Guns are such hoot!
Van
I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
attacking Charles Schumer -- he must be their current big boogey man.
They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
against the government. And they wonder why their membership is
flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
Van
******************************************
Steve Kangas Mirror Site
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
The truth lives on
******************************************
tcrpe
After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.
Don't mean to confuse you with the facts, just wanted to hear more Leftist
propaganda.
TR
Van wrote in message <36fd3b73...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
>attacking Charles Shumer. They were probably attacking others, but I
>could only watch so long. The funny part, though, was watching
>someone dressed up in a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo
>the Clown with a group of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>
>Van
>--
Michael Zarlenga
: flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
: a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
: of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
From: jv...@usa.net (Van)
..
Subject: Guns are such hoot!
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:28:32 GMT
From: jv...@usa.net (Van)
..
Subject: Re: Guns are such hoot!
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:46:12 GMT
From: jv...@usa.net (Van)
...
Subject: Re: Guns are such hoot!
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:48:20 GMT
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Bill Bonde
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:48:20 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>
> >I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
> >out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
> >they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
> >politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
> >They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
> >their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
> >thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
> >against the government. And they wonder why their membership is
> >a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
> >of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>
>
> He teaches kids how to go for the head shot on their classmates after
> they pull the fire alarm at school.
>
The head shot is one of the more difficult, but with all those damned
feathers, most body shots just bounce off.
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
> >: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
> >: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
> >
> >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
> >: about.
> >
> >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
> >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
> >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
> >the first one when you wrote the second.
>
> If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
> Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
>
> Van
Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?
> I have *noticed* that a lot of right-wingers have this problem of
> trying to make hay over typos. I don't think it's genetic, though.
> It's the best they can do.
>
> Van
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
--
========================================================
========================================================
I do not refer to myself as a "spam hater", but an internet lover who
has no desire to see it destroyed out of greed, be it in the name of
business, charity, or any other so called "public interest".
The Big Lie | http://www.kellyfreehold.com/spam/
Join the fight against Spam! | http://www.cauce.org
Join the fight for ethical internet business! |
http://spam.abuse.net/spam
To reply directly to this post: http://www.kellyfreehold.com/usenet.html
========================================================
Van
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>: flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
>: a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
>: of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>
>Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
>
>Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
about.
Van
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:41:11 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
> >: flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
> >: a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
> >: of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
> >
> >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
> >
> >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
>
> Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
> watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
> about.
>
> Van
I have noted that a lot of left-wingers have this problem. Must be
something genetic.
Van
>Van wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:41:11 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>> Zarlenga) wrote:
>>
>> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>> >: flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
>> >: a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
>> >: of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>> >
>> >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
>> >
>> >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
>>
>> Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
>> watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
>> about.
>>
>> Van
>
>I have noted
Hmmm?
> that a lot of left-wingers have this problem. Must be
>something genetic.
>
Nyah, I don't see posting to these newsgroups while watching a
basketball game as a problem, genetic or otherwise. You're screwy.
I have *noticed* that a lot of right-wingers have this problem of
trying to make hay over typos. I don't think it's genetic, though.
It's the best they can do.
Van
Duane K. Kelly
I see you cannot read as well. I was "making over" your spamming. I
never once mentioned your inability to spell or compose a sentence
correctly. BTW, if you were cancelling them, then why is it that this is
being addressed in several threads, off of which stated with your
posting?
Van
Because idiot Zarlenga thought it would be fun?
Michael Zarlenga
: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
: about.
Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
the first one when you wrote the second.
--
Van
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
>: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
>
>: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
>: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
>: about.
>
>Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
>the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
>rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
>the first one when you wrote the second.
If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
Van
Van
wrote:
>Van wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>> Zarlenga) wrote:
>>
>> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>> >: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
>> >: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
>> >
>> >: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
>> >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
>> >: about.
>> >
>> >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
>> >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
>> >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
>> >the first one when you wrote the second.
>>
>> If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
>> Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
>>
>> Van
>
>Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
>stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
>regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?
You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:20:53 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
> wrote:
>
> >Van wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> >> Zarlenga) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
> >> >: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
> >> >: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
> >> >
> >> >: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
> >> >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
> >> >: about.
> >> >
> >> >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
> >> >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
> >> >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
> >> >the first one when you wrote the second.
> >>
> >> If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
> >> Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
> >>
> >> Van
> >
> >Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
> >stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
> >regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?
>
> You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
>
> Van
Thought you would.
Zepp
>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.
>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.
Numbers?
>
>Don't mean to confuse you with the facts, just wanted to hear more Leftist
>propaganda.
>
You're confused. That's rightist propaganda.
>TR
>
>
>Van wrote in message <36fd3b73...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>>
>>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
>>attacking Charles Shumer. They were probably attacking others, but I
>>could only watch so long. The funny part, though, was watching
>>someone dressed up in a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo
>>the Clown with a group of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>>
>>Van
>>--
>>******************************************
>> Steve Kangas Mirror Site
>> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
>> The truth lives on
>>******************************************
>
>
*********************************************************************
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/Kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
http://
http://
WARNING: Contains ideas.
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Van
Yeh, no "about" to it. And not just ignorant, but a lowlife snake who
maligns the dead....right-winger through and through.
Michael Zarlenga
: >: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
: >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
: >: about.
: >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
: >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
: >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
: >the first one when you wrote the second.
: If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
: Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
No way around it, Vanny, you sat there, posted your "guns are hoot"
article, then kept reposting as a reply to the prior article(s). You
did that three(!) times, presumably for small editing changes. And
in all that corrective fever, youmanaged to miss the glaring "guns
are hoot" mistake a total of six(!) times.
I hope you're not that careless in the rest of your life endeavors.
Michael Zarlenga
: >Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
: >stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
: >regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?
: You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
I wonder how many times you "Cancel"ed this one and re-edited it
only to miss the fact that the first sentence makes no sense at all.
You must be a terrible embarrassment to the literate people on your
side of the political fence ...
ken berg
presently own a gun, as soon as they were outlawed I would get one.
Never mind about criminals. I am far less worried about criminals being the
only ones with guns than I am about government officials being the only
folks allowed to have guns.
I live in California, and so far in my adult life I have (thank God) not
needed a gun. However, the very moment the government passes a law saying I
cannot have one is the moment I go to the black market and buy one.
I am not some gun fanatic. I don't think most folks need guns, and have
been called an anti-gunner or whatever by staunch gun advocates. Regardless
of what radicals on both sides say, while not everyone needs a gun, everyone
needs the RIGHT to buy one if they decide it is best for them in whatever
circumstances they find themselves.
This is still America, and the Constitution gives us Americans the right to
keep and bear arms and that is a fact. Another fact is that - contrary to
popular belief - nothing says our government is permanent or all powerful.
As Americans we have right to arm ourselves and if necessary, overthrow our
government if it ever gets to the point of totalitarianism.
Like it or not, those ARE our rights as Americans. WE allow the government
to exist, not the other way around. The government grants NO rights. WE
granted ourselves the rights listed in the Constitution before the
government existed.
All the hot headed Left and Right wing rhetoric cannot change the facts.
All this having been said, when folks get killed from handguns or shotguns,
it is usually their own damn fault. Many die each year, and many more will
die before folks learn how to control their anger and rage.
This is the price we pay for being free. Part of freedom is being
responsible for your own actions. These folks who run around killing people
are symptoms of a greater problem in our society; one that manifests itself
in folks not knowing what their own personal bounderies are. The result is
other innocent folks get killed and the criminal is either shot and killed,
or jailed for a very long time. This is both heartbreaking and expensive.
As a nation, we need to get back to learning how to:
be polite and civil toward each other,
read and write, and knowing some math,
we should re-learn and practice the civics lessons we all learned in high
school, mainly the one that says we should all vote, and the one that says
my rights end where the other guy's nose begins.
Most of all, we should all pay attention to what our parents, and priest,
pastor, or rabbi have to say.
Ken Berg
go...@inreach.com
Zepp wrote in message <36fdd61f...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
>
>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were . . . .<yadayadayada
. .snipped for the sake of brevity>
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington
>You guys are arguing ancient history. All I know is that while I do not
>presently own a gun, as soon as they were outlawed I would get one.
That brings up a question: Would you immediately go out and publicly burn
a US flag if and when that ever becomes outlawed? I'm not being facetious,
I'm just curious to know your views on the 1st Amendment.
>Never mind about criminals. I am far less worried about criminals being the
>only ones with guns than I am about government officials being the only
>folks allowed to have guns.
>
>I live in California, and so far in my adult life I have (thank God) not
>needed a gun. However, the very moment the government passes a law saying I
>cannot have one is the moment I go to the black market and buy one.
Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?
>I am not some gun fanatic. I don't think most folks need guns, and have
>been called an anti-gunner or whatever by staunch gun advocates. Regardless
>of what radicals on both sides say, while not everyone needs a gun, everyone
>needs the RIGHT to buy one if they decide it is best for them in whatever
>circumstances they find themselves.
I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the well-
regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
>This is still America, and the Constitution gives us Americans the right to
>keep and bear arms and that is a fact. Another fact is that - contrary to
>popular belief - nothing says our government is permanent or all powerful.
That's a good point; the Constitution is not cast in stone. Technically,
the 2nd Amendment could be lawfully repealed, just like any other amendment,
could it not?
>As Americans we have right to arm ourselves and if necessary, overthrow our
>government if it ever gets to the point of totalitarianism.
>Like it or not, those ARE our rights as Americans. WE allow the government
>to exist, not the other way around. The government grants NO rights. WE
>granted ourselves the rights listed in the Constitution before the
>government existed.
I agree; our government grants no rights. Our government was established
primarily to recognize, enforce and protect our rights as we have defined
them, against any who would infringe upon them.
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <36fdd61f...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
>
>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
>Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.
Here's the Leftist propaganda I was looking for. These are false
assertations. Proof?
>>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.
>
>Numbers?
Do your own homework, asswipe.
>>Don't mean to confuse you with the facts, just wanted to hear more Leftist
>>propaganda.
>>
>You're confused. That's rightist propaganda.
Thanks for the Leftist propaganda. I knew that you, Zepp, would be stupid
enough to provide. Wnat to play poker -- for money?
>>TR
>>
>>
>>Van wrote in message <36fd3b73...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>>>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>>>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>>>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
>>>attacking Charles Shumer. They were probably attacking others, but I
>>>could only watch so long. The funny part, though, was watching
>>>someone dressed up in a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo
>>>the Clown with a group of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>>>
>>>Van
>>>--
>>>******************************************
>>> Steve Kangas Mirror Site
>>> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
>>> The truth lives on
>>>******************************************
>>
>>
>
tcrpe
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message
<7dlnbh$c4n$1...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?
Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what then.
Ant the citizens would have given up an advantage.
Does that help?
TR
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington
Somewhat, but as I said:
>I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
>argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
>militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
>me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the well-
>regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
>
So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not entail
some sort of listing of its members.
Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons etc...
should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
tcrpe
required? Second, where did the weapons that fought the Revolutionary War
come from? Where did the cannons come from? besides those supplied by the
French, who were responsible for, as I recall appx 40% of the cannon and 10%
of the guns.
Convicted criminals and felons should serve long sentences in prison and
then be released (if released at all) with a prohibition against any type of
weapon ownership. Hence they would not be eligible for any type of "legal"
ownership.
The have already demonstrated their inability to follow the law, and should
not be entrusted with weapons.
With regard to the "militia only" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
militia membership is not a requirement.
TR
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message
<7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Van
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>: >Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
>: >stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
>: >regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?
>
>: You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
>
>I wonder how many times you "Cancel"ed this one and re-edited it
>only to miss the fact that the first sentence makes no sense at all.
You fit the above sentence too, Zarlenga. I take the "about" back,
though (sheesh....this should not have to be explained!).
Anyone who would start flapping their arms about a canceled post (like
anyone in these ngs would give a rats ass), has to have a screw or two
loose. Hardly the stuff of political debate, but then you do the best
you can with what you got, I suppose.
Let's see, your the same guy who thought I had some nefarious secret
purpose when I was using a date code as a spam buster, aren't you?
And now your doing the same shtick over canceled posts. Better watch
that crank, Zarlenga, I hear it induces paranoia. Oh, and you really
shouldn't be telling the kids how to make it, imho, even though you've
decided being big daddy meshes well with your weak ego and your
"libertarian" folderol.
Van
Zarlenga) wrote:
>No way around it, Vanny, you sat there, posted your "guns are hoot"
>article, then kept reposting as a reply to the prior article(s). You
>did that three(!) times, presumably for small editing changes. And
>in all that corrective fever, youmanaged to miss the glaring "guns
>are hoot" mistake a total of six(!) times.
You're sounding more and more like Colonel Wilhelm Klink, or maybe
Captain Queeg. Next, I suppose, you'll be trying to figure out who
ate the strawberries.
What's the matter Zarlenga, did you lose your marbles?
Michael Ejercito
> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:48:20 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>
> >I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
> >out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
> >they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
> >politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
> >attacking Charles Schumer -- he must be their current big boogey man.
> >They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
> >their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
> >thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
> >against the government. And they wonder why their membership is
> >flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
> >a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
> >of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>
> That's Eddie the Eagle.
>
> He teaches kids how to go for the head shot on their classmates after
> they pull the fire alarm at school.
>
> Jim
You are wrong again,Jimmy. Eddie Eagle teaches kids that guns are
hazardous. I know;I am a graduate of the program.
Michael
Member,CSULB College Republicans
For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way
Van
wrote:
>Van wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who would start flapping their arms about a canceled post (like
>> anyone in these ngs would give a rats ass), has to have a screw or two
>> loose. Hardly the stuff of political debate, but then you do the best
>> you can with what you got, I suppose.
>>
>Let's see, YOU started a thread with the title: "Gun loons are such [a]
>hoot!". THAT is hardly political debate. It is simply personal attack.
Nayh, it's entertainment.
ken berg
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message
<7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mUtL2.519$fb4....@news2.giganews.com...
>>Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?
I would only own one, and it will not be a registered gun.
>>Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what
then.
>>And citizens would have given up an advantage.
>
>>I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
>>argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
>>militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
>>me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the
well-
>>regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
>
>So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
>refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not entail
>some sort of listing of its members.
>
Then, in addition to registering guns, you would be registering citizens.
>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
etc...
>should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>
You must be joking Dan. No reasonable person who is seriously discussing
the matter thinks convicted criminals should be allowed to legally obtain
firearms. The foolish premise of your question belies your opinion on gun
control and citizen registration.
Ken Berg
go...@inreach.com
Zepp
>
>Zepp wrote in message <36fdd61f...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
>>
>>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
>>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
>>Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.
>
>Here's the Leftist propaganda I was looking for. These are false
>assertations. Proof?
Easily given. In the case of Germany, the Treaty of Versaille
stipulated the disarmenment of the German citizenry. When Hitler took
power, he hardly had to enact any gun control measures. Indeed, he
made it easier for members of the party to have weapons--"for
protection", of course. Vietnam and Cambodia both went through
protracted conflicts, with weapons lavishly donated by the US, the
USSR, and China. Both had subsequent genocides. A cursory review of
history of both countries since about 1962 will bear that out. China,
of course, had no gun control because historically, the citizenry
never had weapons, China being more or less a feudal state up until
about 1922. Oddly enough, the first wave of victims of the cultural
revolution probably DID own guns--the counter-revolutionaries who
fought for Chaing.
>
>>>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.
>>
>>Numbers?
>
>Do your own homework, asswipe.
>
Kissy, kissy, little gun loon. So you don't have anything to back
that up.
>>>Don't mean to confuse you with the facts, just wanted to hear more Leftist
>>>propaganda.
>>>
>>You're confused. That's rightist propaganda.
>
>Thanks for the Leftist propaganda. I knew that you, Zepp, would be stupid
>enough to provide. Wnat to play poker -- for money?
>
Your bluster can't quite conceal the fact that you have so little to
say.
>>>TR
>>>
>>>
>>>Van wrote in message <36fd3b73...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>>>>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>>>>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>>>>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
>>>>attacking Charles Shumer. They were probably attacking others, but I
>>>>could only watch so long. The funny part, though, was watching
>>>>someone dressed up in a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo
>>>>the Clown with a group of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>>>>
>>>>Van
>>>>--
>>>>******************************************
>>>> Steve Kangas Mirror Site
>>>> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
>>>> The truth lives on
>>>>******************************************
>>>
>>>
>>
Michael Richmann
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
> >: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
> >: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
> >
> >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
> >: about.
> >
> >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
> >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
> >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
> >the first one when you wrote the second.
>
> If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
> Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
Why bother? Even my newsreader has it figured out better than you, oh
crossposter of the wastelands (who couldn't even hit talk.politics.guns
where this *really* belongs)...
--
Mike
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington
>Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message <7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mUtL2.519$fb4....@news2.giganews.com...
>>Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message <7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?
>
>I would only own one, and it will not be a registered gun.
What if your state requires firearms to be registered?
>>>Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what
>>>then. And citizens would have given up an advantage.
>>
>>>I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
>>>argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
>>>militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
>>>me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the
>>>well-regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
>>
>>So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
>>refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not entail
>>some sort of listing of its members.
>>
>Then, in addition to registering guns, you would be registering citizens.
Well, what information about a gun would one register, if not its owner?
>>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
>>etc... should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>>
>You must be joking Dan. No reasonable person who is seriously discussing
>the matter thinks convicted criminals should be allowed to legally obtain
>firearms. The foolish premise of your question belies your opinion on gun
>control and citizen registration.
No, I wasn't joking, I was asking. For the record, I don't think
criminals should be allowed to own guns either.
>Ken Berg
>go...@inreach.com
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington
>Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message <7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mUtL2.519$fb4....@news2.giganews.com...
>>>
>>>>Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?
>>>
>>>
>>>Does that help?
>>>TR
>>
>>Somewhat, but as I said:
>>>>argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
>>>>militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
>>>>me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the
>>>>well-regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
>>
>>So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
>>refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not entail
>>some sort of listing of its members.
Hope you don't mind if I move your comments into context.
>One should not have to belong to a "militia" to own a gun. Where is that
>required?
Even though it is the only reason set forth in in the 2nd Amendment:
"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."
...I do agree that it's a stretch to say that militia membership is
required, however, I don't think gun registration infringes on the
right to own guns, either.
> Second, where did the weapons that fought the Revolutionary War
>come from? Where did the cannons come from? besides those supplied by the
>French, who were responsible for, as I recall appx 40% of the cannon and 10%
>of the guns.
That's a whole 'nother road to go down. In a revolution, you have to assume
that the government's authority is disregarded anyway, so I have little doubt
that the French would probably sell unregistered cannons today :)
>>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
>>etc... should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>
>Convicted criminals and felons should serve long sentences in prison and
>then be released (if released at all) with a prohibition against any type of
>weapon ownership. Hence they would not be eligible for any type of "legal"
>ownership.
>
>The have already demonstrated their inability to follow the law, and should
>not be entrusted with weapons.
I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be infringed",
are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the enumerated
rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?
>With regard to the "militia only" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
>militia membership is not a requirement.
Well no, but it is the only justification mentioned defining the right.
>
>TR
tcrpe
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message
Here is the crux of the argument, and a subject that has been debated
exrensively. From a purely grammatic point of view, the 2nd amendment does
link the militia with the right to bears arms -- which obviously preceeds
the Constitution.
>...I do agree that it's a stretch to say that militia membership is
>required, however, I don't think gun registration infringes on the
>right to own guns, either.
Does the registration constitute infringement? I would say it does, on the
Federal level. Many would disagree with you.
>> Second, where did the weapons that fought the Revolutionary War
>>come from? Where did the cannons come from? besides those supplied by
the
>>French, who were responsible for, as I recall appx 40% of the cannon and
10%
>>of the guns.
>
>That's a whole 'nother road to go down. In a revolution, you have to assume
>that the government's authority is disregarded anyway, so I have little
doubt
>that the French would probably sell unregistered cannons today :)
I was talking about the guns and cannon NOT provided by the French. Where
did they come from? Who owned them. And why?
Here's an interesting aside -- at the time of the Constitution where ther
classes of "citizens" denied the right to own guns?
>>>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
>>>etc... should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>>
>>Convicted criminals and felons should serve long sentences in prison and
>>then be released (if released at all) with a prohibition against any type
of
>>weapon ownership. Hence they would not be eligible for any type of
"legal"
>>ownership.
>>
>>The have already demonstrated their inability to follow the law, and
should
>>not be entrusted with weapons.
>
>I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
>inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be infringed",
>are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the enumerated
>rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?
Criminal felony conviction includes the surrender of many rights. Gun
ownership, voting, and others.
>>With regard to the "militia only" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
>>militia membership is not a requirement.
>
>Well no, but it is the only justification mentioned defining the right.
I do not understand this statement.
>>TR
>
>
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <36febb15...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 09:41:18 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Zepp wrote in message <36fdd61f...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
>>>
>>>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
>>>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
>>>Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.
>>
>>Here's the Leftist propaganda I was looking for. These are false
>>assertations. Proof?
>
>Easily given. In the case of Germany, the Treaty of Versaille
>stipulated the disarmenment of the German citizenry. When Hitler took
>power, he hardly had to enact any gun control measures. Indeed, he
>made it easier for members of the party to have weapons--"for
>protection", of course. Vietnam and Cambodia both went through
>protracted conflicts, with weapons lavishly donated by the US, the
>USSR, and China. Both had subsequent genocides. A cursory review of
>history of both countries since about 1962 will bear that out. China,
>of course, had no gun control because historically, the citizenry
>never had weapons, China being more or less a feudal state up until
>about 1922. Oddly enough, the first wave of victims of the cultural
>revolution probably DID own guns--the counter-revolutionaries who
>fought for Chaing.
1. This is not proof, as it is only you word, which isn't worth shit.
See below.
>>>>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.
>>>
>>>Numbers?
>>
>>Do your own homework, asswipe.
>>
>Kissy, kissy, little gun loon. So you don't have anything to back
>that up.
Try this, asswipe. There is a lot of info available, this is only one
little piece. Have your boyfriend show you how to use a search engine.
And, knowing that it it the practise of the Klintonistas to smear anyone who
says something they do not agree with (especially when it is the truth),
I'll let you find out who Lyall Johnson is. Again, have you boyfriend show
you how to use a search engine.
Victoria to extend gun amnesty
By LYALL JOHNSON
The Victorian Government plans to extend its gun amnesty by more than a year
to stem increasing violent crime involving firearms.
Between Sunday morning and lunchtime yesterday there had been eight shooting
incidents in three states causing the deaths of four people and the wounding
of 16 others, including two policemen.
State Government and Victoria Police sources yesterday told The Age that
talks on extending the amnesty, which runs out on Friday, had been taking
place for more than a month.
An announcement is expected by the Police Minister, Mr Bill McGrath, and the
Victoria Police chief commissioner, Mr Neil Comrie, later this week.
The extended amnesty will not be a buyback operation and no compensation
will be offered to people handing in illegal firearms.
The extension will come at a time of great concern for both the Government
and the police force at the rate of crime involving firearms.
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for such crimes in 1998 are not
expected to be available until April but sources believe they are likely to
show an increase over 1997, which showed that murders in Victoria increased
by about 18per cent over 1996 and that murders involving firearms rose in
the same period from seven to 19.
All Australian states and the ACT experienced increases in murders in 1997.
The Northern Territory was alone in recording a decline.
``Of course we're concerned, we wouldn't be talking about retaining the
amnesty if we weren't,'' a Government source said.
``But we are looking at a number of things, a number of measures, that will
be part of a wider scheme of things.
``It's not a concession that things have failed, I think the success of
these things has to be judged over a longer period of time. But, in the
meantime, we have to keep these initiatives in place to allow anyone who has
not already taken the opportunity to surrender their firearms to do so - or
to register or licence them, if that's what they want.''
Neither Mr McGrath nor the Victoria Police were willing to comment
yesterday.
As with the previous amnesty, the extension will apply to people who
surrender firearms to police or sell them to licensed dealers, and to those
who leave their guns with the police or a licensed dealer while they apply
for registration or a licence.
The national gun buyback ended on 30 September 1997. In Victoria, 207,348
guns were handed in, almost a third of the national total of 643,600. In
Victoria, $101,846,199 was paid in compensation. Nationally, the figure was
$316,074,882.
Handguns were used in at least five of this week's eight shooting incidents
and a .22 rifle in another. The exception was the Wollongong incident where
a sawn-off shotgun was used. The national amnesty included mainly
semi-automatic weapons.
The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia gave cautious support to the
extension of the Victorian amnesty but said it was unlikely to reduce
violent crime involving guns.
Now I hope you won't take this wrong, but I'll not do your homework any
more. Do it yourself, and stop showing your ignorance in public places.
TR
tcrpe
Here is an interesting article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment"
by Professor Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin - School
of Law, from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659
http://dilligaf.net/embarassing_2nd.htm
You may find it of interest, Levinson is a Liberal professor and
intellectual. A type unseen in this neck of the woods.
There are other strictly grammatic analyses of the second, based on both
contemporary and contemperaneous language.
I guess it meant what they intended it to mean. And since there was so
little written at the time, we have to rely upon what it says.
TR
>...I do agree that it's a stretch to say that militia membership is
>required, however, I don't think gun registration infringes on the
>right to own guns, either.
>
>> Second, where did the weapons that fought the Revolutionary War
>>come from? Where did the cannons come from? besides those supplied by
the
>>French, who were responsible for, as I recall appx 40% of the cannon and
10%
>>of the guns.
>
>That's a whole 'nother road to go down. In a revolution, you have to assume
>that the government's authority is disregarded anyway, so I have little
doubt
>that the French would probably sell unregistered cannons today :)
>
>>>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
>>>etc... should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>>
>>Convicted criminals and felons should serve long sentences in prison and
>>then be released (if released at all) with a prohibition against any type
of
>>weapon ownership. Hence they would not be eligible for any type of
"legal"
>>ownership.
>>
>>The have already demonstrated their inability to follow the law, and
should
>>not be entrusted with weapons.
>
>I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
>inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be infringed",
>are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the enumerated
>rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?
>
>>With regard to the "militia only" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
>>militia membership is not a requirement.
>
>Well no, but it is the only justification mentioned defining the right.
>
>>
>>TR
>
>
lvaughn
in Kosovo that is except for the Serbian police.
Its a dam good policy for anyone planning on getting rid of their oposition.
Maybe that is why our forfathers drafted the Bill of Rights.
Larry
Van wrote in message <36fd406f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>
>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
>attacking Charles Schume -- he must be their current big boogey man.
>They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
>their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
>thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
>against the government. And they wonder why their membership is
>flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
Michael Richmann
>
> On 28 Mar 1999 16:44:22 PST, Michael Richmann
> the NRA-ILA pull off a 501 tax exempt status? And besides, if posts
> only went where they belonged, there'd be a lot of gun loons walking
> with limps.
Free hint: in t.p.g, the word between talk and guns is politics. Keep
digging, Blindstein...
--
Mike
tcrpe
signs off.
Typical Liberal double standard.
Nothing new here, with these leftists.
Zepp wrote in message <36fef71e...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>Ah. Well, if you are trying to deny that there was a Treaty of
>Verseilles, or that there were wars in Cambodia and Vietnam, then
>talking with you is a waste of time. Come back when you're a bit
>older.
Van
Van
Zepp
Ah. Well, if you are trying to deny that there was a Treaty of
Verseilles, or that there were wars in Cambodia and Vietnam, then
talking with you is a waste of time. Come back when you're a bit
older.
>
ken berg
the Second Amendment, and his analysis seems thoughtful enough.
tcrpe wrote in message ...
Duane K. Kelly
>
> >One should not have to belong to a "militia" to own a gun. Where is that
> >required?
>
> Even though it is the only reason set forth in in the 2nd Amendment:
> "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."
> ...I do agree that it's a stretch to say that militia membership is
> required, however, I don't think gun registration infringes on the
> right to own guns, either.
I guess you missed it. There are two separate categories of people set
forth in the second amendment, not just one distinguished by the usage
of the commas. This has also been verified by the author of the second
amendment, Patrick Henry.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State" defines the first category, and why
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" defines the second
category and what.
Often it has been inferred as you have that the two categories are the
same, however, if so the usage of the commas would be completely
incorrect and the mention of "the people" would be redundant, and it
would have read "state" not people.
Therefore, the rights to keep and bear arms is for both individuals, and
the militia.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
--
========================================================
========================================================
I do not refer to myself as a "spam hater", but an internet lover who
has no desire to see it destroyed out of greed, be it in the name of
business, charity, or any other so called "public interest".
The Big Lie | http://www.kellyfreehold.com/spam/
Join the fight against Spam! | http://www.cauce.org
Join the fight for ethical internet business! |
http://spam.abuse.net/spam
To reply directly to this post: http://www.kellyfreehold.com/usenet.html
========================================================
ken berg
the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)
the right to keep and bear arms.
In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
their persons".
"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.
Ken Berg
go...@inreach.com
Duane K. Kelly wrote in message <36FF1D47...@dev.null>...
Watcher
> argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
> militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
> me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the
well-
> regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
You need to because it is critical. If you read it you will find that the
part about well regulated is a clause not related to the right to keep and
bear arms. IOW, you can remove the words between the commas and the
statement doesn’t change. It doesn’t link the militia to bearing arms.
Also if you go back and look at what the ‘militia’ was at the time, as well
as the founder’s fear of a ‘standing army’, you will see that they wanted
to make sure that the government never had complete control of arms.
Watcher
dealer?
>
>
> Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what
then.
> Ant the citizens would have given up an advantage.
>
> Does that help?
Why not buy a legal firearm from another private citizen. In most places
this legal and not tracable.
Watcher
> refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not
entail
> some sort of listing of its members.
>
etc
This wasn’t aimed at me but I want to answer. And my answer is yes. Is a
former criminal’s life worth less than yours? If this person is a proven
danger to society why has he been freed to prey on society? If he hasn’t
been proven to be a danger why should he not be free to protect himself and
his family from danger?
Should we force the secretary who embezzled $1,000 to be a rape victim by
not allowing her to own a firearm to protect herself?
Should we force a middle aged man to watch his wife be raped and his
children killed before being killed himself because he did something stupid
when he was 18 and therefore can not have a firearm to save them?
Also what crimes do we add to the list of the ones that prevent ownership
of weapons?
What if the federal government keeps adding more and more new felonies to
the books? It could soon be illegal to own a weapon because you failed to
have your seatbelt fastened while on a federally supported road.
Watcher
> >>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
> >>Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.
> >
> >Here's the Leftist propaganda I was looking for. These are false
> >assertations. Proof?
>
> Easily given. In the case of Germany, the Treaty of Versaille
> stipulated the disarmenment of the German citizenry. When Hitler took
> power, he hardly had to enact any gun control measures. Indeed, he
Wrong. The Treaty of Versailles disarmed, or rather TRIED to disarm, the
German GOVERNMENT. German citizens were mostly free to own all types of
firearms. Hitler put full registration, i.e. required ALL firearms
(rifles, shotguns and handguns) to be registered with the government. Then
he used the registration papers to make sure all the weapons were turned in
when private ownership of firearms was banned.
> >>>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot
up.
> >>
> >>Numbers?
> >
> >Do your own homework, asswipe.
> >
> Kissy, kissy, little gun loon. So you don't have anything to back
> that up.
Give me a few and I’ll find you a couple. BTW, the worse gun crime in
their history happened, if memory doesn’t fail me, after they banned the
ownership of the weapon used. Seems criminals have this little habit of
not following the law. imagine that!
Watcher
> >"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."
>
> exrensively. From a purely grammatic point of view, the 2nd amendment
does
> link the militia with the right to bears arms -- which obviously preceeds
> the Constitution.
How?
Also how can you say that the right to bear arms is not a individual right
when it says “the right of the PEOPLE (emphasis mine)”? Are you willing to
apply this same thinking to the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 17th amendments?
> >I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
> >inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be
infringed",
> >are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the
enumerated
> >rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?
>
> Criminal felony conviction includes the surrender of many rights. Gun
> ownership, voting, and others.
So convicted criminals are second class citizens?
tcrpe
Watcher wrote in message <01be79f9$66b04c00$223230d1@default>...
>> >Even though it is the only reason set forth in in the 2nd Amendment:
>> >"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."
>>
>> Here is the crux of the argument, and a subject that has been debated
>> exrensively. From a purely grammatic point of view, the 2nd amendment
>does
>> link the militia with the right to bears arms -- which obviously preceeds
>> the Constitution.
>
>How?
>
>Also how can you say that the right to bear arms is not a individual right
I'm not saying that. I'm saying the the right to bear arms preceeds the
Constitution. The people have the right to stockpile weapons. Whether they
belong to a ilitia or not.
>when it says “the right of the PEOPLE (emphasis mine)”? Are you willing to
>apply this same thinking to the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 17th amendments?
No.
>> >I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
>> >inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be
>infringed",
>> >are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the
>enumerated
>> >rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?
>>
>> Criminal felony conviction includes the surrender of many rights. Gun
>> ownership, voting, and others.
>
>So convicted criminals are second class citizens?
Yes.
TR
Michael Zarlenga
: >: You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
: >I wonder how many times you "Cancel"ed this one and re-edited it
: >only to miss the fact that the first sentence makes no sense at all.
: You fit the above sentence too, Zarlenga. I take the "about" back,
: though (sheesh....this should not have to be explained!).
Try Phonics, Idiot. When you can write a complete sentence
that makes sense. let me know.
(I find it hilarious being insulted by an illiterate moron
in broken English - especially since English is his first
language)
You're about ignorant, Vanny.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Bill Clinton's legacy: "The President after bush."
Duane K. Kelly
Then why is it that they don't lose their rights to the 1st, 4th, 9th,
10th and 17th amendments after serving their prison terms?
At one time in Arizona, when a convict was released from prison, he/she
was given a horse, a $20 gold piece, and a rifle to assure their ability
to what begin a new life. (It is also true that a 10 year sentence in an
Arizona prison at that time was as good as a death sentence so very few
violent criminals were ever granted the above mentioned). A horse for
transportation to an from work, as well as the ability to preform most
job functions, as ranching and mining were the main industries. A $20
gold piece gave the same a means of support until such a job could be
secured. A rifle so they could protect themselves from being victimized,
and also a means of support by hunting.
It is true that a debt paid is a debt forgiven. If we feel that a
convict is not to be trusted with the ability to defend themselves, then
maybe the sentence was a bit too short, or not harsh enough.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
Van
Zarlenga) wrote:
>Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>: >: You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
>
>: >I wonder how many times you "Cancel"ed this one and re-edited it
>: >only to miss the fact that the first sentence makes no sense at all.
>
>: You fit the above sentence too, Zarlenga. I take the "about" back,
>: though (sheesh....this should not have to be explained!).
>
>Try Phonics, Idiot. When you can write a complete sentence
>that makes sense. let me know.
>
>(I find it hilarious being insulted by an illiterate moron
>in broken English - especially since English is his first
>language)
>
>You're about ignorant, Vanny.
If you want to see real ignorance, wheel around and look in a mirror,
"Zingy" (fine exemplar to subject title, that's fer sure).
gdy52150
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <36ff5fa...@news.mindspring.com>, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:48:20 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>>
>> >I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>> >out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>> >they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>> >politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
>> >attacking Charles Schumer -- he must be their current big boogey man.
>> >They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
>> >their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
>> >thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
>> >against the government. And they wonder why their membership is
>> >flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
>> >a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
>> >of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>>
>> That's Eddie the Eagle.
>>
>> He teaches kids how to go for the head shot on their classmates after
>> they pull the fire alarm at school.
>>
>> Jim
> You are wrong again,Jimmy. Eddie Eagle teaches kids that guns are
>hazardous. I know;I am a graduate of the program.
the sandbox brigade squawks
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> Member,CSULB College Republicans
>
>
> For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way
====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
home of "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of
The Month Award"
Do your patriotic duty and reward your favorite
cackling loon by voting today
at http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html
GDY Weasel
======================================================
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply put,
>the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
>organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)
>the right to keep and bear arms.
>
>In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
>individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
>example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
>their persons".
>
>"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.
Not even close. That argument has been shot down in court over and
over and over again. Even the NRA knows better than to make it any
more -- except in fundraising letters to gullible gun nuts.
ken berg
Dan Kimmel wrote in message <37035a84...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
Michael Beck
Kimmel) wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:16:03 GMT, "ken berg" <go...@inreach.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply put,
>>the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
>>organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)
>>the right to keep and bear arms.
>>
>>In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
>>individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
>>example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
>>their persons".
>>
>>"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.
>
>Not even close. That argument has been shot down in court over and
>over and over again. Even the NRA knows better than to make it any
>more -- except in fundraising letters to gullible gun nuts.
That argument has never been shot down in court.
The current chief justice and Scalia have also written that it is
inconceivable that the "people" would mean one thing in the second
amendment and something else in the rest of the document.
Michael Ejercito
(gdy52150) wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:07:38 -0800, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
> Ejercito) wrote:
>
> >In article <36ff5fa...@news.mindspring.com>,
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
> >> That's Eddie the Eagle.
> >>
> >> He teaches kids how to go for the head shot on their classmates after
> >> they pull the fire alarm at school.
> >>
> >> Jim
> > You are wrong again,Jimmy. Eddie Eagle teaches kids that guns are
> >hazardous. I know;I am a graduate of the program.
>
> the sandbox brigade squawks
Once again you reveal the true essence of your arguments.
Dan Kimmel
(Michael Beck) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 11:38:25 GMT, Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan
>Kimmel) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:16:03 GMT, "ken berg" <go...@inreach.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply put,
>>>the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
>>>organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)
>>>the right to keep and bear arms.
>>>
>>>In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
>>>individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
>>>example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
>>>their persons".
>>>
>>>"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.
>>
>>Not even close. That argument has been shot down in court over and
>>over and over again. Even the NRA knows better than to make it any
>>more -- except in fundraising letters to gullible gun nuts.
>
>
>That argument has never been shot down in court.
It has been shot down repeatedly in court. Check out the Federal
Court of Appeals and District Court decisions on the Second.
>The current chief justice and Scalia have also written that it is
>inconceivable that the "people" would mean one thing in the second
>amendment and something else in the rest of the document.
That was in a footnote to a case having nothing whatsoever to do with
the Second Amendment and is without any legal weight or relevance.
But please, do try your luck in court relying on the Urdugo case for
the meaning of the Second.
Michael Beck
Kimmel) wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 14:14:04 GMT, Michae...@worldnet.att.net
>(Michael Beck) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 11:38:25 GMT, Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan
>>Kimmel) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:16:03 GMT, "ken berg" <go...@inreach.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply put,
>>>>the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
>>>>organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)
>>>>the right to keep and bear arms.
>>>>
>>>>In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
>>>>individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
>>>>example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
>>>>their persons".
>>>>
>>>>"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.
>>>
>>>Not even close. That argument has been shot down in court over and
>>>over and over again. Even the NRA knows better than to make it any
>>>more -- except in fundraising letters to gullible gun nuts.
>>
>>
>>That argument has never been shot down in court.
>
>It has been shot down repeatedly in court. Check out the Federal
>Court of Appeals and District Court decisions on the Second.
It has never been shot down, not even once.
The court has simply held that the second amendment is not "absolute"
and that the states and the federal government can regulate their sale
and use.
The court never ever, not even once, found that the second amendment
does not apply to the "people".
>
>>The current chief justice and Scalia have also written that it is
>>inconceivable that the "people" would mean one thing in the second
>>amendment and something else in the rest of the document.
>
>That was in a footnote to a case having nothing whatsoever to do with
>the Second Amendment and is without any legal weight or relevance.
>But please, do try your luck in court relying on the Urdugo case for
>the meaning of the Second.
What do you propose the "people" refers to in the amendment?
Why did the founders put the second amendment in the constitution in
the first place? What do the federalist papers say about this matter?
Why is that meaning different than the use of the "people" in the
first amendment??
BTW, the first amendment is not absolute either.
>
Dan Kimmel
(Michael Beck) wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 18:03:10 GMT, Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan
>Kimmel) wrote:
>>>>>I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply put,
>>>>>the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
>>>>>organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)
>>>>>the right to keep and bear arms.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
>>>>>individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
>>>>>example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
>>>>>their persons".
>>>>>
>>>>>"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.
>>>>
>>>>Not even close. That argument has been shot down in court over and
>>>>over and over again. Even the NRA knows better than to make it any
>>>>more -- except in fundraising letters to gullible gun nuts.
>>>
>>>
>>>That argument has never been shot down in court.
>>
>>It has been shot down repeatedly in court. Check out the Federal
>>Court of Appeals and District Court decisions on the Second.
>
>It has never been shot down, not even once.
>The court has simply held that the second amendment is not "absolute"
>and that the states and the federal government can regulate their sale
>and use.
It has been shot down again and again and again. The courts have
ruled REPEATEDLY that there is no "individual right" in the Second.
Your statement indicates you haven't actually looked at the cases.
>The court never ever, not even once, found that the second amendment
>does not apply to the "people".
The district courts and courts of appeal have ruled repeatedly that
there is no individual right in the Second, which is concerned with
the arming of state miltiias. When people have tried to claim an
individual right they have lost (this most recent case
notwithstanding).
>>
>>>The current chief justice and Scalia have also written that it is
>>>inconceivable that the "people" would mean one thing in the second
>>>amendment and something else in the rest of the document.
>>
>>That was in a footnote to a case having nothing whatsoever to do with
>>the Second Amendment and is without any legal weight or relevance.
>>But please, do try your luck in court relying on the Urdugo case for
>>the meaning of the Second.
>
>What do you propose the "people" refers to in the amendment?
Interesting question. Now here's one for you: why is there all that
stuff about "a well-regulated militia" there. (HINT: it's NOT
"explanatory")
>Why did the founders put the second amendment in the constitution in
>the first place? What do the federalist papers say about this matter?
The Federalist Papers don't say ANYTHING about the Bill of Rights.
They were written during the debate over the Constitution, not the
amendments.
>Why is that meaning different than the use of the "people" in the
>first amendment??
Why does the First talk about "Congress shall make NO law" while the
Second uses that restrictive languages about "a well-regulated
militia?"
>BTW, the first amendment is not absolute either.
Never claimed it was.
Duane K. Kelly
>
[snip...]
> It has been shot down again and again and again. The courts have
> ruled REPEATEDLY that there is no "individual right" in the Second.
> Your statement indicates you haven't actually looked at the cases.
[snip...]
> The district courts and courts of appeal have ruled repeatedly that
> there is no individual right in the Second, which is concerned with
> the arming of state miltiias. When people have tried to claim an
> individual right they have lost (this most recent case
> notwithstanding).
[snip...]
"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with
unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat
them over and over." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 184
Obviously, your hero.
FABLE: The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not protect an
individual right to keep and bear arms.
"If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the
Constitution and Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains
one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for
no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states
such a thesis." 1
It is no exaggeration to say that anyone familiar with the principles
upon which this country was founded, and upon which it has operated for
the last two centuries will, at first glance, recognize this claim's
most glaring flaw: In America, rights, by definition, belong to
individuals. The expression, "collective right," is an oxymoron.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men
are created equal" and "are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights," while governments derive their "powers" from the
consent of the governed. The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly
refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government.
In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are undeniably the rights
of individuals. As the Supreme Court recognized in U.S v.
Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), "'the people' seems to have been a term of art
employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that
the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the
United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that
certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.'.
. . It suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and
by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are
reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons
who are a part of a national community or who have otherwise developed
sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that
community."
Future U.S. President James Madison introduced in the House of
Representatives the amendments that became our Bill of Rights. In notes
for his speech proposing the amendments, Madison wrote that "They relate
first to private rights." Several days later, William Grayson wrote to
Patrick Henry, telling him that "[A] string of amendments were presented
to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty."2 A
week later, Tench Coxe referred to the Second Amendment in the Federal
Gazette, writing that "the people are confirmed by the next article in
their right to keep and bear their private arms."3 Samuel Adams warned
that "The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to
infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or
to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens,
from keeping their own arms."4
In the last decade, in response to questions about the Second Amendment
raised by anti-firearm activist groups and their followers, dozens of
essays have been written by the nation's foremost authorities on the
Constitution. Among these, all but a few support the traditional
understanding of the right to arms as an individually possessed right,
protected by the Constitution.
For example, Prof. Akil Reed Amar of the Yale Law School and Alan
Hirsch, like Amar a former Yale Law Journal editor, write: "We recall
that the Framers' militia was not an elite fighting force but the entire
citizenry of the time: all able-bodied adult white males. Since the
Second Amendment explicitly declares that its purpose is to preserve a
well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms was universal in scope.
The vision animating the amendment was nothing less than popular
sovereigntyĐapplied in the military realm. The Framers recognized that
self-government requires the People's access to bullets as well as
ballots. The armed citizenry (militia) was expected to protect against
not only foreign enemies, but also a potentially tyrannical federal
government. In short, the right to bear arms was intended to ensure that
our government remained in the hands of the People." 6
Of the very few law journal articles advocating the anti-firearm groups'
view, virtually all have been written by those groups' employees. (A
bibliography of Second Amendment-related books, law reviews and other
published works is available at no charge from the NRA-ILA Grassroots
Division.)
The Second Amendment reads: "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." As Prof. Eugene Volokh of the
U.C.L.A. Law School explains, the first 13 words of the amendment are
merely its justification clause, leading to its purpose, stated within
its operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed."
Gun control supporters insist that "the right of the people" really
means the "right of the state" to maintain the "militia" mentioned in
the amendment, and that this "militia" is the National Guard.
Such a claim is not only inconsistent with the rules of grammar, the
statements of America's early statesmen, and the concept of individual
rights as understood by generations of Americans, it misdefines the term
"militia." For centuries before the drafting of the Second Amendment,
European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to
refer to the citizenry on the whole, armed with privately-owned weapons,
led by officers chosen by themselves.
America's statesmen defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee,
before ratification of the Constitution the author of the most
influential writings advocating a Bill of Rights, wrote, "A militia when
properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all
men capable of bearing arms. . . . To preserve liberty it is essential
that the whole body of people always possess arms. . . ."6 Making the
same point, Coxe wrote that the militia "are in fact the effective part
of the people at large."7 And George Mason asked, "[W]ho are the
militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public
officers."8
The Militia Act of 1792, adopted the year after the Second Amendment was
ratified, declared that the Militia of the United States (members of the
militia obligated to serve if called upon by the government) included
all able-bodied males of age. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in U.S.
v. Miller (1939), "The signification attributed to the term Militia
appears from the debates in the [Constitutional] Convention, the history
and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved
commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . .
. bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
the time." The National Guard was not established until 1903. In 1920 it
was designated one part of the "Militia of the United States," the other
part remaining all other able-bodied males of age, plus some other males
and females. The "well regulated militia" remains as before, the
citizenry.
1.Stephen P. Halbrook,That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a
Constitutional Right, (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,
1984), p. 83.
2. William Grayson, Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to
the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights.
3. Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
4. Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification
convention, 1788.
5. Akil Reed Amar and Alan Hirsch, For the People: What the Constitution
Really Says About Your Rights, (N.Y.: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1998).
6. Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer.
7. Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787.
8. George Mason,Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention,
1788.
========================================================
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under Fair Use without
profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
========================================================
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>
>[snip...]
>
>> It has been shot down again and again and again. The courts have
>> ruled REPEATEDLY that there is no "individual right" in the Second.
>> Your statement indicates you haven't actually looked at the cases.
>
>[snip...]
>
>> The district courts and courts of appeal have ruled repeatedly that
>> there is no individual right in the Second, which is concerned with
>> the arming of state miltiias. When people have tried to claim an
>> individual right they have lost (this most recent case
>> notwithstanding).
>
>[snip...]
>
>"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
>unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with
>unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat
>them over and over." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 184
>
>Obviously, your hero.
No, sicko, yours. I stick to the truth. And shouting "Hitler,
Hitler" every time you disagree with someone simply demonstrates
you're own intellectual -- and moral -- bankruptcy.
>FABLE: The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not protect an
>individual right to keep and bear arms.
FACT: The courts have consistently upheld gun laws and rejected claims
that the Second Amendment has anything to do with an "individual right
to keep and bear arms."
This new case is an aberration, flying in the face of precedent and
the overwhelming weight of the UNANIMOUS case law. It will be
overturned.
>In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are undeniably the rights
>of individuals. As the Supreme Court recognized in U.S v.
>Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), "'the people' seems to have been a term of art
>employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that
>the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the People of the
>United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people
>to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that
>certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.'.
>. . It suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and
>by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are
>reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons
>who are a part of a national community or who have otherwise developed
>sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that
>community."
Interestingly, the case was NOT about the meaning of the words "the
people" in the Second Amendment, and thus the language you cite is
mere obiter dicta -- which is to say, without any legal weight
whatsoever. If you went into court and cited this case as "proof"
that this is what the Second stands for you'd be laughted out of the
room.
>The Second Amendment reads: "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." As Prof. Eugene Volokh of the
>U.C.L.A. Law School explains, the first 13 words of the amendment are
>merely its justification clause, leading to its purpose, stated within
>its operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
>shall not be infringed."
If this is what "Professor" Volokh said then the man is an idiot.
There is no such thing as a "justification" clause, and nowhere else
in the Bill of Rights will you find any such thing. It is a *basic*
rule of legal construction that ALL the words are LAW, not mere
"justification."
tcrpe
Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370a7b0a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>If this is what "Professor" Volokh said then the man is an idiot.
>There is no such thing as a "justification" clause, and nowhere else
>in the Bill of Rights will you find any such thing. It is a *basic*
>rule of legal construction that ALL the words are LAW, not mere
>"justification."
The Constitution does not grant or codify the right to bear arms, it merely
acknowledges it. Further this contract (the Constitution) prohibits the
federal government from infringing upon it.
Certain inalienable rights . . . exist.
And you are right, Volokh is an idiot. That's why he's teaching.
TR
Kashmir Dreamer
apply to the states at all until the 14th and 15th Amendment was passed.
Then, the 14th amendment became, under the prevailing rationale, a
protection of state corporations from federal control.
Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370a3ced...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>It has been shot down again and again and again. The courts have
>ruled REPEATEDLY that there is no "individual right" in the Second.
>Your statement indicates you haven't actually looked at the cases.
>
>>The court never ever, not even once, found that the second amendment
>>does not apply to the "people".
>
>The district courts and courts of appeal have ruled repeatedly that
>there is no individual right in the Second, which is concerned with
>the arming of state miltiias. When people have tried to claim an
>individual right they have lost (this most recent case
>notwithstanding).
>
>>>
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:39:41 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >[snip...]
> >
> >> It has been shot down again and again and again. The courts have
> >> ruled REPEATEDLY that there is no "individual right" in the Second.
> >> Your statement indicates you haven't actually looked at the cases.
> >
> >[snip...]
> >
> >> The district courts and courts of appeal have ruled repeatedly that
> >> there is no individual right in the Second, which is concerned with
> >> the arming of state miltiias. When people have tried to claim an
> >> individual right they have lost (this most recent case
> >> notwithstanding).
> >
> >[snip...]
> >
> >"But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success
> >unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with
> >unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat
> >them over and over." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 184
> >
> >Obviously, your hero.
>
> Hitler" every time you disagree with someone simply demonstrates
> you're own intellectual -- and moral -- bankruptcy.
>
> >individual right to keep and bear arms.
>
> to keep and bear arms."
United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case
involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment.
The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second
Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution
and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people"
means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees
an individual right.
Duane K. Kelly
>
> Actually, the Supremes ruled consistently that the Bill of Rights did not
> apply to the states at all until the 14th and 15th Amendment was passed.
> Then, the 14th amendment became, under the prevailing rationale, a
> protection of state corporations from federal control.
tcrpe
idea where he is, so how could he possible be coming from anywhere:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans . . . ."
--William J. Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993.
I do see that they *will* be fixated on the desire to preserve the rights of
extra-ordinary citizens, though -- like the Leftists. Reminds me of Germany
1938.
TR
Duane K. Kelly wrote in message <370ABCEC...@dev.null>...
Milt
Tobacco case feud prompts law making governor the boss.
The National Law Journal
April 5, 1999
After six years of conflict with his state's Democratic attorney general,
Utah's Republican Governor Michael O. Leavitt has taken unusual, if not
unprecedented, revenge: He has signed a law stripping the AG's office of
most of its powers.
The law got its start in the wake of a conflict between the two over the
state's tobacco lawsuit. It gives the governor final authority over civil
litigation, which Attorney General Jan Graham characterized as "85% of what
I do."
Ms. Graham, the only Democrat to hold statewide or national office in Utah,
has periodically clashed with Mr. Leavitt since the two took office in 1993.
The tension flared dramatically in November, when Ms. Graham barred the
governor from a press conference announcing that Utah had agreed, along with
46 other states, to settle its litigation against major cigarette
manufacturers. The politically popular settlement is due to net the state
$836 million over 25 years.
In a meeting with the governor shortly before the announcement, Ms. Graham
complained that he had not supported the litigation and should not have a
role in the settlement or in the press conference announcing it. Red-faced
and angry, the governor said that he would ask the state Legislature to take
away her authority to settle cases on behalf of the state.
Republican legislative leaders soon put together a bill that sailed through
Utah's Legislature along party lines and was signed into law on March 23. In
addition to reigning in the AG, the Public Attorneys Act takes control of
civil litigation away from county attorneys, placing it in the hands of
county commissions. Responding to criticism of the bill as a partisan power
grab, its sponsors amended it to delay the effective date until Jan. 1,
2001, after the next election.
Ms. Graham had said she would likely step down after her current term ends.
But because of her fight with Gov. Leavitt, she now says she is thinking of
running for re-election or for governor.
TOBACCO ROW
Tobacco cases in other parts of the country, including Minnesota,
Mississippi and Texas, have provided a source of high-profile
conflicts--even lawsuits--pitting governors against AGs.But in those
states--and in Utah--the conflict between AG and governor often has deeper
roots. Ms. Graham and Gov. Leavitt have previously clashed over the defense
of the state's restrictive abortion laws.
And, in a U.S. Supreme Court case testing Vermont's ban on same-sex
marriages, Ms. Graham rejected the governor's request that she join an
amicus brief supporting the law, which she called strident and
counterproductive. "The governor was furious," she said.
James E. Tierney, who served as Maine's attorney general in the '80s and
helped coordinate the states' tobacco lawsuits, said that the conflict in
Utah has less to do with tobacco or party politics than with the traditional
role of state AGs.
Mr. Tierney said that state attorneys general have historically been elected
independently of governors to provide a brake on executive power.
AGs and governors often are political rivals, giving rise to the
often-repeated joke that AG stands for "Aspiring Governor."
Mr. Tierney said that from time to time, governors have tried to tighten the
leash on AGs, usually by limiting their budgets or trying to change the law
so the governor appoints the attorney general.But what happened in Utah, he
said, he's never seen before.
Ms. Graham plans to challenge the law in the Utah Supreme Court."The core
historical duties [of the AG] may not be removed by the Legislature without
amending the constitution," she said.
She can count on the bipartisan support of colleagues in the National
Association of Attorneys General, who see the law as an attack on the
office, said Mississippi AG Mike Moore, the group's president.
Gov. Leavitt's general counsel, Gary Doxey, said that the Legislature has
power over the AG's job description and that the new law is on firm
constitutional ground. The law was intended to help avoid conflicts by
clarifying the attorney-client relationship between governor and AG, he
said.
This article appeared in the April 12,1999 issue of The National Law
Journal.
tcrpe
fill out and sign sexual activity disclosures, or was that Arizona?
What ever became of that?
TR
Milt wrote in message <7egmci$qsk$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Justice
Read the preamble that sets the frame for the Rights of the Constitution.
The Courts have misruled on many things in the Constitution.
"We are indowed by our Creator with certin inalienable rights"
The "Bill of Rights" came after the Constitution to prohib. congress from
taking
rights from the people that they already had.
If my great, great, great,great, grandfather Sterling Vaughn did not have
his own gun and thousands of others, that fought for the Revoulation, then
We would be living under the Brittish Crown today. The arugment that only
the Government can own guns is repudiated by the fact that we had no
government when those men of 76 fought the Britts.
Also of note that same grandfather, took his son "William's" place during
the War of 1812 so that his son could return home to be with his sick wife.
Again
Sterling provided his own Musket! Thoe the Government by this time did
provide power and balls, and Muskets to those without.
Ban all Guns in America, and it will only be when. When government thugs,
come arround to shoot your family and kin, just like in Serbia. Janet Reno,
and or her successors, would be more than happy to do that in order to
preserve the special powers that have been upsurped by the various agency's
and for the money it brings in.
Its easy to shoot people that have been disarmed, and easy in these times to
find fat fools that wan't to give up their "God given rights" because some
idiot
professor thinks its a good idea!
Larry Vaughn
Dan Kimmel
>
>Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370a7b0a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>If this is what "Professor" Volokh said then the man is an idiot.
>>There is no such thing as a "justification" clause, and nowhere else
>>in the Bill of Rights will you find any such thing. It is a *basic*
>>rule of legal construction that ALL the words are LAW, not mere
>>"justification."
>
>
>The Constitution does not grant or codify the right to bear arms, it merely
>acknowledges it. Further this contract (the Constitution) prohibits the
>federal government from infringing upon it.
Perhaps it does, but it doesn't do so in the Second which is solely
concerned with arming the militia.
Dan Kimmel
<NCS...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Actually, the Supremes ruled consistently that the Bill of Rights did not
>apply to the states at all until the 14th and 15th Amendment was passed.
>Then, the 14th amendment became, under the prevailing rationale, a
>protection of state corporations from federal control.
Actually, the Bill of Rights was "incorporated" through the Civil War
Amendments a bit at a time to apply to the states. The Second
Amendment has *never* been so "incorporated." There is no decision of
the Supreme Court that holds that the Second covers an individual
right that the states must recognize.
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>Kashmir Dreamer wrote:
>>
>> Actually, the Supremes ruled consistently that the Bill of Rights did not
>> apply to the states at all until the 14th and 15th Amendment was passed.
>> Then, the 14th amendment became, under the prevailing rationale, a
>> protection of state corporations from federal control.
>
>
>United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case
>involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment.
>The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second
>Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution
>and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people"
>means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
>This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees
>an individual right.
The Court did no such thing. Since the meaning of the phrase "the
people" in the Second was not being litigated in the case, the Court
could not "hold" what it meant in the Second. And the language you
refer to was in a footnote to Rehnquist's decision. It is what
lawyers call "obiter dicta." It's a personal aside by Rehnquist
giving his opinion but having no legal weight whatsoever.
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>Dan Kimmel wrote:
>> >FABLE: The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not protect an
>> >individual right to keep and bear arms.
>>
>> FACT: The courts have consistently upheld gun laws and rejected claims
>> that the Second Amendment has anything to do with an "individual right
>> to keep and bear arms."
>
>United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case
>involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment.
>The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second
>Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution
>and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people"
>means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
>This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees
>an individual right.
I've already demolished this particular lie of yours. Since the
meaning of the Second was not being lititgated here the Court did not
hold ANYTHING in this case as to how the Second should be read. You
are citing a footnote to Rehnquist's opinion. It is what is called
"obiter dicta." It is his personal opinion and without any legal
weight whatsoever.
Dan Kimmel
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:59:27 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
>wrote:
>>
>>United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case
>>involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment.
>>The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second
>>Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution
>>and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people"
>>means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
>>This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees
>>an individual right.
>
>Wrong again, Duane. That case deals with the 4th Amendment.
>
>The rest is just your ignorant analysis caused in large part by your
>home schooling and your obvious abuse of inhalants.
>
>Always happy to school an ignorant gun whore.
Indeed. This particular lie has been shot down SO MANY TIMES BEFORE
that it's amazing that they keep using it.
Duane K. Kelly
I do believe the courts say otherwise:
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub
nom., Velazquez v. U. S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943). In this case, the court
held that the Supreme Court in Miller had not intended "to formulate a
general rule" regarding which arms were protected by the Second
Amendment and concluded, therefore, that many types of arms were not
protected. Nonetheless, the court in Cases expressly acknowledged that
the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right when it noted that
the law in question "undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of
individuals to keep and bear arms..." Id. at 921. Emphasis added.
Moreover, the court in Cases concluded, as properly it should have, that
Miller should not be read as holding that the Second Amendment
guaranteed the right to possess or use large weapons that could not be
carried by an individual.
And again...
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 469 U.S.
842 (1984). In the context of a challenge to the law prohibiting the
possession of firearms by convicted felons; the court, while holding
correctly (see discussion of Nelson, supra) that the Second Amendment
"is not a grant of a right but a limitation upon the power of Congress
and the national government," concluded that the right "is a collective
right... rather that an individual right," citing only Warin, supra. As
a district court in the First Circuit, however, the court was bound by
Cases, supra, which expressly recognized that the right belonged to
individuals.
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:34:37 -0400, "Kashmir Dreamer"
>
> >Actually, the Supremes ruled consistently that the Bill of Rights did not
> >apply to the states at all until the 14th and 15th Amendment was passed.
> >Then, the 14th amendment became, under the prevailing rationale, a
> >protection of state corporations from federal control.
>
> Amendments a bit at a time to apply to the states. The Second
> Amendment has *never* been so "incorporated." There is no decision of
> the Supreme Court that holds that the Second covers an individual
> right that the states must recognize.
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub
nom., Velazquez v. U. S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943). In this case, the court
held that the Supreme Court in Miller had not intended "to formulate a
general rule" regarding which arms were protected by the Second
Amendment and concluded, therefore, that many types of arms were not
protected. Nonetheless, the court in Cases expressly acknowledged that
the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual right when it noted that the law in question
"undoubtedly curtails to some extent the right of individuals to keep
and bear arms..." Id. at 921. Emphasis added. Moreover, the court in
Cases concluded, as properly it should have, that Miller should not be
read as holding that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to
possess or use large weapons that could not be carried by an individual.
Now, for you to say that the State don't have to honor this individual
right, I guess you would also have to conclude that they don't have to
honor the 1st Amendment either, or any other for that matter. So, we
check to see just how the Supreme Court did rule on such a case...
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). This was the first case
in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second
Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and
bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it
stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the
Constitution...[n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that
instrument for its existence." The indictment in Cruikshank charged,
inter alia, a conspiracy by Klansmen to prevent blacks from exercising
their civil rights, including the bearing of arms for lawful purposes.
The Court held, however, that because the right to keep and bear arms
existed independent of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment
guaranteed only that the right shall not be infringed by Congress, the
federal government had no power to punish a violation of the right by a
private individual; rather, citizens had "to look for their protection
against any violation by their fellow-citizens" of their right to keep
and bear arms to the police power of the state.
Next time, do a little homework before you begin pulling shit out of
your ass.
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 21:03:24 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
> wrote:
>
> >Kashmir Dreamer wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, the Supremes ruled consistently that the Bill of Rights did not
> >> apply to the states at all until the 14th and 15th Amendment was passed.
> >> Then, the 14th amendment became, under the prevailing rationale, a
> >> protection of state corporations from federal control.
> >
> >
> >involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment.
> >The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second
> >Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution
> >and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people"
> >means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
> >an individual right.
>
> The Court did no such thing. Since the meaning of the phrase "the
> people" in the Second was not being litigated in the case, the Court
> could not "hold" what it meant in the Second. And the language you
> refer to was in a footnote to Rehnquist's decision. It is what
> lawyers call "obiter dicta." It's a personal aside by Rehnquist
> giving his opinion but having no legal weight whatsoever.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court
affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing
alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless
found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and
bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the
constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of
their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable
the people from performing their duty to the general government."
Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies
to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state
cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it
is necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court had before it.
The statute under which Presser was convicted did not forbid individuals
to keep and bear arms but rather forbade "bodies of men to associate
together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in
cities and towns unless authorized by law..." Thus, the Court concluded
that the statute did not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
The Court, however, went on to discuss the Privileges and Immunities
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that "[i]t is only the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States that the
clause relied on was intended to protect." As the Court had already held
that the substantive right to keep and bear arms was not infringed by
the Illinois statute since that statue did not prohibit the keeping and
bearing of arms but rather prohibited military-like exercises by armed
men, the Court concluded that it did not need address the question of
whether the state law violated the Second Amendment as applied to the
states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:59:27 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
> wrote:
>
> >Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
> >> >FABLE: The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not protect an
> >> >individual right to keep and bear arms.
> >>
> >> to keep and bear arms."
> >
> >involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment.
> >The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second
> >Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution
> >and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people"
> >means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
> >This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees
> >an individual right.
>
> meaning of the Second was not being lititgated here the Court did not
> hold ANYTHING in this case as to how the Second should be read. You
> are citing a footnote to Rehnquist's opinion. It is what is called
> "obiter dicta." It is his personal opinion and without any legal
> weight whatsoever.
I believe the lie is in your court by implying what is there isn't as
noted:
In every case in which there is a ruling regarding the Individual
rights, the court recognizes it as understood, and in complete harmony
with the remainder of the constitution mentioning of "the people". Your
claims it will not stand in court is a pure and simple lie, as all the
cased I have presented so far dismiss any suggestion otherwise in their
ruling. As you will note above, this ruling was based on that
understanding, therefore accepted as an individual right.
Zepp
>Utah Strips AG's Office of Power
>
>Tobacco case feud prompts law making governor the boss.
Just a taste of what free Americans can expect if the religious whacks
ever get control.
*********************************************************************
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence
http://
WARNING: Contains ideas.
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tcrpe
Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370c9068...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>I've already demolished this particular lie of yours. Since the
>meaning of the Second was not being lititgated here the Court did not
>hold ANYTHING in this case as to how the Second should be read. You
>are citing a footnote to Rehnquist's opinion. It is what is called
>"obiter dicta." It is his personal opinion and without any legal
>weight whatsoever.
Having been "litigated" is not a requirement for a law to be effective.
The Second Amendment means what is says.
You may not like it or agree with it, but it means what it says.
TR
tcrpe
reactionary.
So, Vul, are you REALLY a Prof at Stanford?
TR
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<3728f61c...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:43:01 -0700, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Is this the state where the AG demanded that all state elected officials
>>fill out and sign sexual activity disclosures, or was that Arizona?
>
>It was Utah
>
>>What ever became of that?
>
>They all refused to sign an affidavit swearing that they had never
>cheated on their spouses.
>
>Using Republican logic from your recent Impeachment Ass Whupping they
>must have something to hide.
>
>Always glad to educate an ignorant reactionary, tcrap.
>
> Jim
>
>>Milt wrote in message <7egmci$qsk$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>>Utah Strips AG's Office of Power
>>>
>>>Tobacco case feud prompts law making governor the boss.
>>>
>>>The National Law Journal
>>>April 5, 1999
>>>
>>>After six years of conflict with his state's Democratic attorney general,
>>>Utah's Republican Governor Michael O. Leavitt has taken unusual, if not
>>>unprecedented, revenge: He has signed a law stripping the AG's office of
>>>most of its powers.
>>>
>>>The law got its start in the wake of a conflict between the two over the
>>>state's tobacco lawsuit. It gives the governor final authority over civil
>>>litigation, which Attorney General Jan Graham characterized as "85% of
what
>>>I do."
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>A Kosovo Photo Diary:
>http://www.american-politics.com/040499Kosovo1.html
>
>========================================================================
>"The single worst thing I can say about George W. Bush after five years of
>watching him is that if you think his daddy had trouble with
>'the vision thing,' wait'll you meet this one. I don't think he has any
idea
>why he's running for the presidency, except that he's competitive and he
can."
>
> -- Molly Ivins, Houston Chronicle, 4-4-99
>========================================================================
Baldone9
a collective; there could be no other intent on the part of any country, no
matter how democratic.
However, you should see the comment on the second amendment at
www.Geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/3967. Very heavy thinking.
In article <370a3ced...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan Kimmel) wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 13:51:34 GMT, Michae...@worldnet.att.net
> (Michael Beck) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 18:03:10 GMT, Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan
> >Kimmel) wrote:
>
> >>>>>I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply
put,
> >>>>>the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
> >>>>>organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual
citizens)
> >>>>>the right to keep and bear arms.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
> >>>>>individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
> >>>>>example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and
in
> >>>>>their persons".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.
> >>>>
> >>>>Not even close. That argument has been shot down in court over and
> >>>>over and over again. Even the NRA knows better than to make it any
> >>>>more -- except in fundraising letters to gullible gun nuts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That argument has never been shot down in court.
> >>
> >>It has been shot down repeatedly in court. Check out the Federal
> >>Court of Appeals and District Court decisions on the Second.
> >
> >It has never been shot down, not even once.
> >The court has simply held that the second amendment is not "absolute"
> >and that the states and the federal government can regulate their sale
> >and use.
>
> It has been shot down again and again and again. The courts have
> ruled REPEATEDLY that there is no "individual right" in the Second.
> Your statement indicates you haven't actually looked at the cases.
>
> >The court never ever, not even once, found that the second amendment
> >does not apply to the "people".
>
> The district courts and courts of appeal have ruled repeatedly that
> there is no individual right in the Second, which is concerned with
> the arming of state miltiias. When people have tried to claim an
> individual right they have lost (this most recent case
> notwithstanding).
>
> >>
> >>>The current chief justice and Scalia have also written that it is
> >>>inconceivable that the "people" would mean one thing in the second
> >>>amendment and something else in the rest of the document.
> >>
> >>That was in a footnote to a case having nothing whatsoever to do with
> >>the Second Amendment and is without any legal weight or relevance.
> >>But please, do try your luck in court relying on the Urdugo case for
> >>the meaning of the Second.
> >
> >What do you propose the "people" refers to in the amendment?
>
> Interesting question. Now here's one for you: why is there all that
> stuff about "a well-regulated militia" there. (HINT: it's NOT
> "explanatory")
>
> >Why did the founders put the second amendment in the constitution in
> >the first place? What do the federalist papers say about this matter?
>
> The Federalist Papers don't say ANYTHING about the Bill of Rights.
> They were written during the debate over the Constitution, not the
> amendments.
>
> >Why is that meaning different than the use of the "people" in the
> >first amendment??
>
> Why does the First talk about "Congress shall make NO law" while the
> Second uses that restrictive languages about "a well-regulated
> militia?"
>
> >BTW, the first amendment is not absolute either.
>
> Never claimed it was.
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:34:37 -0400, "Kashmir Dreamer"
>> <NCS...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, the Supremes ruled consistently that the Bill of Rights did not
>> >apply to the states at all until the 14th and 15th Amendment was passed.
>> >Then, the 14th amendment became, under the prevailing rationale, a
>> >protection of state corporations from federal control.
>>
>> Actually, the Bill of Rights was "incorporated" through the Civil War
>> Amendments a bit at a time to apply to the states. The Second
>> Amendment has *never* been so "incorporated." There is no decision of
>> the Supreme Court that holds that the Second covers an individual
>> right that the states must recognize.
<stuff you copied out of an NRA cheat sheet deleted>
>Next time, do a little homework before you begin pulling shit out of
>your ass.
Try again, small fry. The Second has NOT been incorporates to apply
to the states through the 14th and 15th amendments. Further, this
aberration from Texas notwithstanding, no law has ever been finally
struck down as a violation of the Second. In fact, the case you cited
appears to have UPHELD the law. When the Court, in dicta, said that
other laws might have violated it, it is meaningless because those
hypothetical laws weren't before the Court.
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 20:59:27 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>
>> >> >FABLE: The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not protect an
>> >> >individual right to keep and bear arms.
>> >>
>> >> FACT: The courts have consistently upheld gun laws and rejected claims
>> >> that the Second Amendment has anything to do with an "individual right
>> >> to keep and bear arms."
>> >
>> >United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case
>> >involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment.
>> >The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second
>> >Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution
>> >and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people"
>> >means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States.
>> >This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees
>> >an individual right.
>>
>> I've already demolished this particular lie of yours. Since the
>> meaning of the Second was not being lititgated here the Court did not
>> hold ANYTHING in this case as to how the Second should be read. You
>> are citing a footnote to Rehnquist's opinion. It is what is called
>> "obiter dicta." It is his personal opinion and without any legal
>> weight whatsoever.
>
>I believe the lie is in your court by implying what is there isn't as
>noted:
>
>Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). Although the Supreme Court
>affirmed the holding in Cruikshank that the Second Amendment, standing
>alone, applied only to action by the federal government, it nonetheless
>found the states without power to infringe upon the right to keep and
>bear arms, holding that "the States cannot, even laying the
>constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
>from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of
>their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable
>the people from performing their duty to the general government."
In other words, the Second has to do with arming state militias.
Thanks for proving the point. (In fact, Presser does not bar states
from passing gun laws. No state gun law has EVER been thrown out for
violating the Second Amendment.)
>Presser, moreover, plainly suggested that the Second Amendment applies
>to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and thus that a state
>cannot forbid individuals to keep and bear arms. To understand why, it
>is necessary to understand the statutory scheme the Court had before it.
I don't know where you're copying this from, but the doctrine of
incorporation is a 20th century legal doctrine, and so citing a 19th
century case to prove that the Court did something it has not done is
unpersuasive.
Dan Kimmel
>
>Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370c9068...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>I've already demolished this particular lie of yours. Since the
>>meaning of the Second was not being lititgated here the Court did not
>>hold ANYTHING in this case as to how the Second should be read. You
>>are citing a footnote to Rehnquist's opinion. It is what is called
>>"obiter dicta." It is his personal opinion and without any legal
>>weight whatsoever.
>
>Having been "litigated" is not a requirement for a law to be effective.
>
>The Second Amendment means what is says.
>
>You may not like it or agree with it, but it means what it says.
And what it says is that people have a right to be armed as part of a
state militia. Period. Ended.
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 14:40:12 -0700, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370a7b0a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>> >>If this is what "Professor" Volokh said then the man is an idiot.
>> >>There is no such thing as a "justification" clause, and nowhere else
>> >>in the Bill of Rights will you find any such thing. It is a *basic*
>> >>rule of legal construction that ALL the words are LAW, not mere
>> >>"justification."
>> >
>> >
>> >The Constitution does not grant or codify the right to bear arms, it merely
>> >acknowledges it. Further this contract (the Constitution) prohibits the
>> >federal government from infringing upon it.
>>
>> Perhaps it does, but it doesn't do so in the Second which is solely
>> concerned with arming the militia.
>
>I do believe the courts say otherwise:
Of course, what you believe and what the courts actually say are two
different things.
<your usual boilerplate which you clearly don't even understand
deleted>
>The Big Lie | http://www.kellyfreehold.com/spam/
Well, at least you admit what you're posting.
tcrpe
Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370d2b1a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>And what it says is that people have a right to be armed as part of a
>state militia. Period. Ended.
It does say that. But not that "Period" or "Ended" BS.
It also acknowledges my right to bear arms. A right the predates the
Constitution, and supersedes the Constitution. And that the Constitution
shall not infringe.
Because I have . . . . certain . . . inalienable rights.
You may not like it, but I sure do. The rights AND the guns. And the ammo.
I really like the guns and ammo. MMMmmmm -- guns and ammo. I like guns and
ammo.
TTFN
TR
Jason Gottlieb
"Duane K. Kelly" wrote:
>
> Dan Kimmel wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 20:34:37 -0400, "Kashmir Dreamer"
> > <NCS...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, the Supremes ruled consistently that the Bill of Rights did not
> > >apply to the states at all until the 14th and 15th Amendment was passed.
> > >Then, the 14th amendment became, under the prevailing rationale, a
> > >protection of state corporations from federal control.
> >
> > Actually, the Bill of Rights was "incorporated" through the Civil War
> > Amendments a bit at a time to apply to the states. The Second
> > Amendment has *never* been so "incorporated." There is no decision of
> > the Supreme Court that holds that the Second covers an individual
> > right that the states must recognize.
>
> Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub
> nom., Velazquez v. U. S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943). In this case...
It doesn't matter a whit. The First Circuit cannot make a binding
judgment for states outside its jurisdiction.
> Next time, do a little homework before you begin pulling shit out of
> your ass.
Ditto.
--
Jason Gottlieb
My homepage: http://www.columbia.edu/~jpg40
Writings on East Asian Politics:
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/politics_east_asia
Tom Potter
>In other words, the Second has to do with arming state militias.
"A well educated citizenry being necessary to security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Duane K. Kelly
>
> There is no way the constitution addresses The People as individuals; it is as
> a collective; there could be no other intent on the part of any country, no
> matter how democratic.
I guess there is no individual rights to the freedom of speech, press,
and religion just for starters.
BTW, You best go back and check, I believe we are talking about the
constitution of the Republic of The United States of American, not the
Democracy of The United States of America.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
--
========================================================
========================================================
I do not refer to myself as a "spam hater", but an internet lover who
has no desire to see it destroyed out of greed, be it in the name of
business, charity, or any other so called "public interest".
The Big Lie | http://www.kellyfreehold.com/spam/
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370d2a9e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>In other words, the Second has to do with arming state militias.
>
>"A well educated citizenry being necessary to security of a free state,
>the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Interestingly, that's NOT what the First Amendment says. It says,
inter alia, "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech
or of the press..."
Using that model the Second *could* have said "Congress shall make no
law abridging the right to bear arms." But they *didn't*. They put
in all that stuff about the militia and that's part of the law.
Dan Kimmel
>
>Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370d2b1a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>And what it says is that people have a right to be armed as part of a
>>state militia. Period. Ended.
>
>
>It does say that. But not that "Period" or "Ended" BS.
>
>It also acknowledges my right to bear arms. A right the predates the
>Constitution, and supersedes the Constitution. And that the Constitution
>shall not infringe.
>
>Because I have . . . . certain . . . inalienable rights.
You can make that argument, and even have some historical weight for
it, except for one thing. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the
Second Amendment. The Second has nothing to do with any individual
"right to bear arms." It has to do with militias.
>You may not like it, but I sure do. The rights AND the guns. And the ammo.
>I really like the guns and ammo. MMMmmmm -- guns and ammo. I like guns and
>ammo.
Maybe if you stopped snorting it you wouldn't have this problem.
tcrpe
TR
You read it your way and disarm, I'll read it my way and buy . . . guns
and ammo.
TTFN
Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370e679b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
tcrpe
people to keep and bear arms.
MMmmmmm . . . guns and ammo.
Doh!
TR
Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370e6719...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:45:50 -0000, "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
tjwilson
weapons?
tjw
tcrpe
What would it have to do with the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment
means what it says. What happened in 1789 is not more relevant to what it
says and means than what movie is opening in Los Angeles this weekend.
But to answer your question, yes, I can.
TR
tjwilson wrote in message <370E7B7E...@hb.quik.com>...
t...@earthlink.net
Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan Kimmel) wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:45:50 -0000, "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Dan Kimmel wrote in message <370d2a9e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >>In other words, the Second has to do with arming state militias.
> >
> >"A well educated citizenry being necessary to security of a free state,
> >the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
>
> Interestingly, that's NOT what the First Amendment says. It says,
> inter alia, "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech
> or of the press..."
>
> Using that model the Second *could* have said "Congress shall make no
> law abridging the right to bear arms." But they *didn't*. They put
> in all that stuff about the militia and that's part of the law.
No wonder they call them "weasels".
Note how this poster asserts that "sppech" and "press"
refer to INDIVIDUAL freedoms in the First Amendment,
and refers to COLLECTIVE ( State controlled militia )
freedoms when applied to the Second Amendment.
The fcat of the matter is that tyrannies come into
existence after they disarm the populace.
The masses cannot have freedom of speech
unless they have enough firepower to kill
would be tyrants.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting,
it is about killing would be tyrants and their henchmen.
Tom Potter
Dan Kimmel
>"Part" being the operative phrase. The other "part" -- the right of the
>people to keep and bear arms.
As PART of the militia. And that's the way the courts have
CONSISTENTLY read it.