time at work or you are going camping?

2) If you don't agree, just say so. You spend ten X as much time telling me not to ask for a response as you would replying.

Along those lines, I have asked you twice on your opinion of the proposed corporate tax increase. I'll make it easy for you.

a. It is wonderful and will help my business and all concerned.
b. It will hurt my business and all concerned, but that's OK since it is for the greater good.
c. It will hurt my business and all concerned.

One keystroke.

You may, of course, if you want, and time permits, elaborate on your answers.

Or you may not respond at all, as you have been doing. But I really would like the opinion of a liberal Biden voter who also owns/operates a business, and you are the only one I know.

Baldwin may face criminal or civil charges not just because the gun was in his hand, but because he was the producer.

(12-07-2021 10:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 09:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 07:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 06:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2021 05:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Ain't that the truth!

It's a lot like dieting. Takes some willpower.

It doesn't help when other people quote the ignored one.

But for those who don't like me posting links they don't like, the solution is obvious: put me on Ignore and you will never be bothered by those links again. I have suggested that 93 put me on Ignore, but he has...ignored me.

Didn't ignore you. Told you that I'm not interested in playing your ignore game. I'll comment when I see fit and will stay silent when I see fit.

Ignore doesn't have anything to do with commenting or not commenting. It has to do with listening and engaging.

Since you are listening, what do you think the benefits will be from higher corporate taxes for your business, your employees, your customers, your family, and yourself? I will take you off Ignore so I can hear your response. Ironically, the reason I put you on Ignore originally was because of your dislike of me asking you questions.

Is wasn't a dislike of your asking questions. For the upteempth time it was:

1) Your going into a tizzy if questions weren't answered immediately (within hours seemingly) despite not knowing what non-Parliament stuff was on my schedule. There are also some subjects that I simply am not interested in digging into. Not worth my time if I find it boring. You will accuse me of running away from hard questions in those cases.

2) Your demanding that I (and Lad) explain to you every far-leftist viewpoint even if it wasn't something that I believed or even a subject about which I was well-versed. I would tell you that you could look up some articles just as well as I could if you were so interested but you wouldn't accept that.

So to conclude... your asking questions is fine. What wasn't fine was your freakouts when you didn't get the answers that you demanded.

1) freakout is just your hyperbolic view of me asking for your comments after a period of silence. I would have been fine with "busy now" (7 keystrokes) or " don't care"(9). but extended silence seems like dodging. How I am supposed to know that it is a busy time at work or you are going camping?

2) If you don't agree, just say so. You spend ten X as much time telling me not to ask for a response as you would replying.

Along those lines, I have asked you twice on your opinion of the proposed corporate tax increase. I'll make it easy for you.

a. It is wonderful and will help my business and all concerned.
b. It will hurt my business and all concerned, but that's OK since it is for the greater good.
c. It will hurt my business and all concerned.

One keystroke.

You may, of course, if you want, and time permits, elaborate on your answers.

Or you may not respond at all, as you have been doing. But I really would like the opinion of a liberal Biden voter who also owns/operates a business, and you are the only one I know.

Here is how you asked that question to which you are telling me that you would like an answer:

"Since you are listening, what do you think the benefits will be from higher corporate taxes for your business, your employees, your customers, your family, and yourself? I will take you off Ignore so I can hear your response. Ironically, the reason I put you on Ignore originally was because of your dislike of me asking you questions."

The bolded part I found annoying as you have said this before and I have corrected you. More than once. So even if you still believe the bolded you should know by now that I disagree with it and I would probably find it annoying.

I actually read one of your links today that I found interesting (Hunter Biden art). I read your article and I gave my opinion to it. No response.

It doesn't bother me but is it sort of feels to me that you are more interested in opportunities to fling mud than actually generating discussion.

(12-07-2021 10:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Along those lines, I have asked you twice on your opinion of the proposed corporate tax increase. I'll make it easy for you.
a. It is wonderful and will help my business and all concerned.
b. It will hurt my business and all concerned, but that's OK since it is for the greater good.
c. It will hurt my business and all concerned.

You did not ask me, but I will answer, because I want my answer to be on the record:

c.

If you want to drive more manufacturing, industry, growth, and jobs offshore, it is a good idea. If not, it isn't, because that is the result it will produce.

(12-07-2021 10:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Baldwin may face criminal or civil charges not just because the gun was in his hand, but because he was the producer.

Bladwin could face civil action based on his role as the producer and him pulling the trigger.

Baldwin could face criminal liability for his pulling the trigger -- mist likely not since he would have to be something on the order of 'grossly negligent' for any form of criminal liability to attach.

I very much think him at the very least, but I think it would be hard to expand that to gross negligence.

The next level would be 'reckless indifference' which I dont think fits the bill at all.

The tape of his interview will be a civil litigator's dream Christmas present.

(12-07-2021 09:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:To the hunting guide - if you, the person on the hunt, are not qualified to identify species of animals at range and the guide specifically tells you it is OK to shoot the specific animal, you bet that the person who is qualified to make that determination is responsible should you follow their direct instructions.

Oh, so you're suggesting these people went out to hunt for legal animals and were 'tricked' or 'mislead' into shooting a different animal by unscrupulous guides? That's a great defense. That's why they pose with their kill, right? Sounds like some animal rights activists have a great gig going on. Trick dumb wealthy people into doing something and then use it as a prop for your cause. Great plan. Of course I kid. MAYBE the people on the hunt didn't know it was a problem. Maybe they just thought there was a different reason hunting that 'rare' animal was so expensive.

What? It sounds like you're talking about a totally different situation here than what you started with. If anything, that was not the hypothetical I was talking about and you're being very ungenerous here (that should be obvious based on my response). Of course if someone went out with the intention of hunting an endangered animal and did just that, they are responsible.

But speaking from personal experience, there are times where guides **** up on hunts and inform the people they're guiding incorrectly about what animals they should or shouldn't shoot. I'm suggesting that experts can provide incorrect advice/guidance that lead to mistakes happening at no fault to those who make the mistake.

Quote:

Quote:If Baldwin followed all of the rules he was supposed to follow, and handled the gun in the way he was supposed to handle it, I don't really see him as carrying any responsibility. It's like any other work place incident where the failure of another person results in a fatality. If I put myself in the swing radius of an excavator on a job site and get hit by it, it's not the operator's fault.

But as others have said, he didn't follow all the rules he was supposed to follow. Rule #1 is treat all guns as if they are loaded... regardless of what someone else tells you. Your admonition earlier about 'don't point them at people' falls from that rule and not as you have implied, the other way around.

This is where the logic falls apart for me - but hey, if people want to explain how all of the movies I've seen where guns are shown being pointed at people are shot without actually pointing guns at people, I'd appreciate it.

Anyways, what a weird argument to be having here, and so odd that this seems to fall squarely on conservative/liberal lines. I'm a strong advocate for gun safety and training, but because this was a movie set where I do know extra safety measures are taken to try and make sure guns are handled safely, I don't feel the need to argue that an actor shouldn't have pointed a gun at someone when he was told to do that as part of his job.

(12-07-2021 10:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This is where the logic falls apart for me - but hey, if people want to explain how all of the movies I've seen where guns are shown being pointed at people are shot without actually pointing guns at people, I'd appreciate it.

Lad, the base rule is if handed a gun and told it is unloaded, or it has blank cartridges -- check it.

A blank cartridge is radically different in appearance from a hot cartridge. A blank cartridge simply has folded or crimped over metal at the top of the shell casing, that is there is no lead bullet protruding from the jacket.

So, if told the gun is empty -- make sure NO live shells are in it.

If told it has blanks, check the cartridges to make sure that are blanks.

Hopefully this answers your conundrum.

It doesnt matter who hands you the firearm, the person wielding the firearm should check to verify the safety of the firearm.

Doubly so if you are handed a firearm with nothing said --- check.

That basic rule fits in very nicely with having an armorer in a movie set. One should *always* check themselves the status of *what* is in the gun.

Quote:Anyways, what a weird argument to be having here, and so odd that this seems to fall squarely on conservative/liberal lines. I'm a strong advocate for gun safety and training, but because this was a movie set where I do know extra safety measures are taken to try and make sure guns are handled safely, I don't feel the need to argue that an actor shouldn't have pointed a gun at someone when he was told to do that as part of his job.

This isnt a political issue. It is just common sense.

No amount of 'extra safety measures' or 'because it is a movie' removes that last verification from the end person wielding the firearm. Ever. And then, and *only* then should the actor point the barrel of the weapon at anything other than the floor or some other bullet stop. Being 'told' it is safe (or told *anything*) doesnt remove that last step. No matter the numbers of people who have handled the gun, and no matter that the director tells someone to point the weapon a certain way.

The actor should *only* point a firearm at someone else when *they* themselves have verified the condition of either 'no cartridges' or 'blank cartridges'. All the 'extra safety steps' dont obviate that very last step. Ever. Nor does a director telling the actor to point a weapon any way change that basic fundamental rule.

I got to go on set with a client who is producing a film. The general rule is that a call is mae that a scene needs a weapon. The armorer checks the weapon(s) and ensures they are either empty, or all the cartridges are blanks. Typically the armorer does this a few hours before a scene, and locks the weapons in a locker. They lock *only* the weapons that they have prepared.

When the weapon goes on set, the armorer should give the actor the weapon, and tell them the status of the cartridges and the status of the breech. When being handed over, the bolt should be open with no cartridges in the breech. If a semi-auto, a magazine should be supplied with the weapon. The armorer should, in the presence of the actor, empty the magazine and they jointly observe the shells going back into the magazine. Only then is the magazine put into the receiver, and the bolt enabled and the shell put into place. The weapon should be on safe during this at all times.

If, as in the case with Baldwin, the weapon is a revolver, the cylinder should open, and the armorer should empty the shells and reinsert in the presence and witness of the actor. The barrel should be inspected for blockage a final time, by the two or by the actor. And then, and only then, does the cylinder go back into the frame.

(12-07-2021 10:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I actually read one of your links today that I found interesting (Hunter Biden art). I read your article and I gave my opinion to it. No response.

Did you ask me a question? If so, sorry I missed it, would you repeat it? I will answer it whenever I get a chance.