Ahem ... ! GUN NUTS and OTHER DUMB'UNS ... Attention ...

[Kris Krispy]

Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.

[Georgie Porgie]

That's right, dumb'uns! Why don't you wake up?

[Greg Arama]

"Kris Krispy" wrote in message
news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.

<^^^
Keep being stupid.
It smells good on only you.

The UK does NOT allow the "right" to defend ones self, you retard.
That's why THEY are being MURDERED MORE by other means, you retard!
The UK's VIOLENT CRIME RATE is GROWING! <--- and with GUNS!

The USA's is DECLINING!

Lay off the sugar, you retard.

[ozark...@yahoo.com]

Now prove causation.

[RD Sandman]

Kris Krispy <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac-863c-
70d303...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:

> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.
>

Good.....stay there.

--

It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!

George Burns


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

Of that 6,009 people, remove all the ones that had their pants
down around their knees and see how many are left.

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

"Kris Krispy" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

[Warren Penn]

Krispy, my good man, I simply just don't give a damn.

[Gray Guest]

Kris Krispy <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac-863c-
70d303...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:

> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.
>

And you weren't one of them. Damn shame.

6,000 out of a population of 300,000,000.

Can you even do the math?

And BTW, were these criminal acts? Can you offer some evidence that they
would not have happened with some other method if a gun was not available?

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[Gray Guest]

Kris Krispy <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac-863c-
70d303...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:

> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa
and U.S.

By James Slack

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the
European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of
violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the
world's most dangerous countries.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-
country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1u2DOUj00


According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against
the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per
thousand people in England and Wales. There were about 50,000 sexual
offences during the same period, just under 1 per thousand. Other areas of
crime included robbery (80,000; equivalent to around 1.5 crimes/per
thousand), burglary (285,000; 5 per thousand) and vehicle theft (150,000; 3
per thousand). Based on the Government's preferred comparison system, this
marked a 7% decline in crime on the year before. On this system, the Crime
and Disorder Reduction Partnership (called "Community Safety Partnerships"
in Wales) with the highest number of crimes per capita was the City of
London; however, this is based on resident population, which is
considerably augmented by workers and tourists. The lowest rate was in
Norfolk.[3] These figures were created by combining police recorded crime
and the British Crime Survey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_statistics_in_the_United_Kingdom


Might want to have a look at this

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-
statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary


This is interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2656875.stm
Why Britain needs more guns

[Gray Guest]

Kris Krispy <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac-863c-
70d303...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:

> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.

BTW, stupid, what is a personal handgun?

Is it one owned lawfully by the person committing the crime?

Better question, how many of the crimes were committed by persons LAWFULLY
in possession of the firearm used.

LAWFULLY in possession is defined as:
The person in possession is not a prohibited person by way of age or legal
prohibiton as a result of a previous conviction for a crime, the penalties
for which include a prohibiton on lawful possession by the person OR
prohibited because of a legal finding by a judge that the person was
mentally unfit.

The firearm itself is not a prohibited weapon in the jusrisdiction even by
non prohibited persons.

An unlawful firearm in this case would include those firearms defined as
"assault weapons" in jurisdictions which have prohibited them, weapons
capable of real automatic fire as defined by US law and not in the
possesion of a a Class III licensed citizen or licensed dealer or otherwise
lawful weapons modified in some way as to make them no longer lawful -
shortened barrel, modicfication to "full auto" or defaced serial number are
examples.

Well, stupid? Do you even know what you're talking about or are you just
another asshat?

[max headroom]

Kris Krispy <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:

> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.

Why don't you emigrate?

[Oglethorpe]

"Greg Arama" <TheAmb...@bass.gov> wrote in message
news:4fa58b4e$0$4651$607e...@cv.net...

>
>
> "Kris Krispy" wrote in message
> news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.
>

Gun ownersip in america is at an all time historical high. Yet bioth the
murder rate and the number of murders is at a 40 year low. We don't gicve a
crap what they do in the UK.

[Peter Franks]

Yes, that is one way to look at it if you are a totalitarian.

However, if you cherish freedom, consider that 62,218,761 people in the
UK have had their rights stolen by government, compared to 0 in the US.

[Lookout]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:54:29 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

Nope. Wrong again.
How do you keep doing this?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Gray Guest" <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA04AB930AC63DWe...@88.198.244.100...

Just for the record, this is a troll who has a set of email addresses that
are all with sexual connotations
Bert has posted the list of them fairly recently

[Scout]

"Kris Krispy" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.

Care to make a similar comparison with Knives?

I bet you will see a similar disparity in numbers.

But, you're probably not interested in finding out the REAL issues involved.

[Gray Guest]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in
news:AZidndy0YN7ekDvS...@bright.net:

Well then asshat it is.

Another sterling example of those who want to rules us by fiat.

[Gray Guest]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in
news:pvSdnaEgRsWuOjjS...@mchsi.com:

>
> "Greg Arama" <TheAmb...@bass.gov> wrote in message
> news:4fa58b4e$0$4651$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>>
>> "Kris Krispy" wrote in message
>> news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com..
>> .
>>
>> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
>> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
>> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.
>>
>
>
> Gun ownersip in america is at an all time historical high. Yet bioth the
> murder rate and the number of murders is at a 40 year low. We don't
> gicve a crap what they do in the UK.

Yes we do. As an object lesson.

>
>> <^^^
>> Keep being stupid.
>> It smells good on only you.
>>
>> The UK does NOT allow the "right" to defend ones self, you retard.
>> That's why THEY are being MURDERED MORE by other means, you retard!
>> The UK's VIOLENT CRIME RATE is GROWING! <--- and with GUNS!
>>
>> The USA's is DECLINING!
>>
>> Lay off the sugar, you retard.
>>
>
>

[Warren Penn]

Want crime? Open the online edition of UK Daily Mirror.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 01:43:04 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Kris Krispy" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
>> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
>> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.
>
>Care to make a similar comparison with Knives?
>
>I bet
>

I bet you.
Nor prove it

[ozark...@yahoo.com]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 00:03:36 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Ok lookie: show your evidence......

>How do you keep doing this?

Easy - the truth just rolls out.....

[Peter Franks]

How so?

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 08:35:37 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

wrote:

>On 5/5/2012 10:03 PM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:54:29 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2012 12:57 PM, Kris Krispy wrote:
>>>> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
>>>> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
>>>> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is one way to look at it if you are a totalitarian.
>>>
>>> However, if you cherish freedom, consider that 62,218,761 people in the
>>> UK have had their rights stolen by government,
>>
>> Nope. Wrong again.
>
>How so?
>

They can't have rights stolen they never had.

[Greg Arama]

"Lookout" wrote in message
news:877dq75uut0olaipb...@4ax.com...

<^^^^^

Everybody had those inherent rights from the get go. The UK (and a lot of
other countries as well) just said that don't RECOGNIZE that right anymore,
henceforth ... taking (stealing) them away.
Before they made it against the law, anybody there could own a gun that
wanted or could afford one.
Try READING!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom
Stop being a retard for a least a full day, OK?

[Peter Franks]

So where do rights come from?

[Greg Arama]

"Peter Franks" wrote in message news:jo6bn8$av1$1...@dont-email.me...

<^^^^


Lookout "thinks" they are "granted" (given if you will)
to us by the Government.

Lee Harrison thought the same thing.
He's dead now.

[UnclosetedFruit]

Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend anything
above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper. And even then we
doubt that capacity. Most, we truly believe, are fingers-on wipers.

But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are literally
and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty supposedly
guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person next to you in
the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under a
THREAT. Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is
automatically reduced, especially under insane "stand-your-ground"
guidelines.

So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and other NRA slaves
believe to be the key to keeping us free from the predations of an
authoritarian ("communist/Marxist/socialist") government, in reality,
fosters the opposite result. Your armed neighbor is your master. You
FEAR your gun-packing fellow citizen.

If that's freedom as it was envisioned by our founding fathers, you
deserve it.

[Gray Guest]

Warren Penn <haplog...@gmail.com> wrote in news:d4a4e597-d76b-4c1e-8b7e-
d6cb7a...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> Want crime? Open the online edition of UK Daily Mirror.

He apparently lacks the sense to know that the UK is NOT the best example of
a low crime, gun free paradise.

[Gray Guest]

UnclosetedFruit <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:162bbed6-d568-4238-
af7d-dbd...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:

Another sterling example of the lefty mind at work.We're discussing
firearms and he gives us toilet paper anbd anal vents.

And they wonder why we want to remove them from any poistion of decision
making. They are all either mentally ill or developmentally arrested.

Why don't you go play with yourself and let the adults talk?

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:17:28 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

That's not the point. You can't have something stolen you never had.

Stop being an idiot.

[RD Sandman]

UnclosetedFruit <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:162bbed6-d568-4238-
af7d-dbd...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:

> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend anything
> above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper. And even then we
> doubt that capacity. Most, we truly believe, are fingers-on wipers.

And you like to lick those fingers, don't you, boy.

> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
> especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are literally
> and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty supposedly
> guaranteed by our Constitution.

Hmmmm, per the census, our population is 309 million. From that subtract
about 80 million gunowners and you have 229 million. You are not only
ignorant, your math sucks.

> Because if the person next to you in
> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under a
> THREAT.

From whom? The police? The military?

Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is
> automatically reduced, especially under insane "stand-your-ground"
> guidelines.

Which is only in some states, not all.

> So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and other NRA slaves
> believe to be the key to keeping us free from the predations of an
> authoritarian ("communist/Marxist/socialist") government, in reality,
> fosters the opposite result. Your armed neighbor is your master. You
> FEAR your gun-packing fellow citizen.

I don't fear anyone........however, you, apparently, do.

> If that's freedom as it was envisioned by our founding fathers, you
> deserve it.

Thank you.



--

It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!

George Burns


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Lookout]

That this WILL change and that's why a 2nd Obama administration scares
the shit out of you.

I look forward to the news break that tells me one of the
conservatives on the Supreme Court has died. I'm going to sit here and
watch you idiots melt down.

[Greg Arama]

"Lookout" wrote in message
news:fpndq75o1aa5l35at...@4ax.com...

<^^^

It WILL scare us _all_ if that retard gets elected again!

Imagine YOU with an AMBIEN SUPPLY that the Government doesn't give you!

[Scout]

"UnclosetedFruit" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:162bbed6-d568-4238...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend anything
> above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper. And even then we
> doubt that capacity. Most, we truly believe, are fingers-on wipers.
>
> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
> especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are literally
> and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty supposedly
> guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person next to you in
> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under a
> THREAT.

Really?

Please specify exactly and concisely exactly what specific threat you are
under.


Oh, and maybe then you might care to point out in the Constitution where you
the right you claim exists.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fpndq75o1aa5l35at...@4ax.com:

Nope. My carrying of a gun or the number I own won't change.

> I look forward to the news break that tells me one of the
> conservatives on the Supreme Court has died. I'm going to sit here and
> watch you idiots melt down.

Over what? You expect a reversal of Heller and McDonald? Hell,
conservative have expected a reversal of Roe v Wade for years but it
hasn't happened.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:46:30 -0500, RD Sandman

Yup..sure will.

>
>> I look forward to the news break that tells me one of the
>> conservatives on the Supreme Court has died. I'm going to sit here and
>> watch you idiots melt down.
>
>Over what? You expect a reversal of Heller and McDonald?

A "re-interpretation" is more like it.

>Hell, conservative have expected a reversal of Roe v Wade for years but it
>hasn't happened.
>

Because that makes no legal sense.

[Ares]

The right to shoot Americans? Besides, who are the losers with the
Marxist negro Muslim from Kenya in charge anyway? It's not the
British.

You stupid socialist. You don't even have a job so you don't matter.

[Peter Franks]

It is the point. If they never had the right, then where can you get
the right from? Specifically, where do rights come from?

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:52:20 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

HAHAHA
Keep dreaming. I chose to stay on topic.

[RosemontCrest]

It's that often-claimed "right to feel safe." You know, that one. ;-)

UnclosetedFruit doesn't seem to understand that it has the freedom to
choose not to be threatened by law-abiding citizens exercising a civil
right guaranteed by the US Constitution. It seems that it doesn't
understand freedom at all.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:43:18 -0700, RosemontCrest
<rosemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 5/6/2012 1:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "UnclosetedFruit" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:162bbed6-d568-4238...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>>> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend anything
>>> above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper. And even then we
>>> doubt that capacity. Most, we truly believe, are fingers-on wipers.
>>>
>>> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
>>> especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are literally
>>> and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty supposedly
>>> guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person next to you in
>>> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under a
>>> THREAT.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Please specify exactly and concisely exactly what specific threat you
>> are under.
>>
>>
>> Oh, and maybe then you might care to point out in the Constitution where
>> you the right you claim exists.
>
>It's that often-claimed "right to feel safe." You know, that one. ;-)
>

Ok..then show us in the Constitution where it says you have "the right
to feel safe".

[Peter Franks]

You choose not to answer! You've realized the idiocy of your position
and are now cowering behind excuses!!! Recess is over, back into kindy?

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ihsdq7pnf9lffl4ai...@4ax.com:

What makes you think that?

>>> I look forward to the news break that tells me one of the
>>> conservatives on the Supreme Court has died. I'm going to sit here
>>> and watch you idiots melt down.
>>
>>Over what? You expect a reversal of Heller and McDonald?
>
> A "re-interpretation" is more like it.

It will be difficult to do. And even if they do, it simply means that we
go back to pre-Heller days where I had my carry and all the guns I
wanted.

>>Hell, conservative have expected a reversal of Roe v Wade for years
>>but it hasn't happened.
>>
> Because that makes no legal sense.
>

Sorry, but there is a lot more in the Constitution about RKBA than there
is about abortion.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:l47eq7lh1bsd8vesb...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:43:18 -0700, RosemontCrest
> <rosemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5/6/2012 1:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "UnclosetedFruit" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:162bbed6-d568-4238...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.co
>>> m...
>>>> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend
>>>> anything above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper. And
>>>> even then we doubt that capacity. Most, we truly believe, are
>>>> fingers-on wipers.
>>>>
>>>> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
>>>> especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are
>>>> literally and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty
>>>> supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person
>>>> next to you in the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU
>>>> are under a THREAT.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> Please specify exactly and concisely exactly what specific threat
>>> you are under.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and maybe then you might care to point out in the Constitution
>>> where you the right you claim exists.
>>
>>It's that often-claimed "right to feel safe." You know, that one. ;-)
>>
> Ok..then show us in the Constitution where it says you have "the right
> to feel safe".

You will have to take that up with UnclosetedFruit, not Rosemont Crest.

>>UnclosetedFruit doesn't seem to understand that it has the freedom to
>>choose not to be threatened by law-abiding citizens exercising a civil
>>right guaranteed by the US Constitution. It seems that it doesn't
>>understand freedom at all.
>

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:47:10 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

Explain how you can have something stolen you never had in the first
place.

Go ahead..take your time.

[Lookout]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:37:31 -0500, RD Sandman

And wrong again.

>
>>>Hell, conservative have expected a reversal of Roe v Wade for years
>>>but it hasn't happened.
>>>
>> Because that makes no legal sense.
>>
>
>Sorry, but there is a lot more in the Constitution about RKBA than there
>is about abortion.
>

There is nothing about abortion.
The only line about guns includes the line "A well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state".

[Lookout]

Anyone can answer.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:af0gq716bhh9fdski...@4ax.com:

And the line, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed." Not the right of the government, not the right of the
militia, the right of the people.

Personally, I feel that Heller and McDonald are the right opinions. I
also believe the Roe v Wade was the right decision but not how they got
there.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ii0gq7hjslvl3vst0...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:39:29 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:l47eq7lh1bsd8vesb...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:43:18 -0700, RosemontCrest
>>> <rosemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 5/6/2012 1:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "UnclosetedFruit" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:162bbed6-d568-4238-af7d-dbde2e183ca5

@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.co
>>>>> m...
>>>>>> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend
>>>>>> anything above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper. And
>>>>>> even then we doubt that capacity. Most, we truly believe, are
>>>>>> fingers-on wipers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns --
i.e.,
>>>>>> especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are
>>>>>> literally and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty
>>>>>> supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person
>>>>>> next to you in the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU
>>>>>> are under a THREAT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please specify exactly and concisely exactly what specific threat
>>>>> you are under.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and maybe then you might care to point out in the Constitution
>>>>> where you the right you claim exists.
>>>>
>>>>It's that often-claimed "right to feel safe." You know, that one. ;-)
>>>>
>>> Ok..then show us in the Constitution where it says you have "the
right
>>> to feel safe".
>>
>>You will have to take that up with UnclosetedFruit, not Rosemont Crest.
>>
> Anyone can answer.

Are you really that stupid? Go back and reread the sequence.

>>>>UnclosetedFruit doesn't seem to understand that it has the freedom to
>>>>choose not to be threatened by law-abiding citizens exercising a
civil
>>>>right guaranteed by the US Constitution. It seems that it doesn't
>>>>understand freedom at all.
>>>
>

[Greg Arama]

"Lookout" wrote in message
news:af0gq716bhh9fdski...@4ax.com...

<^^^
Lookout can't answer a question about guns!

>
>>>> I look forward to the news break that tells me one of the
>>>> conservatives on the Supreme Court has died. I'm going to sit here
>>>> and watch you idiots melt down.
>>>
>>>Over what? You expect a reversal of Heller and McDonald?
>>
>> A "re-interpretation" is more like it.
>
>It will be difficult to do. And even if they do, it simply means that we
>go back to pre-Heller days where I had my carry and all the guns I
>wanted.
>
And wrong again.

<^^^^^^
Lookout can't say why. He just "thinks" that will happen.

>
>>>Hell, conservative have expected a reversal of Roe v Wade for years
>>>but it hasn't happened.
>>>
>> Because that makes no legal sense.
>>
>
>Sorry, but there is a lot more in the Constitution about RKBA than there
>is about abortion.
>
There is nothing about abortion.
The only line about guns includes the line "A well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state".

<^^^^

Lookout lied again.
That butchered up line that ends with nothing in mid sentence, does NOT
exist in the Bill of Rights.

FURTHER PROOF that "Lookout" never served in the US Military, as (1) he
would otherwise know what he was fighting for, and (2)
he would turn in the gun(s) he said he has.

[Peter Franks]

You are the one claiming they never had it, so you need to backfill your
position. If rights are transient, how are they acquired?

What's your point???!!!

[Lookout]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:19:31 -0500, RD Sandman

Still waiting
"feel safe" in the Constitution. Find it.

[Lookout]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:23:20 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

Prove they had it then.
I can't prove something didn't exist if it never existed.

So go ahead...prove me wrong.

Last chance.....

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:o8igq7179mcvp1jbu...@4ax.com:

You idiot......you still don't know that you are talking to the wrong
people. It wasn't Rosemont Crest who made the statement and it wasn't
me. It was that moron UnclosetedFruit.

[Greg Arama]

"Lookout" wrote in message
news:v9igq7psdgkcbnitq...@4ax.com...

<^^^^

I already did, you retard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Lawmeister]

Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend anything
above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper. And even then we
doubt that capacity. Most, we truly believe, are fingers-on wipers.

But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are literally
and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty supposedly
guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person next to you in
the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under a

THREAT. Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is

automatically reduced, especially under insane "stand-your-ground"
guidelines.

So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and other NRA slaves
believe to be the key to keeping us free from the predations of an
authoritarian ("communist/Marxist/socialist") government, in reality,
fosters the opposite result. Your armed neighbor is your master. You
FEAR your gun-packing fellow citizen.

[Peter Franks]

Humans are born with the right to defend and protect themselves.

Humans are born with the right to acquire property.

Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.

Humans are born with the right of choice.

All of those rights have been stolen from the people of the UK.

[Oglethorpe]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04C68E84...@216.196.121.131...

Make a command of "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security
of a free state". You can'rt, which is why the anti gunners are so full of
it.

[Lookout]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 16:33:58 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

The government decides how you can defend yourself.

>
>Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>

Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle Eastern
countries.

>
>Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>

Stupid statement

>
>Humans are born with the right of choice.
>

Maybe..it depends on the country. In America you can't "choose" to
sell meth instead of coke.

>
>All of those rights have been stolen from the people of the UK.
>

And you're wrong again.

[Lookout]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 17:21:12 -0500, RD Sandman

And still waiting......

[Lookout]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 19:52:29 -0700, "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com>
wrote:

What the hell does that mean?

[Peter Franks]

Perhaps how, but not if.

>> Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>>
> Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle Eastern
> countries.

Another example of a stolen right.

>> Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>>
> Stupid statement

Just because you don't seek happiness doesn't mean it is stupid for
everyone else. Just keep your misery to yourself, if you please.

[Peter Franks]

Your turn. Where do rights come from?

[Lookout]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 18:27:34 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

It's not a right.
Try again

>
>>> Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>>>
>> Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle Eastern
>> countries.
>
>Another example of a stolen right.
>

Nope. Never was a right.

>
>>> Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>>>
>> Stupid statement
>
>Just because you don't seek happiness doesn't mean it is stupid for
>everyone else. Just keep your misery to yourself, if you please.
>

I do seek happiness. But it's got nothing to do with "rights".

>
>>>
>>> Humans are born with the right of choice.
>>>
>> Maybe..it depends on the country. In America you can't "choose" to
>> sell meth instead of coke.
>>>
>>> All of those rights have been stolen from the people of the UK.
>>>

We're not talking about the UK. I said MIDDLE EAST.

>
>> And you're wrong again.
>

And again and again.

[Lookout]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 18:29:42 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

Man

[max headroom]

Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in news:jo9sq6$bho$1...@dont-email.me:

Dumbass believes he is smarter than Tom Jefferson et al who proclaimed that all men have certain
inalienable rights including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[RM V2.0]

"Lawmeister" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8c5b41bc-a9f1-44bc...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

>>
> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
> especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are literally
> and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty supposedly
> guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person next to you in
> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under a
> THREAT.

How? Exactly what is this "threat"? You likely will not know if someone is
concealed so there is no threat. By your logic everyone with a knife is also
a threat. You are a moron.

>Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is
> automatically reduced,

Again, how? What freedom has been reduced?

>especially under insane "stand-your-ground"
> guidelines.

What is your alternative? Run away? Then the criminals have won. If I go to
your house and barge in are you going to go hide or run away? I feel sorry
for your family, if you have one.

>
> So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and other NRA slaves
> believe to be the key to keeping us free from the predations of an
> authoritarian ("communist/Marxist/socialist") government, in reality,
> fosters the opposite result. Your armed neighbor is your master.
>

Take a history class, that is exactly why it was written, idiot.

>You
> FEAR your gun-packing fellow citizen.
>

No, you are the coward. You have zero to fear from a law abiding citizen.

> If that's freedom as it was envisioned by our founding fathers, you
> deserve it.

Sweet, you dont however.

[SaPeIsMa]

"RM V2.0" <BL...@biteme.com> wrote in message
news:9J8qr.224081$NV6.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

>
> "Lawmeister" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8c5b41bc-a9f1-44bc...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
>> especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are literally
>> and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty supposedly
>> guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person next to you in
>> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under a
>> THREAT.
> How? Exactly what is this "threat"? You likely will not know if someone is
> concealed so there is no threat. By your logic everyone with a knife is
> also a threat. You are a moron.
>
>>Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is
>> automatically reduced,
>
> Again, how? What freedom has been reduced?
>

The freedom to be a criminals, obviously

>>especially under insane "stand-your-ground"
>> guidelines.
> What is your alternative? Run away? Then the criminals have won. If I go
> to your house and barge in are you going to go hide or run away? I feel
> sorry for your family, if you have one.
>

Yes, but he's all for laws that help the criminals have an easier time of
it.

>>
>> So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and other NRA slaves
>> believe to be the key to keeping us free from the predations of an
>> authoritarian ("communist/Marxist/socialist") government, in reality,
>> fosters the opposite result. Your armed neighbor is your master.
>>
> Take a history class, that is exactly why it was written, idiot.

There is a reason WHY, he's considered an idiot
Just look at the various emails that he uses

>>You FEAR your gun-packing fellow citizen.
>>
> No, you are the coward. You have zero to fear from a law abiding citizen.
>

Hell, we don't much to fear from our fellows who believe in the 2nd
Amendment
They're smart and law-abiding like us.
And as for the criminals, research has show that they MOST FEAR, armed
law-abiding citizens, even more than the police, the courts and jail
And that's because law-abiding citizens make life dangerous for criminal
predators.
AS IT SHOULD BE

>> If that's freedom as it was envisioned by our founding fathers, you
>> deserve it.
>
> Sweet, you dont however.
>

Indeed
We DO deserve freedom to not fear criminals.

[Peter Franks]

Then what is a right?

Where do rights come from?

Answer the questions.

[Peter Franks]

Really?

How does man confer the right to life for another man?

[Insightful Izzy]

Hey! Let's get back on the subject of GUN NUTS ... brings out the
worst in U.S. citizens.

[Peter Franks]

On 5/8/2012 9:44 AM, Insightful Izzy wrote:
> Hey! Let's get back on the subject of GUN NUTS ... brings out the
> worst in U.S. citizens.

Really? How?

[RD Sandman]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in
news:oPOdnZGwkNVe8zXS...@mchsi.com:

That opening phrase is a dependent phrase, not a stand-alone. The
standalone phrase is the one about the right of the people. The first
phrase simply give a reason why that right should not be infringed. If
someone understands the history of why that amendment was written, it is
obvious what that dependent phrase is for.

[Greg Arama]

"Peter Franks" wrote in message news:jobiq6$s3u$1...@dont-email.me...

<^^^^

Like Diane Feinstein and that poor woman in Arizona, Gabrielle Giffords...
BOTH Gun owners!

Although, Mrs. Giffords wasn't all that bad.

[RD Sandman]

Lawmeister <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8c5b41bc-a9f1-44bc-a88f-
02f178...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

I see you changed your nym simply so you could come back and babble
again?

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:u3sgq79p69j5aeplp...@4ax.com:

We will probably have to wait a long time for you to realize you were
wrong.....or to admit it.

[Greg Arama]

"Peter Franks" wrote in message news:jobhmp$k11$2...@dont-email.me...

<^^^

Lookout "thinks" that a man has the right to give another man a right he
already had.
His 5 working brain cells almost LOOK like a circle though from a distance.

And Lookout STILL refuses to READ !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom

"The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to
possess arms was recognised under English Common Law."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See that KEY WORD?
"Recognised?" <------ their spelling.. not mine!

That means THEY KNEW that rights were already there.. and NOT Given or
Granted.
Butt, Lookout really IS that stupid to not understand.

[Greg Arama]

"Peter Franks" wrote in message news:jobhlq$k11$1...@dont-email.me...

<^^^^^

Lee Harrison died when it finally hit him.
Can we hope for a repeat?

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3srgq7t9ag93ca1nb...@4ax.com:

No, it may not. It may decide what is a *legal* instrument to use when
defending yourself, but you have the right to self defense with whatever
you bring to the table.

>>Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>>
> Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle Eastern
> countries.

You and I live in the US. Here, women are not considered property nor
should they be anywhere else.

>>Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>>
> Stupid statement

You really should read our Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
than among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

>>Humans are born with the right of choice.
>>
> Maybe..it depends on the country. In America you can't "choose" to
> sell meth instead of coke.

You certainly can, particularly if the brand of coke you sell is in
powder form. ;)

>>All of those rights have been stolen from the people of the UK.
>>
> And you're wrong again.

In which one?

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:r19hq7927lolrf69u...@4ax.com:

Hmmmmmm, self defense is based on self preservation....which is a human
instinct.

>>>> Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>>>>
>>> Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle
>>> Eastern countries.
>>
>>Another example of a stolen right.
>>
> Nope. Never was a right.

Perhaps, you don't recognize it or some governments don't recognize it
but it is a right.

>>>> Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>>>>
>>> Stupid statement
>>
>>Just because you don't seek happiness doesn't mean it is stupid for
>>everyone else. Just keep your misery to yourself, if you please.
>>
> I do seek happiness. But it's got nothing to do with "rights".

I covered this one earlier.

>>>> Humans are born with the right of choice.
>>>>
>>> Maybe..it depends on the country. In America you can't "choose" to
>>> sell meth instead of coke.
>>>>
>>>> All of those rights have been stolen from the people of the UK.
>>>>
> We're not talking about the UK. I said MIDDLE EAST.

That's interesting since Peter Frank, the person you responded to, was
talking about the US and UK.

>>> And you're wrong again.
>>
> And again and again.
>

[SaPeIsMa]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04D7116E...@216.196.121.131...

> Lawmeister <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8c5b41bc-a9f1-44bc-a88f-
> 02f178...@v2g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Of course, we can't expect the average gun-nut to comprehend anything
>> above the complexity of how to employ toilet paper. And even then we
>> doubt that capacity. Most, we truly believe, are fingers-on wipers.
>>
>> But if millions and millions of U.S. citizens possess guns -- i.e.,
>> especially pistols -- it follows that 313 million people are literally
>> and figuratively deprived of the freedom and liberty supposedly
>> guaranteed by our Constitution. Because if the person next to you in
>> the store or church or restaurant packs a gun, YOU are under a
>> THREAT. Whether you posses a gun or not, your freedom is
>> automatically reduced, especially under insane "stand-your-ground"
>> guidelines.
>>
>> So, the Second Amendment, which many anal vents and other NRA slaves
>> believe to be the key to keeping us free from the predations of an
>> authoritarian ("communist/Marxist/socialist") government, in reality,
>> fosters the opposite result. Your armed neighbor is your master. You
>> FEAR your gun-packing fellow citizen.
>>
>> If that's freedom as it was envisioned by our founding fathers, you
>> deserve it.
>
>
> I see you changed your nym simply so you could come back and babble
> again?
>

Yeah
The little troll needs to do that.

[Oglethorpe]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA04D70D81...@216.196.121.131...

That was my point. Left fringers try to make that phrase into some command
that only militia members could be armed.

> The standalone phrase is the one about the right of the people. The first
> phrase simply give a reason why that right should not be infringed. If
> someone understands the history of why that amendment was written, it is
> obvious what that dependent phrase is for.
>
>

They dfon't care

[RD Sandman]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in
news:78Sdne_LldUp5zTS...@mchsi.com:

That's because many of them are idiots. There are some good ones over
there but you don't often find them in these newsgroups.

>> The standalone phrase is the one about the right of the people. The
>> first phrase simply give a reason why that right should not be
>> infringed. If someone understands the history of why that amendment
>> was written, it is obvious what that dependent phrase is for.
>
> They dfon't care

;)

[RD Sandman]

"Greg Arama" <TheAmb...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:4fa96076$0$16761$607e...@cv.net:

She had my vote. She was also motorcyclist and ran a business with 110
employees and 10 stores.

[Greg Arama]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA04D7CDBC...@216.196.121.131...

<^^^^

Lookout 'thinks' that basic human/animal instincts are not "built in"
rights.
Fight or flight, seeking shelter and warmth when it's cold-and wet, and food
when he's hungry are things that MANKIND IS!

That RETARD actually believes his basic, primordial Animal/Human instincts
are "things" that another man gave him by LAW!

How much Ambien DOES that retard consume...hourly?

[RD Sandman]

"Greg Arama" <TheAmb...@bass.gov> wrote in

news:4fa981cb$0$17267$607e...@cv.net:

He is in for a shock if he thinks that is a learned trait.

> Fight or flight, seeking shelter and warmth when it's cold-and wet,
> and food when he's hungry are things that MANKIND IS!

Actually, that is true of the entire animal kingdom.

> That RETARD actually believes his basic, primordial Animal/Human
> instincts are "things" that another man gave him by LAW!

;). Of course, rights only come to the fore when the government
recognizes them, but that does NOT mean that they don't exist prior to
that recognition.

> How much Ambien DOES that retard consume...hourly?

I'd hate to hazzard a guess.

[Greg Arama]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message

news:XnsA04D884A1...@216.196.121.131...

"Greg Arama" <TheAmb...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:4fa96076$0$16761$607e...@cv.net:

>
>
> "Peter Franks" wrote in message news:jobiq6$s3u$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 5/8/2012 9:44 AM, Insightful Izzy wrote:
>> Hey! Let's get back on the subject of GUN NUTS ... brings out the
>> worst in U.S. citizens.
>
> Really? How?
>
> <^^^^
>
> Like Diane Feinstein and that poor woman in Arizona, Gabrielle
> Giffords... BOTH Gun owners!
>
> Although, Mrs. Giffords wasn't all that bad.
>
>

She had my vote. She was also motorcyclist and ran a business with 110
employees and 10 stores.

<^^^^

Kewl!
While she was indeed out of my jurisdiction, I can't help but respect a
girl that did all that.
Motorcyclist, eh? I never new that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords#Early_life.2C_education.2C_and_business_career
" Giffords was born in Tucson, Arizona, to Gloria Kay (née Fraser) and
Spencer J. Giffords. She was raised in a mixed religious environment by her
Jewish father and Christian Science-practicing mother. Her grandfather,
Akiba Hornstein, was a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania who changed his name
to Gif Giffords to avoid anti-Semitism.[11] She has identified herself
solely with Judaism since 2001, belonging to Congregation Chaverim, a Reform
synagogue, in Tucson.[12][13] She is Arizona's first Jewish
congresswoman.[14][15]"


EGAD! A JEW? I bet DooDoo And Lookout are power puking as I type! (after
all, we both KNOW what THEY say and think about the "Jews" and anybody
"religious!")

Harley? Honda? BMW? Ducati? Vespa?

[RD Sandman]

"Greg Arama" <TheAmb...@bass.gov> wrote in

news:4fa98745$0$3075$607e...@cv.net:

BMW, mostly.

Here are some pics of here with different bikes (including a police bike-
that would be either a Harley or a Kawasaki) and a gun or two. She also
had a Glock 19.

http://tinyurl.com/7g5vqb6

She is one helluva woman. I'd love to see her back.....

[Greg Arama]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message

news:XnsA04D90C02...@216.196.121.131...

<^^^^

Nice!
Lotsa BMWS, Harley's, Vespa, etc!!
I just want to see her happy.

[DockScience]

"Kris Krispy" <jism...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96b44791-9f6d-47ac...@q24g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in the
> U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United Kingdom,
> where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile thereof.

And in the UK, roughly 25% of the population is victimized by criminals each
year.
Compared to less than 20% for the US.
rapes are double in the UK
violent crime in the UK more than double the US

And those US murders are highly demographically localized.
Unlike the UK where all citizens are prey.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 09:30:17 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

You need to take an ethics class at the college level.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 02:06:25 -0700, "max headroom"
<maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote:

>Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in news:jo9sq6$bho$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>> On 5/7/2012 6:01 PM, Lookout wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Explain how you can have something stolen you never had in the first
>>>>>>> place.
>
>>>>>> You are the one claiming they never had it, so you need to backfill your
>>>>>> position. If rights are transient, how are they acquired?
>
>>>>> Prove they had it then.
>
>>>> Humans are born with the right to defend and protect themselves.
>
>>> The government decides how you can defend yourself.
>

>> Perhaps how, but not if.
>

>>>> Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>
>>> Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle Eastern
>>> countries.
>

>> Another example of a stolen right.
>

>>>> Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>
>>> Stupid statement
>

>> Just because you don't seek happiness doesn't mean it is stupid for
>> everyone else. Just keep your misery to yourself, if you please.
>
>

>Dumbass believes he is smarter than Tom Jefferson et al who proclaimed that all men have certain
>inalienable rights including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
>
And those rights are bestowed by MAN.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 09:29:46 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

We can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or
entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about
what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal
system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of
essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially
theories of justice and deontology.

>
>Where do rights come from?
>

Man
>
>Answer the questions.

[Lookout]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:05:32 -0500, RD Sandman

Interesting interpretation.
But wrong

[Lookout]

And suffer the consequences

>
>>>Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>>>
>> Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle Eastern
>> countries.
>
>You and I live in the US. Here, women are not considered property nor
>should they be anywhere else.
>

But they are and they can't acquire property.
I answered the question...and I'm right as usual

>
>>>Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>>>
>> Stupid statement
>
>You really should read our Declaration of Independence.
>
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
>that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
>than among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
>

They are not born with the right. They are given that right IN THIS
COUNTRY when born.
That is not the same in all countries.

So I'm right again.

>
>>>Humans are born with the right of choice.
>>>
>> Maybe..it depends on the country. In America you can't "choose" to
>> sell meth instead of coke.
>
>You certainly can, particularly if the brand of coke you sell is in
>powder form. ;)
>
>
>>>All of those rights have been stolen from the people of the UK.
>>>
>> And you're wrong again.
>
>In which one?
>

I'm right on every point as usual.

[Lookout]

But not a right in every country.
Let's take Iraq under Saddam Hussein. If Uday or Qusay struck you you
did NOT have the right to defend yourself.
Instinct is NOT a right.

>
>>>>> Humans are born with the right to acquire property.
>>>>>
>>>> Try being a woman and buying property in any number of Middle
>>>> Eastern countries.
>>>
>>>Another example of a stolen right.
>>>
>> Nope. Never was a right.
>
>Perhaps, you don't recognize it or some governments don't recognize it
>but it is a right.
>

So then it's not a right.
You beat yourself on that one.

>
>>>>> Humans are born with the right to seek happiness.
>>>>>
>>>> Stupid statement
>>>
>>>Just because you don't seek happiness doesn't mean it is stupid for
>>>everyone else. Just keep your misery to yourself, if you please.
>>>
>> I do seek happiness. But it's got nothing to do with "rights".
>
>I covered this one earlier.
>

And lost

>
>>>>> Humans are born with the right of choice.
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe..it depends on the country. In America you can't "choose" to
>>>> sell meth instead of coke.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of those rights have been stolen from the people of the UK.
>>>>>
>> We're not talking about the UK. I said MIDDLE EAST.
>
>That's interesting since Peter Frank, the person you responded to, was
>talking about the US and UK.
>

His statement was inclusive. We are talking about MAN'S rights...not
man's rights in certain countries.
And you lose again.

[Lookout]

I covered that. Instincts are NOT rights.

[Gray Guest]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:58ldq71ci23m034tq...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:17:28 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/6/2012 8:47 AM, Lookout wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 08:35:37 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2012 10:03 PM, Lookout wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:54:29 -0700, Peter Franks<no...@none.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/5/2012 12:57 PM, Kris Krispy wrote:
>>>>>>> Speaking of Second Amendment "rights," 6,009 people were killed in
>>>>>>> the U.S. in 2011 by "personal" handguns, versus 68 in the United
>>>>>>> Kingdom, where there is no 2nd Amendment or reasonable facsimile
>>>>>>> thereof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that is one way to look at it if you are a totalitarian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if you cherish freedom, consider that 62,218,761 people in
>>>>>> the UK have had their rights stolen by government,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Wrong again.
>>>>
>>>> How so?
>>>>
>>> They can't have rights stolen they never had.
>>
>>So where do rights come from?
>>
> That's not the point. You can't have something stolen you never had.
>

> Stop being an idiot.
>

Where does your right to a (second) kidney come from? Are YOU paying for it
or are you mooching it?

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[Scout]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:78Sdne_LldUp5zTS...@mchsi.com...

Well, actually if it were a command...then wouldn't it require the US
government to arm the militia, no matter how the rights of the people are
being protected?

So anyone who is a member of a state militia or the US militia would be
required to be issued a firearm and ammo by the US government.

So if it's a command...where is my government issued gun?