Gun Thread

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: spc On: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:50 am

They were used for hunting.
Attachments
poke boat.jpg
(10.76 KiB) Viewed 11 times
View: New PagePopup • Select:BBCode
[nepathumb]3598[/nepathumb]
spc
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: Devil505 On: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:26 pm

From another thread but pertains here as well:



This may be a good spot to discuss exactly what is the NRA (National Rifle Assoc) & who do they represent? Just as the Tobacco Industry, the Oil Industry & the Transportation Industry have powerful trade organizations/Lobbyists to promote their interests, the NRA is similarly one of this country's most powerful trade & Lobbying organizations whose purpose is to promote the hugely wealthy firearms industry. ...Period! ...Regardless of the "window dressing" literature they regulary put out to support their clients, they care nothing about Constitutional Rights, hunter's rights, your right of self defense or anything else. They care about money.
Would anyone here really like to argue that the NRA's real purpose is to represent the average law abiding, gun owning "Joe?"
So let's stop worshipping this industry trade group as if it were a non-profit Cancer research organization or a subsidiary of Mother Theresa's Missionary Group & remember what their real agenda is.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: LsFarm On: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:35 pm

So do you believe the NRA has NOT helped keep our 2nd amendment rights?? Even though I gag at even partially agreeing with your 'conspiracy theory' about the NRA, I don't doubt that it is for the most part true... But so what?? does the fact that keeping our 2nd amendment rights ALSO supports the 'hugely wealthy' gun industry make it BAD??

I'll continue to support the NRA if it keeps up the fight to keep the 2nd Amendment rights for 'joe citizen'... And if that is the agenda of the gun industry, so what?? I firmly believe we need to protect ourselves from too strong a government. or over the top police forces.

Of course Hillary wants to take away our right to protect ourselves..

Greg L
LsFarm
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Self-built 'Big Bertha' SS Boiler
Baseburners & Antiques: Keystone 11, Art Garland


Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: stockingfull On: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:38 pm

pvolcko wrote:
Devil5052 wrote:I think all we can do is fall back on a majority view on what is "reasonable". Most of us have a gut feeling as to what is reasonable but it's often hard to verbalize let alone legislate.


If that's what is comes down to, then we're all in trouble. That's why I'm in support of adjusting this right only through the constitutional amendment process. Requires quite a bit more than mere majority view, as it should. We're dealing with a natural right to self defense and home defense, and the one civil right that ultimately enables all the others. Just because majority views have soured as of late on personal gun ownership and on what guns are reasonable to own doesn't mean that the majority gets to dick around with our rights without going about it in the fair and established way, by constitutional amendment.

All the rest about individual vs militia/state and reasonableness and urban vs rural and whatnot are really just ways to obfuscate and skirt the fundamental truth: The right for individuals to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment in both intent and plain reading of the time, and it will take another amendment to place restrictions on that. No one has done it so far because there have been judges willing to entertain the obfuscations in the interests of "practicality" and "reasonableness". The principle advocates for reforms have also known that their full agendas at any given time would not pass as an amendment and to only go half way in an amendment would potentially be fatal to the rest of their agenda once a new modern amendment is in place. So they nibble around the edges, ever so slowly, little by little finding their way to their goal while "the majority" nods in approval at each incremental step because little by little the people's minds are changed by less rural living, by teachers and interest groups and media indoctrinating the new way from the earliest ages, and constantly growing apathy for serious analysis and thought about anything political not immediately affecting "you".

I'm not suggesting there has been a 100+ year conspiracy to take away 2nd amendment rights, only that each generation has produced new anti-gun advocates wanting to build on the successes of their predecessors, touting an ever expanding agenda of disarmament. Nor am I saying all gun regulations are inherently anti-2nd amendment. Gun locks with all new sales, fine. Instant criminal background checks, fine. Required at all times in the home (unless being actively, immediately used for self-defense): unloaded, with gun lock, stored in a locked cabinet/closet with no visibility into the cabinet/closet, ammunition separate; way overstepping the bounds of the constitution (self-determination, self-defense, property rights, liberty, etc.).


As I've noted a couple times in the now-defunct Redneck thread, the Supreme Court has the 2nd Amendment before it as we debate these issues. And it's really going to be fascinating to see just how far the right wing of the Court will go in giving the "broad" interpretation to the 2nd Amendment that the NRA has been promoting for the last generation. The basic question whether it refers to personal or community arms possession is open; if the Supremes hold that it's a personal right, it's going to be very difficult to restrict any form of private possession of "arms", whether you choose to "keep" them in your home or "bear" them when you move about in public.

You want Armegeddon scenarios? You don't have to have a film maker's imagination to create them if, as I've posited before, any of our nutty neighbors suddenly has the constitutional right to drive around in a surplus Jeep with a 50 cal machine gun and a few hundred rounds, or to buy a mortar and set it up in his back yard.

The good news? You'll be able to have as many rounds in your clip as you want. The bad news? So will everybody else.

But, the more I think of it, the more obvious it is that the 2nd Amendment must refer to the right to have community militias, not the personal right to bear limitless kinds of arms.

I say that because the language of the 2nd Amendment is so brief: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That's all it says.

So, even if, or perhaps especially if you're a "textualist" or "originalist" in your interpretation of the Constitution, the only way to give effect to the predicate clause of that one-sentence constitutional right is to interpret the right which follows to refer to the militias which are the textual predicate for it. And that's the only way it makes sense: Militias can possess the means to destroy society because they are "well regulated."

Don't get me wrong: that's not to say we don't have the personal right to keep and/or bear arms, but it is to say that the legislatures of the various states do have the right to make laws in that area. (And, I would argue, the obligation.) Why is that? Because the genius of our "federal" government system is that the citizens of Wyoming don't have to have the same laws as the citizens of Rhode Island or Massachusetts -- or the District of Columbia (where the Supreme Court case originates). Just as we are learning that it pertains to a subject as federally important as elections, as to personal gun possession laws, I believe the Constitution upholds that federal characteristic of diversity.

I predict that will be the Court's holding. Mark my words.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: Devil505 On: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:14 pm

LsFarm wrote:So do you believe the NRA has NOT helped keep our 2nd amendment rights?? Even though I gag at even partially agreeing with your 'conspiracy theory' about the NRA, I don't doubt that it is for the most part true... But so what?? does the fact that keeping our 2nd amendment rights ALSO supports the 'hugely wealthy' gun industry make it BAD??

I'll continue to support the NRA if it keeps up the fight to keep the 2nd Amendment rights for 'joe citizen'... And if that is the agenda of the gun industry, so what?? I firmly believe we need to protect ourselves from too strong a government. or over the top police forces.

Of course Hillary wants to take away our right to protect ourselves..

Greg L


I hope I didn't cause you to lose your lunch here Greg! That the fact that the NRA is a trade group representing the firearms industry & a registered Washington DC Lobby is not a conspiracy theory but a documented fact.

Just one quick web search but feel free to do your own:


http://www.gunownersalliance.com/GOP-1.htm
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.


Copyright © 1999 by ROLL CALL

By Jim VandeHei


http://www.rollcall.com/newsscoops/2ndscoop.html
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.



"The National Rifle Association is under fire for its lobbying tactics, but, this time, the shots are coming from Republicans and other pro-gun activists. The NRA, easily the largest and most influential gun-rights lobby in America, has been too quick to compromise and too slow to mobilize its troops to defeat anti-gun legislation in the House and the Senate, GOP leadership sources and gun activists say. "........




Back to my point:

I posted my comments about them (NRA) because I was getting the distinct impression that alot of the forum members here were not clear as to what the NRA's purpose & agenda are. They are here to support firearms sales & legislation on behalf of their client, the Firearms Industry. The fact that they are a registerd DC lobby supporting the firearms industry does not make them evil or mean that everything they say or do is wrong, or that some of their goals are not beneficial to us gun owners, any more than the Tobacco Lobby hasn't done things that help smokers. (as a matter of fact a good friend is a fairly high ranking official in the NRA & he is a very nice guy. His job has him traveling around the country giving speeches, etc on behalf of the NRA & he & I often get into heated debates)
There is no doubt that some of our (gunowners) interests & theirs will dovetail from time to time & that is great, but we should never forget who they represent in the long run & that is not the gun owner or the US Constitution.
Last edited by Devil505 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:35 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: spc On: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:18 pm

World's smallest gun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770
MiniGunHandLL_468x348.jpg
(18.66 KiB) Viewed 8 times
View: New PagePopup • Select:BBCode
[nepathumb]3602[/nepathumb]

Should this be illegal?
spc
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: daveuz On: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:50 pm

spc wrote:World's smallest gun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770
MiniGunHandLL_468x348.jpg

Should this be illegal?

No but if it were the fine should be VERY VERY small
daveuz
 

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: cheapheat On: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:43 pm

I think I read that Canada doesnt even consider that a firearm but its too small to import into the US with our regulations. Im not in the NRA and admittingly dont follow politics. Ive had 2 delicious pints of craft beer and learned 4 new words just reading this thread. After I get done covering all my guns in cosmoleen and burrying them behind the neighbors pole barn Im hopefully gonna hit the old joke thread for a while. I understand most of those anyway. Jim
cheapheat
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska Channing 3
Stove/Furnace Model: Bagging my own rice coal

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: pvolcko On: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:31 am

Pre-emptive apology. This is a long one. :oops:

Devil5052 wrote:Just one quick web search but feel free to do your own:


http://www.gunownersalliance.com/GOP-1.htm
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.


"The National Rifle Association is under fire for its lobbying tactics, but, this time, the shots are coming from Republicans and other pro-gun activists. The NRA, easily the largest and most influential gun-rights lobby in America, has been too quick to compromise and too slow to mobilize its troops to defeat anti-gun legislation in the House and the Senate, GOP leadership sources and gun activists say. "........



Devil, I read this and I think it is a great bit of evidence directly contradicting your claims against the NRA. The article describes how the NRA was taking a relatively moderate stance on the piece of legislation in question (Juvenile Brady Bill). They were ceding the anti-gunners their proposal for a ban on people younger than 18 being able to own an assault weapon (don't know how that is defined, lets just call say it means anything with that classic M4 style frame). They were also ceding a new gun lock provision. However, they were going to go to the mat on a proposed 72 hour waiting period on gun show firearm sales. They also were actively against a provision to ban "importation of ammunition clips". I'm not going to go into that point since the article gave it glancing mention and it is a wash as to who it most benefits since it is good for the average consumer (higher supply, lower cost needed accessory), retailers and distributors (multiple suppliers, better cashflow, moving more product), and manufacturers of such items (big players and knock off producers alike).

Who were the NRA being more moderate than? The Gun Owners of America organization who were against every provision of the bill, and source for the article you linked.

So, you claim that the NRA is all about the gun manufacturer and don't give a damn about the 2nd amendment or its membership and that they are for a virtually unlimited interpretation of the 2nd amendment (referencing high cap mags and virtually unlimited types of weapons) and you provide this article as evidence. But the article demonstrates that the NRA, at least in this case:
  • Was no where near as extreme in their stance and lobbying efforts as you would have us believe is their MO.
  • Was ceding a market for gun manufacturers to sell their wares to. Actually the very market that the smoking lobby has tried and continues to try to market to. I only bring them up because you did as a analogous example of an extreme, company oriented lobbying group to be reviled.
  • Was sticking up for the "little guy" with their efforts and tactics on the 72-hour waiting period provision. While manufacturers do participate in some of the bigger gun shows, the vast majority of sellers are local and regional gun shops, individual sellers of antique and vintage and hard-to-find guns, custom gun makers and gunsmiths, etc. The purpose of this provision was to make it harder, indeed practically impossible for a large number of these non-manufacturer sellers to use the gun show as a viable sales venue. Such a waiting period would place a high burden on individual sellers and buyers, particularly those who are not geographically close together, to make delivery on their sales/purchases. Opposing this provision was at least as much for those small time players as it was for any gun manufacturing company. I'd say it was mostly for these small players rather than the big players.
  • Was arguably being the better (as in more effective) lobbying group for all its members, not just the gun manufacturers, in the strategy they pursued. Their decision to cede ground in their stance and lobbying effort was clearly stated as being motivated by the political climate of the time. As quoted in the article, "If we had opposed everything, we would have lost everything." While the GOA may have held a more philosophically purist line, they are a relatively bit player in terms of funding and membership compared to the NRA and as such they pay no real price for holding that purist line, indeed they gain credibility among those who care most about philosophy and "being right" as opposed to winning as much ground as you can in the political game that is Washington D.C.

And on top of all this you are adamantly against the extremist type positioning on the 2nd amendment issue. You then use an article by just such a group, that describes how the NRA, whom you think is such a group, as having acted as a moderate, reasonable voice in "the debate".

Care to try again?

I posted my comments about them (NRA) because I was getting the distinct impression that alot of the forum members here were not clear as to what the NRA's purpose & agenda are. They are here to support firearms sales & legislation on behalf of their client, the Firearms Industry. ... There is no doubt that some of our (gunowners) interests & theirs will dovetail from time to time & that is great, but we should never forget who they represent in the long run & that is not the gun owner or the US Constitution.


The organization started out as a civil rights organization, both to defend the rights of people vis-a-vis the 2nd amendment and by virtue of its early membership being mostly those who either physically defended (racial) civil rights advocates and lawyers and targeted groups/buildings or were themselves such advocates or persons. It is possible they have strayed from this noble and righteous beginning, but I haven't seen convincing evidence that they've "sold out" or are now a bought and paid for lobby group for gun manufacturers to the near exclusion of all else.

edit: Ugh. I must have got the NRA confused with another organization with regard to its founding motivations. I'll have to try and dig up the organization I'm thinking of. NRA was formed on admirable principles and purpose, but I'm not finding the racial civil rights tie in that I have in my mind. First of all it was founded back in the mid 1800's, not the mid 1900's. :) Jeez, maybe I'm just remembering an argument in support of the personal right 2nd amendment interpretation and for more liberal concealed carry policies. Anyway, my bad.

And finally, in another post I think you (might have been stockingfull) quoted an NRA position statement where they were against the 10 round limit on magazines/clips, stating your disagreement with the NRA position then going on to call their position on this (and in general, but we'll focus on this one point), "ludicrous". While you may not consider the rare circumstance of an individual potentially benefiting from a higher capacity magazine to be a reasonable basis, on balance, for keeping them legal, I think it is unreasonable to say holding such a position is "ludicrous". Not when such circumstances have happened a number of times in just the past two decades or so. Examples: Katrina lawlessness, LA riots, the NE blackout a few years back, the California blackouts a few years before that, various domestic terrorist acts against individuals' homes and businesses (such as recent ELF attack), various racial and other group perpetrated hate crimes against individuals, criminals using body armor during their crimes, and the list goes on.

Actually, one more: radical bike groups that terrorize motorists by surround cars and pounding on the vehicles. This is an actual phenomena in various places around the US. I don't wish anyone ill, but one of these days they're going to do it to the wrong mother carrying her kids in the car and will get a hail of gunfire sprayed at them. And form her perspective she will have been reasonable to do so, not knowing what the hell is going on except a bunch of lunatics have descended on her from no where, appear to be trying to make violent entry into the car, and are scaring the ever living hell out of her and her kids.

I'm not saying the use of deadly force would have been appropriate or was necessary in any of these cases, I am saying they all represent real events that at least had the potential to produce the kind of situations where this 10 round limitation may well have proven a fatal limitation to the lawful person defending his person, home, business, or community.

And if you've read all the way through, I thank you. Commence counter attack. :)
pvolcko
 

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: Devil505 On: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:21 am

pvolcko wrote:Pre-emptive apology. This is a long one. :oops:

Devil5052 wrote:Just one quick web search but feel free to do your own:


http://www.gunownersalliance.com/GOP-1.htm
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.


"The National Rifle Association is under fire for its lobbying tactics, but, this time, the shots are coming from Republicans and other pro-gun activists. The NRA, easily the largest and most influential gun-rights lobby in America, has been too quick to compromise and too slow to mobilize its troops to defeat anti-gun legislation in the House and the Senate, GOP leadership sources and gun activists say. "........



Devil, I read this and I think it is a great bit of evidence directly contradicting your claims against the NRA.



A very well written & thoughtful post.
You are right in that the article I copied & posted of theirs (NRA) was not a good one to back up my argument. I selected it very quickly (as I was in the middle of a carpentry project) but saw these words: " "The National Rifle Association is under fire for its lobbying tactics"........ & was merely trying to back up my statement that the NRA is a Washington DC Lobby.
I never even read the guts of the article.
I guess intelligent people can argue about the whether the NRA is, on balance, a bennefit or a detriment to society, reasonable or radical to their approach on gun laws, etc. On balance, my view is they take too strong a stand against what I feel are reasonable, even common sense attempts for restrict gun violence in this country. I'm sure we could probably debate this on a case by case basis, ad infinitum.
My only purpose in writing my original post, was to shed light on what I felt was a misconception here that the NRA's reason for existance was/is to protect our 2nd amendment rights & to defend us gun owners. It isn't. As I stated in my original post, the NRA exists to support firearms sales & to lobby Congress for Firearms Industry friendly legislation & therefore you must factor that in when reading their literature or evaluating their stance on any issue.
As with almost any trade organization/DC Lobby, they are neither all good or all bad, but they are not impartial & have an agenda which we must recognise.


edit: When doing research on the NRA, keep in mind that anything you find on their website will undoubtedly be self-serving & to keep a healthy mistrust of anything that can't be independantly verified. You'll find a ton of info...Pro & Con about the NRA online, so just consider the source when you evaluate it.
I think I have been clear in stating that I do not consider the NRA an "evil" organiztion or that they are always wrong. They have done good things & bad, in my opinion, but it is wise to always keep in mind that they are working for their client...The Firearms Industry.

second edit: In re-reading my original NRA post I must admit it was a little harsh , but I was just trying to emphasize my point about who the NRA reprsents.
Here is my original line: .........."Regardless of the "window dressing" literature they regulary put out to support their clients, they care nothing about Constitutional Rights, hunter's rights, your right of self defense or anything else. They care about money."
LOL.....I must have let some of my anger over the problems I am having installing a hardwood floor this week, creep (leap!)into my post.......Sorry :D
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: coalkirk On: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:00 am

The anger should be directed at the people who commit gun crimes, not the guns. They are just a tool, like a hammer, axe or a screw driver. All devices used to commit murder too I might add. The vast majority of the gun crime is gang and drug related. Frankly they can't shoot each other fast enough for my satisfaction. I'm thinking of holding classes for them so I can teach them how to shoot, including the all important hold your gun upright and not sideways!
I do believe in gun control. I think it is too easy currently to purchase guns. If you're taking meds for mental problems, that should exclude you from purchasing a gun. Witness the recent college campus shootings by people with obvious mental problems. I also think you should be required to take a class to learn how to handle, fire and clean the weapon. I know people who have guns that don't have the first clue about any of that. Other than that, there are ample laws on the books. ENFORCE THEM! All too often, when criminals are arrested, the first thing the DA wants to plea bargan is the gun possession to get a conviction on the other crime. Sheesh! They just don't get it.
coalkirk
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF3000
Coal Size/Type: antrhcite/rice coal

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: pvolcko On: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:15 am

coalkirk wrote:The anger should be directed at the people who commit gun crimes, not the guns. They are just a tool, like a hammer, axe or a screw driver. All devices used to commit murder too I might add. The vast majority of the gun crime is gang and drug related. Frankly they can't shoot each other fast enough for my satisfaction. I'm thinking of holding classes for them so I can teach them how to shoot, including the all important hold your gun upright and not sideways!

I'd agree if there weren't innocents at risk in this feuding. As such I'd much prefer they be caught, tried, and convicted for their crimes before they had a chance to draw their gat and pop a cap off in someone's ass (or head, I think the term for that is "domed", frikin' street lingo). That said, I have little sympathy when they do get killed (the bangers and dealers, that is).

I do believe in gun control. I think it is too easy currently to purchase guns. If you're taking meds for mental problems, that should exclude you from purchasing a gun. Witness the recent college campus shootings by people with obvious mental problems.

This is a difficult problem to address. There are varying levels of disorder. Some are reliably treated with medication others aren't. In the case you mention, the problem wasn't that there was a history of depression or that he was medicating for it (all accounts are he was perfectly fine up until a week or two before the event), it was that he decided to go off the meds cold turkey and without medical consultation. And there are plenty of people that are diagnosed but aren't medicating. What about Vets suffering from PTSD, which also varies in degree from the occasional sleepless night to all out basket case type disability? How would you handle all the variations?

I believe it was recently either proposed or actually enacted that the federal background check database and the states feeding data into it will update their practice regarding those who are involuntarily institutionalized or found by a court to be mentally unstable. This scheme will not put people simply on prozac into the database. Nor would it enter people who enter treatment voluntarily. Is that acceptable to you? How much further should it go? What about privacy rights, particularly when it comes to medical privacy?

The new law also provided for those who are flagged so that they can petition a court or local authority to remove them from the database upon completing treatment and/or getting cleared by your doctor(s). Is that reasonable?

I also think you should be required to take a class to learn how to handle, fire and clean the weapon. I know people who have guns that don't have the first clue about any of that.

Agreed, so long as the state doesn't use the price for the course or its power to restrict the number of certified instructors or classes offered to artificially restrict the number of permitted gun owners. This is a common method of restricting handgun permitting in a number of states. Also as much subjectivity as possible should be removed from any approval/application process. Rules are fine, haphazardly applied rules or rules that vary significantly in practice from county to county or township to township are not fine.
pvolcko
 

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: coalstoves On: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:57 am

In all the years and billions upon billions of dollars spent in the war on drugs the government has failed to stop the trafficing, use and possession of illegal drugs what makes anyone think they will be anymore successful with guns .

Do you think they have a better idea when it comes to guns or maybe they will try a little harder :nono:

It is rapidly getting to the point the government cant afford to pave the roads or repair the bridges much less dictate gun control :rambo:
coalstoves
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman and Liberty
Stove/Furnace Model: Magnum and Victory 700

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: Cyber36 On: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:30 pm

Stop the drug trade? Hell, they've been financing it for at least 30 years now. Helping to artifically "stimulate the economy". Sort of the same reason why the government won't allow the 100 m.p.g. cermanic engine to be mass produced. Too many people would be out of a job...........
Cyber36
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Marathon/Logwood

Re: Gun Thread

PostBy: Flyer5 On: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:36 pm


http://www.nraila.org/Multimedia/MMPlayer_Set.aspx?ID=105
This link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.


Since this thread has been hijacked so badly already . I really liked Mississippi Governors response . He dosent like gun control he would rather have criminal control .
Flyer5
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Pioneer