More evidence that registration leads to confiscation!
Devil's Advocate
Lookout
<Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seized-
>police523.html
You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns
on the city's streets."
Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
Did you really think that would get by me?
You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
Devil's Advocate
You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human rights!
SeaWoe
wrote:
> Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you think that potential gun buyers should show photo-ID proof of
passing a safe gun-handling course (Military, NRA, police, etc)
before the gun can be sold?
Lookout
All gun sales should go through local law enforcement before it's
approved and yes all gun owners WILL be licensed (to include a safety
course) and all guns WILL be registered.
Scout
No, because then then someone could make the requirement all but impossible
for the average person to fulfil thus imposing a de facto gun
prohibition/ban
However, I am curious. What exactly is the problem you think this would
address? Can you show this is a serious problem? Finally, how can you be
certain this would actually produce the result you are looking for?
After all, I see a whole lot of stupid drivers out there that passed such a
test, and I don't see how the test made them better drivers.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>All gun sales should go through local law enforcement before it's
>approved and yes all gun owners WILL be licensed (to include a safety
>course) and all guns WILL be registered.
Never happen. [chuckle]
There will never be national gun registration. You'll never know who's
carrying and who isn't. You'll never know if your neighbor has a cache
of guns and ammo or not.
You'll just never know.
RD (The Sandman)
news:7f936ade-c92b-472b...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 25, 4:13�pm, "Devil's Advocate" <Devil's_Advoc...@devil.xxx>
> wrote:
>> Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> �wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>> ><Devil's_Advoc...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>>
>> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seize
>> >>d- police523.html
>>
>> > You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
>> > "Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
>> > registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of
>> > guns on the city's streets."
>>
>> > Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
>>
>> > Did you really think that would get by me?
>>
>> > You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
>>
>> You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human
>> rights!-
> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Do you think that potential gun buyers should show photo-ID proof of
> passing a safe gun-handling course (Military, NRA, police, etc)
> before the gun can be sold?
>
No, although I think that all gunowners should do that. I don't like the
state being involved in anything like that since it is the state that
many guns are bought to protect the owner from. In essense, mandating
anything like that becomes de facto registration.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
President John Adams
Klaus Schadenfreude
>And that is just as it should be. Just like I don't need to know
>about his Porno stash, he doesn't need to know what I may or may not
>own.
>
>Primary tenant of Security, need to know and he don't need to know!
And judging by some of his posts, he's incapable of learning, so he'll
never know!
Demon Buddha
>> Do you think that potential gun buyers should show photo-ID proof of
>> passing a safe gun-handling course (Military, NRA, police, etc)
>> before the gun can be sold?
>>
>
> No, although I think that all gunowners should do that. I don't like the
> state being involved in anything like that since it is the state that
> many guns are bought to protect the owner from. In essense, mandating
> anything like that becomes de facto registration.
Need I remind everyone that WE are the state? Those in official
positions are nothing more than administrators. They really hold no
authority to demand anything of the sort of us. They are *servants* and
should be kept painfully, if respectfully, aware of that tidbit of truth.
Lookout
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.guns Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:23:54 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>All gun sales should go through local law enforcement before it's
>>>>approved and yes all gun owners WILL be licensed (to include a safety
>>>>course) and all guns WILL be registered.
>>>
>>>Never happen. [chuckle]
>>>
>>>There will never be national gun registration. You'll never know who's
>>>carrying and who isn't. You'll never know if your neighbor has a cache
>>>of guns and ammo or not.
>>>
>>>You'll just never know.
>>>
>>And that is just as it should be. Just like I don't need to know
>>about his Porno stash, he doesn't need to know what I may or may not
>>own.
You imply I have a stash that isn't known about. My wife and I have
enjoyed porn as long as we've been together. That's why we posted pics
for years.
>>Primary tenant of Security, need to know and he don't need to know!
You know as much about security (small 's' you idiot) as bush did.
>And judging by some of his posts, he's incapable of learning, so he'll
>never know!
Nah..you're the conservative who is afraid of change.
RichTravsky
Gun ownership is a human right?
RT
Bob
wrote:
As far as Human Rights, there aren't a whole hell of a lot of them, as a
matter of fact I can't really think of any, except for some unmoderated
usenet groups.....did I say "unmoderated" well they have LEOs all over
sitting around like spiders in front of a monitor, and getting paid for it.
Your right, but with most of the LEO and Court ppl, they like to nit
pick at mis/interpretes laws they zioned up. These Law dudes need to
generate an income somehow, and they are of no use to anybody as far as the
service they are supposed to provide.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:42:21 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.guns Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:23:54 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In talk.politics.guns Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>All gun sales should go through local law enforcement before it's
>>>>>approved and yes all gun owners WILL be licensed (to include a safety
>>>>>course) and all guns WILL be registered.
>>>>
>>>>Never happen. [chuckle]
>>>>
>>>>There will never be national gun registration. You'll never know who's
>>>>carrying and who isn't. You'll never know if your neighbor has a cache
>>>>of guns and ammo or not.
>>>>
>>>>You'll just never know.
>>>>
>>>And that is just as it should be. Just like I don't need to know
>>>about his Porno stash, he doesn't need to know what I may or may not
>>>own.
>
>You imply I have a stash that isn't known about.
If you were intelligent enough to follow the thread, you would know
that I did not imply that, or even write it. It was the other poster.
>My wife and I have enjoyed porn as long as we've been together.
I should imagine that with the way she looks, you would definitely
need something to get excited, and I certainly wouldn't deny you that.
I just hope one of you is sterile.
>That's why we posted pics
>for years.
Thanks for sharing.
Lookout
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
A really stupid statement no doubt.
Lookout
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In talk.politics.guns Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:42:21 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In talk.politics.guns Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:23:54 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In talk.politics.guns Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>All gun sales should go through local law enforcement before it's
>>>>>>approved and yes all gun owners WILL be licensed (to include a safety
>>>>>>course) and all guns WILL be registered.
>>>>>
>>>>>Never happen. [chuckle]
>>>>>
>>>>>There will never be national gun registration. You'll never know who's
>>>>>carrying and who isn't. You'll never know if your neighbor has a cache
>>>>>of guns and ammo or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>You'll just never know.
>>>>>
>>>>And that is just as it should be. Just like I don't need to know
>>>>about his Porno stash, he doesn't need to know what I may or may not
>>>>own.
>>
>>You imply I have a stash that isn't known about.
>
>If you were intelligent enough to follow the thread, you would know
>that I did not imply that, or even write it. It was the other poster.
I was talking to Zombie-wolf. I have no idea why you jumped in.
>>My wife and I have enjoyed porn as long as we've been together.
>
>I should imagine that with the way she looks, you would definitely
>need something to get excited, and I certainly wouldn't deny you that.
>I just hope one of you is sterile.
And another childish insult. You've been alone way to long...but no
one is surprised you can't find a man or woman who can stand you. And
the way you follow every post of mine (and get excited when I don't
post) I'm guessing that you prefer men. Or young boys.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Because you're stupid and responded to my post. You're evidently
obsessed with me.
RD (The Sandman)
news:XqOdncWo7qGzDCPX...@giganews.com:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>
>>> Do you think that potential gun buyers should show photo-ID proof of
>>> passing a safe gun-handling course (Military, NRA, police, etc)
>>> before the gun can be sold?
>>>
>>
>> No, although I think that all gunowners should do that. I don't like
>> the state being involved in anything like that since it is the state
>> that many guns are bought to protect the owner from. In essense,
>> mandating anything like that becomes de facto registration.
>
> Need I remind everyone that WE are the state?
For now. Did you put the Patriot Act in place? Did you send folks to
Afghanistan? Are you involved in the discussions about the government
taking over the internet?
Those in official
> positions are nothing more than administrators. They really hold no
> authority to demand anything of the sort of us. They are *servants*
> and should be kept painfully, if respectfully, aware of that tidbit of
> truth.
I agree that is how it was intended and how it should be. Are you sure
that is how it still is?
RD (The Sandman)
@hotmMOVEail.com:
To have the most effective means of defending oneself is. Today that is
a firearm.
Devil's Advocate
I realize that communists dont recognize any human rights, but yes:
hu�man rights�,
fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and
in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to
speak, associate, work, etc.
[1785�95]
Why that sounds SO like the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments of
the U.S. Constitution, of which the RKBA - ( the universal individual
inalienable human Right to Keep And Bear Arms ) is Amendment 2.
YES, a human right, you gits!
R. LaCasse
I might suggest that if you need anything more powerful than 50AE
handgun, your probably doing something wrong as far as self defense is
concerned.
Once upon at time a commander warrior showed up with a flintlock
handgun, everybody looked at it, laughed, and said *What are you gonna do
with that little thing"....well, they were right, the handgun was more of
status symbol for prestige, in cold/hot wartimes.
So if a handgun is so useless, why are they so feared as having to
be seriously registered in the Americas, mostly Canada, since the Fuehrer
past the explicit handgun ban for possible attacks on his panzers and
Bismarcks?? no, for some local Gestappe protection from the registered
atc/ccw armed Jews.
A handgun without a silencer is usually accepted as an ethical means
of self protection, since the sound itself attracts all sorts of Witnesses
to the incident scene, whereas a rifle fired from indoors/cars will get away
from most crimes at a greater distance while blowing your own tympani out
w/o proper protection.
Handguns are greatly subject to Newton's law as (Equal and Opposite
Reaction) so where is the big fuss???, fair is fair, tit for tat, CCW or
open all depend on your immediate environment and personal protection,
"safety is still between your ears".....
BTW: The GTA (Greater Toronto Area) MILLER guy who started all these home
Invasions is stepping down from the glorified throne he shared with the
Queer of England.
Bob
--
Triad Productions-Fantalla~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
(http://*remove*boblacasse.150m.com/htmlconc.html)
Larry Hewitt
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:4ABEF9B5.4A1CF7F4
> @hotmMOVEail.com:
>
>> Devil's Advocate wrote:
>>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>>>> <Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-
> seized-
>>>>> police523.html
>>>> You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
>>>> "Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
>>>> registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of
> guns
>>>> on the city's streets."
>>>>
>>>> Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
>>>>
>>>> Did you really think that would get by me?
>>>>
>>>> You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
>>> You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human
> rights!
>> Gun ownership is a human right?
>>
>> RT
>>
>
> To have the most effective means of defending oneself is. Today that is
> a firearm.
>
Bwahahahaha.
You against a million man army.
This I gotta see.
Or against criminals so heavily armed because you push for lax gun laws
that even the police are outgunned?
I'd rather see that, actually.
Bwahahaha.
Larry
Devil's Advocate
>|>To have the most effective means of defending oneself is. Today
>|>that is a firearm.
>
> I might suggest that if you need anything more powerful than
> 50AE
> handgun, your probably doing something wrong as far as self defense
> is concerned.
Wasnt just recognized for self defense:
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now
appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be
always possible." -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)
Ours is also a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.
> Once upon at time a commander warrior showed up with a flintlock
> handgun, everybody looked at it, laughed, and said *What are you
> gonna do with that little thing"....well, they were right, the
> handgun was more of status symbol for prestige, in cold/hot wartimes.
A handgun is what you use to fight your way back to your rifle or
shotgun.
I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions -- or else
it would have read that the right 'to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise.' And because there are no
exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun
laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong --
because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the
laws are no inconvenience. - Harry Bowne, Aug 8, 2000, at a Second
Amendment rally in Arkansas
RichTravsky
That's rightards for ya.
RT
RichTravsky
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:35:49 -0600, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> trumps a sword on the belt.
Which means guns are not a human right.
RichTravsky
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:4ABEF9B5.4A1CF7F4
> @hotmMOVEail.com:
> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
> >> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
> >> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-
> seized-
> >> >>police523.html
> >> >
> >> > You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
> >> > "Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
> >> > registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of
> guns
> >> > on the city's streets."
> >> >
> >> > Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
> >> >
> >> > Did you really think that would get by me?
> >> >
> >> > You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
> >>
> >> You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human
> rights!
> >
> > Gun ownership is a human right?
>
> a firearm.
Then a bazooka would qualify. Good luck with that.
RichTravsky
>
> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>
> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:35:49 -0600, RichTravsky
> ><traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Devil's Advocate wrote:
> >>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> >>> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
> >>> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>
> >>> You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human
> >>> rights!
> >>
> >>Gun ownership is a human right?
> >>
> >>RT
> >
> > A really stupid statement no doubt.
>
> I realize that communists dont recognize any human rights, but yes:
I realize that fascist rightards don't know the difference between Canada
and the US...
No Bammer
No they won't and after the revolution, all meaningless low life forms
such as yourself will be exterminated.
R. LaCasse
wrote:
|>> I realize that communists dont recognize any human rights, but yes:
|>
|>I realize that fascist rightards don't know the difference between Canada
|>and the US...
I call it North America myself, at least that's what it says on the
Geography Maps. There ain't no real friggin wall there, although the armed
border patrols can cause quite a barrier, what some ppl will do for
money.....enforce Nazism and then go home and live like the Nielson Family
or some Barney Fife.
What you may be referring to, is the 2 different Corporations you
are into. It doesn't matter that much they both suck with 20,000 insane gun
laws anyway.....you wanna know where that makes sense????.....
Bob
RD (The Sandman)
news:4AC2E64C...@hotmMOVEail.com:
Nope....a bazooka is too heavy to carry around all the time and it is a
bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a firearm, it
is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
RichTravsky
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:03:24 -0600, RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com>
> wrote:
>
> |>> I realize that communists dont recognize any human rights, but yes:
> |>
> |>I realize that fascist rightards don't know the difference between Canada
> |>and the US...
>
> I call it North America myself, at least that's what it says on the
> Geography Maps. There ain't no real friggin wall there, although the armed
There is a legal wall, tho. The American Constitution ends at it.
RichTravsky
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
So what. A musket can weight 8 to 10 pounds. A bazooka comes in at around 13.
> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a firearm, it
Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with anything?
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about that?
> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade launcher?
> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
Infantry carry grenade launchers. How hard is that to conceal? How do you conceal
an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to do with TORONTO?
RT
Bob
wrote:
|>> I call it North America myself, at least that's what it says on the
|>> Geography Maps. There ain't no real friggin wall there, although the armed
|>
|>There is a legal wall, tho. The American Constitution ends at it.
Laws "legal" are made to be broken, so break the wall down. In China
they have Concrete Walls to enforce laws and segregation, I don't think
paper walls can hold up that long.
Laws are rules, to be personally enforced by the "fuzz" for their
enrichment and prosperity.
THEY pass laws like I pass wind, I doesn't "smell" too long, just
the value of the paper laws are written on.
Some laws make sense like "road intersection signs and lights", but
a hell of a lot of those 20,000+ gun laws really stink as far as common
sense is concerned.
Bob
RD (The Sandman)
news:4AC80B00...@hotmMOVEail.com:
My P9 weighs 25 ounces. My .357 weighs 28 ounces and my .327 weighs the
same.
>> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
>> firearm, it
>
> Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
> anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about that?
Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
"....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and shotguns.
Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were fine
and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
>> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
>
> So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade launcher?
An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point of
view and that of the federal government.
>> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
>
> Infantry carry grenade launchers.
Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are perfectly
legal per federal law.
How hard is that to conceal? How do
> you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to do
> with TORONTO?
Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should take
that up with the poster who made the comment.
RichTravsky
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:13:50 -0600, RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com>
> wrote:
>
> |>> I call it North America myself, at least that's what it says on the
> |>> Geography Maps. There ain't no real friggin wall there, although the armed
> |>
> |>There is a legal wall, tho. The American Constitution ends at it.
>
> Laws "legal" are made to be broken, so break the wall down. In China
> they have Concrete Walls to enforce laws and segregation, I don't think
> paper walls can hold up that long.
Um, we're talking about national borders here... Good luck with that.
RichTravsky
How nice. "The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would
carry" - your words.
> >> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
> >> firearm, it
> >
> > Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
> > anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about that?
>
> Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
>
> "....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
> That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and shotguns.
The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable
of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these
men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time.
So, the military shops at Walmart?
> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were fine
> and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
> >
> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade launcher?
>
> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point of
> view and that of the federal government.
Your point of view doesn't count.
> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
> >
> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
>
> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are perfectly
> legal per federal law.
They don't ALL have to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
Now, where do you buy grenades?
> How hard is that to conceal? How do
> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to do
> > with TORONTO?
>
> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should take
> that up with the poster who made the comment.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
DUH...
And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
RD (The Sandman)
news:4ACC20C8...@hotmMOVEail.com:
> "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> @hotmMOVEail.com:
>> >> >> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
>> >> >> >> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>> >> >> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>> >> >> >> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toro
>> >> >> >> >>nto -
Yep.......long arms (rifles, shotguns) and sidearms (handguns). Which of
those do you think doesn't fit one of those two categories. Take all the
screens you need.
>> >> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
>> >> firearm, it
>> >
>> > Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
>> > anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about
>> > that?
>>
>> Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
>>
>> "....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
>> That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and
>> shotguns.
>
> The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)
>
> These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
> physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A
> body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
> ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
> bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> the time.
yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the king in common use at the time." do you think
belies what I said?
> So, the military shops at Walmart?
What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you having
trouble with?
>> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were
>> fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
>
> Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The case
was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
>> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
>> >> infantryman
>> >
>> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
>> > launcher?
>>
>> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point
>> of view and that of the federal government.
>
> Your point of view doesn't count.
The feds do and they agree with me.
>> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
>> >
>> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
>>
>> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
>> perfectly legal per federal law.
>
> They don't ALL have to.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
>
> Now, where do you buy grenades?
No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
>> How hard is that to conceal? How do
>> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to
>> > do with TORONTO?
>>
>> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should take
>> that up with the poster who made the comment.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
>
> DUH...
>
> And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed to
simply registration.
RichTravsky
So you want to carry a grenade launcher?
> >> >> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
> >> >> firearm, it
> >> >
> >> > Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
> >> > anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about
> >> > that?
> >>
> >> Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
> >>
> >> "....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
> >> That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and
> >> shotguns.
> >
> > The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)
> >
> > These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
> > physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A
> > body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
> > ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
> > bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> > the time.
>
> yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the king in common use at the time." do you think
> belies what I said?
So you want to carry a grenade launcher?
> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
>
> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you having
> trouble with?
Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?
> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were
> >> fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
> >
> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>
> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The case
> was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong. Unless you
can provide a quote from the decision.
> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
> >> >> infantryman
> >> >
> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
> >> > launcher?
> >>
> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point
> >> of view and that of the federal government.
> >
> > Your point of view doesn't count.
>
> The feds do and they agree with me.
Good luck buying grenades...
> >> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
> >> >
> >> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
> >>
> >> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
> >> perfectly legal per federal law.
> >
> > They don't ALL have to.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
> >
> > Now, where do you buy grenades?
>
> No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
> when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
Not a tangent. You started this train.
Bob
wrote:
|>> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
|>>
|>> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The case
|>> was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
|>
|>"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong. Unless you
|>can provide a quote from the decision.
|>
A handgun is very low on the self defense echelon, when it comes to
power against T2a-->T5 and all the stuff modern crooks use these days, but
it is wieldy and the hi-calibers are usually sufficient for average uses.
Try shooting a rifle on a right corner, meaning your right your
right hand on the stock, and your left on the trigger...you would be
exposing all your body otherwise.
In a self defense situation the handgun is much better at handling
those situations, shoot weak/strong and both hands, after you have mapped
out your location, giving you the ultimate edge on the Home Invaders.
Usually a handgun is all you need and rifles still over penetrate
leaving little in stopping power. Shotguns with #00 buckshot are still the
best for shotgun stopping power, but I find shotguns and rifles a bit
cumbersome these "city" days.
Bob
--
Triad Productions-Fantalla�~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
leg@sea
stands for.
RD (The Sandman)
news:4AD16F3F...@hotmMOVEail.com:
> "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> @hotmMOVEail.com:
>> >> >> >> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>> >> >> >> >> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-t
>> >> >> >> >> >>oro nto -
Nope.....although I can legally own one, I have no interest in doing so.
Do you want one?
>> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
>>
>> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
>> having trouble with?
>
> Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?
Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was militia
and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is no requirement
for that membership.....you must change with the times. Learn to read.
Heller would be a good place to start.
>> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
>> >> were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
>> >> handgun.
>> >
>> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>>
>> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The
>> case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
>
> "the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong. Unless
> you can provide a quote from the decision.
Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you cannot
read it and understand it.........
>> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
>> >> >> infantryman
>> >> >
>> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
>> >> > launcher?
>> >>
>> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my
>> >> point of view and that of the federal government.
>> >
>> > Your point of view doesn't count.
>>
>> The feds do and they agree with me.
>
> Good luck buying grenades...
Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire for
launcher.....why buy grenades for one.
>> >> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
>> >> >> again.
>> >> >
>> >> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
>> >>
>> >> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
>> >> perfectly legal per federal law.
>> >
>> > They don't ALL have to.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
>> >
>> > Now, where do you buy grenades?
>>
>> No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
>> when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
>
> Not a tangent. You started this train.
Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the end of
this one, I am responding to you.
>> >> How hard is that to conceal? How do
>> >> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have
>> >> > to do with TORONTO?
>> >>
>> >> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should
>> >> take that up with the poster who made the comment.
>> >
>> > http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
>> >
>> > DUH...
>> >
>> > And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
>>
>> That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed to
>> simply registration.
>
> You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
> when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't handle.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
On TV, they show how detergents take out bloodstains. A pretty
violent image. I think if you've got a Tshirt full of bloodstains,
maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem. Maybe you should get rid
of the body before you do the wash and get some different friends.
RD (The Sandman)
news:3h03d59gfv1dbb81d...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:38:07 -0600, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
>|>> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>|>>
>|>> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
>|>> The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
>|>
>|>"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
>|>Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.
>|>
>
> A handgun is very low on the self defense echelon,
Perhaps for you but it is an individual choice. I rate them very highly.
when it comes
> to
> power against T2a-->T5 and all the stuff modern crooks use these days,
> but it is wieldy and the hi-calibers are usually sufficient for
> average uses.
.22s, .32s and .380s been killing folks for decades. All it takes is a
placed shot. I don't carry anything any smaller than a 9mm except for my
.327 Federal, but that is just me.
> Try shooting a rifle on a right corner, meaning your right your
> right hand on the stock, and your left on the trigger...you would be
> exposing all your body otherwise.
Or get a grease gun that can shoot around corners.
> In a self defense situation the handgun is much better at
> handling
> those situations, shoot weak/strong and both hands, after you have
> mapped out your location, giving you the ultimate edge on the Home
> Invaders.
I thought you just postulated above that a handgun was low on the list.
Do you really think most modern crooks carry AKs and ARs? Most of them
carry 9mms.
> Usually a handgun is all you need and rifles still over penetrate
> leaving little in stopping power. Shotguns with #00 buckshot are still
> the best for shotgun stopping power, but I find shotguns and rifles a
> bit cumbersome these "city" days.
They are like trying to conceal a Harley Davidson.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
On TV, they show how detergents take out bloodstains. A pretty
RD (The Sandman)
september.org:
> RichTravsky is a scumsucking gun-grabbing traitor to all that America
> stands for.
>
Are you really sure that you simply aren't on their side?
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
On TV, they show how detergents take out bloodstains. A pretty
leg@sea
> "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote in news:hat64e$cro$1...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> RichTravsky is a scumsucking gun-grabbing traitor to all that America
>> stands for.
>>
>
> Are you really sure that you simply aren't on their side?
>
Turncoat?
RD (The Sandman)
leg@sea
> "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote in news:hatp4q$ema$5...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>> "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote in news:hat64e$cro$1...@news.eternal-
>>> september.org:
>>>
>>>> RichTravsky is a scumsucking gun-grabbing traitor to all that America
>>>> stands for.
>>>>
>>> Are you really sure that you simply aren't on their side?
>>>
>> Why are you defending them?
>>
>> Turncoat?
>>
>
> Nope....honest.
>
No, turncoat.
R. LaCasse
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
|>
|>> In a self defense situation the handgun is much better at
|>> handling
|>> those situations, shoot weak/strong and both hands, after you have
|>> mapped out your location, giving you the ultimate edge on the Home
|>> Invaders.
|>
|>I thought you just postulated above that a handgun was low on the list.
|>Do you really think most modern crooks carry AKs and ARs? Most of them
|>carry 9mms.
|>
Right but:
Once in a car, a rifle is pretty easy to conceal, a lot of brats
take pot shots at intersections or just generally in their neighborhood from
a house.
Not too many ppl carry a gun around here "Canada" , although there
are hordes of military surplus rifles, the handgun in glove box is an
occasional thing.
Laws in Canada are like Maryland, California, and New York, for the
longest time.
|>> Usually a handgun is all you need and rifles still over penetrate
|>> leaving little in stopping power. Shotguns with #00 buckshot are still
|>> the best for shotgun stopping power, but I find shotguns and rifles a
|>> bit cumbersome these "city" days.
|>
|>They are like trying to conceal a Harley Davidson.
Right but:
HA types used to favor ARs since the '60s, bought on the streets
from a trench coated gun runner. They do a lot of their "patch pulling"
internal killings and rival deterrents with handguns/Rifles/and Blasting
Cap/Bombs, which is a great waste of raw gunpowder..
Bob
RD (The Sandman)
news:upc7d5t8jspsvb1rr...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:58:27 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>|>
>|>> In a self defense situation the handgun is much better at
>|>> handling
>|>> those situations, shoot weak/strong and both hands, after you have
>|>> mapped out your location, giving you the ultimate edge on the Home
>|>> Invaders.
>|>
>|>I thought you just postulated above that a handgun was low on the
>|>list. Do you really think most modern crooks carry AKs and ARs?
>|>Most of them carry 9mms.
>|>
>
> Right but:
>
> Once in a car, a rifle is pretty easy to conceal, a lot of brats
> take pot shots at intersections or just generally in their
> neighborhood from a house.
How many people do you know who carry a rifle in their car for self
defense?
> Not too many ppl carry a gun around here "Canada" , although
> there
> are hordes of military surplus rifles, the handgun in glove box is an
> occasional thing.
Not so, here.
> Laws in Canada are like Maryland, California, and New York, for
> the
> longest time.
>
>|>> Usually a handgun is all you need and rifles still over
>|>> penetrate
>|>> leaving little in stopping power. Shotguns with #00 buckshot are
>|>> still the best for shotgun stopping power, but I find shotguns and
>|>> rifles a bit cumbersome these "city" days.
>|>
>|>They are like trying to conceal a Harley Davidson.
>
> Right but:
>
> HA types used to favor ARs since the '60s, bought on the streets
> from a trench coated gun runner. They do a lot of their "patch
> pulling" internal killings and rival deterrents with
> handguns/Rifles/and Blasting Cap/Bombs, which is a great waste of raw
> gunpowder..
>
> Bob
>
--
RichTravsky
Can you buy grenades for it?
> >> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
> >>
> >> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
> >> having trouble with?
> >
> > Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?
>
> Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was militia
> and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is no requirement
> for that membership.....you must change with the times. Learn to read.
> Heller would be a good place to start.
"normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?
> >> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
> >> >> were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
> >> >> handgun.
> >> >
> >> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
> >>
> >> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The
> >> case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
> >
> > "the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong. Unless
> > you can provide a quote from the decision.
>
> Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you cannot
> read it and understand it.........
I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up your claim.
> >> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
> >> >> >> infantryman
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
> >> >> > launcher?
> >> >>
> >> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my
> >> >> point of view and that of the federal government.
> >> >
> >> > Your point of view doesn't count.
> >>
> >> The feds do and they agree with me.
> >
> > Good luck buying grenades...
>
> Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire for
> launcher.....why buy grenades for one.
Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but about
the Constitution.
> >> >> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
> >> >> >> again.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
> >> >> perfectly legal per federal law.
> >> >
> >> > They don't ALL have to.
> >> >
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
> >> >
> >> > Now, where do you buy grenades?
> >>
> >> No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
> >> when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
> >
> > Not a tangent. You started this train.
>
> Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the end of
> this one, I am responding to you.
Yes, you did. And then you hilariously sputter on about tangents...
> >> >> How hard is that to conceal? How do
> >> >> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have
> >> >> > to do with TORONTO?
> >> >>
> >> >> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should
> >> >> take that up with the poster who made the comment.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
> >> >
> >> > DUH...
> >> >
> >> > And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
> >>
> >> That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed to
> >> simply registration.
> >
> > You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
> > when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
>
> I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't handle.
(laughs and points)
Got that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for that self defense was
a handgun"
Oh wait - "Don't have to"
Get back to us when you understand that the American Constitution is not binding
in Canada. And when you understand that registration has nothing to do with the
2nd.
RT
RD (The Sandman)
news:4AD55699...@hotmMOVEail.com:
> "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> @hotmMOVEail.com:
>> >> >> >> >> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>> >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Advocate"
>> >> >> >> >> >> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/gun
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>s-t oro nto -
Don't know.....don't care. As I noted, I have no interest in one.
>> >> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
>> >>
>> >> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
>> >> having trouble with?
>> >
>> > Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?
>>
>> Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was
>> militia and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is no
>> requirement for that membership.....you must change with the times.
>> Learn to read. Heller would be a good place to start.
>
> "normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?
You have to go back and look at context.
>> >> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
>> >> >> were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
>> >> >> handgun.
>> >> >
>> >> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>> >>
>> >> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
>> >> The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
>> >
>> > "the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
>> > Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.
>>
>> Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you
>> cannot read it and understand it.........
>
> I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up your
> claim.
Of what? That there isn't a direct quote of "the best firearm for that
defense was a handgun"? Good for you. Do you know how to take two
thoughts and put them together into one?
>> >> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
>> >> >> >> infantryman
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
>> >> >> > launcher?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my
>> >> >> point of view and that of the federal government.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your point of view doesn't count.
>> >>
>> >> The feds do and they agree with me.
>> >
>> > Good luck buying grenades...
>>
>> Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire
>> for launcher.....why buy grenades for one.
>
> Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but
> about the Constitution.
Then why are you asking if *I* can buy them?
>> >> >> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
>> >> >> >> again.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
>> >> >> perfectly legal per federal law.
>> >> >
>> >> > They don't ALL have to.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, where do you buy grenades?
>> >>
>> >> No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a
>> >> reaction when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
>> >
>> > Not a tangent. You started this train.
>>
>> Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the end
>> of this one, I am responding to you.
>
> Yes, you did. And then you hilariously sputter on about tangents...
Right.......
>> >> >> How hard is that to conceal? How do
>> >> >> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution
>> >> >> > have to do with TORONTO?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you
>> >> >> should take that up with the poster who made the comment.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
>> >> >
>> >> > DUH...
>> >> >
>> >> > And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
>> >>
>> >> That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed
>> >> to simply registration.
>> >
>> > You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
>> > when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
>>
>> I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't
>> handle.
>
> (laughs and points)
>
> Got that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for that self
> defense was a handgun"
>
> Oh wait - "Don't have to"
>
> Get back to us when you understand that the American Constitution is
> not binding in Canada. And when you understand that registration has
> nothing to do with the 2nd.
I understand both of those....I am, however, surprized that you do.
Ha-Emet
Obama = Trojan Horse
Obama Renews Openness About His Muslim Roots Ahead of Egypt Speech The
president showed long ago that he is comfortable talking about his roots,
in his two biographical books -- now, he's citing those roots ahead of his
speech to the Muslim world
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
June 3, 2009: President Barack Obama receives a gift of a gold
necklace called the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, the country's highest
honor, from Saudi King Abdullah at the start of their bilateral meeting at
the King's Farm in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (AP)
President Obama has spoken proudly of American Muslims, even
referencing his heritage as the son of a Muslim man, ahead of his highly
anticipated speech Thursday in Cairo aimed at shoring up relations between
the U.S. and the Muslim world.
Obama's openness about his own Muslim heritage may seem startling
after his presidential campaign last year went to great lengths to debunk
false rumors about his religion -- he is Christian -- but the president
showed long ago that he is comfortable talking about his roots, which are
addressed in his two biographical books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The
Audacity of Hope."
Now, Obama appears to be citing those roots as a tool for encouraging
more moderate elements of Islamic society to rise up and ally with the
United States.
He referred to his childhood in Indonesia in an interview with the BBC
ahead of his trip. Adviser Denis McDonough did the same on Friday.
In an interview with a French television network, Obama also stressed
the need for a better dialogue and the common ground between East and
West.
"One of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the
number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries
in the world," he said.
And while addressing the Turkish Parliament two months ago, Obama said
the United States has been "enriched" by Muslims.
"Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in
a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them," Obama
said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/03/obamas-embrace-muslim-history-return/
Please open your eyes America to what Obama is!
He is a Trojan Horse!
Ha-Emet
You can get to the moon in 2 seconds. That is how long it takes light to
travel the distance. What we are seeing on the moon actually happened two
seconds ago.
Barack Obama changed his mind in less than the time it takes light to
travel between the earth and the moon. Much of what he promised in his
presidential campaign of change has not been changed; it has been a
continuation of George W Bushs policies.
The job of running the government is about doing what needs to be done to
keep Americans safe. Of course there have been mistakes and differences
but nothing resembling the extreme change he promised his LEFT wing
constituency. And they're pissed.
That makes me not a bit unhappy to see a left wing which has always been
unfairly critical of Israel now very unhappy with their Mesiah.
Has Obama Morphed Into George W Bush?
In Accuracy in Media, "The Unhappy Left",
(http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/the-unhappy-left/) Don writes on May
17, 2009, Obama's "backing of Bush policies has the left wondering what
happened to the man they helped elect." And referring to an article in
Politico, Don quotes:
"Barely four months into his presidency, Obama is confronting growing
dissatisfaction among members of his liberal base, who feel spurned by a
series of his early decisions on issues ranging from guns to torture to
immigration to gay rights... The list got longer last week as Obama
reversed his earlier decision to release photos of detainees abused in
U.S. military custody and announced plans to try some terror suspects
before military commissions - though on the campaign trail he railed
against earlier versions of the tribunals. A few, like MSNBC's Rachel
Maddow, have even hurled the left's ultimate epithet - suggesting that
Obama's turning into George W. Bush."
On a personal note, politics bores me. Neither side; that is, neither end
of the wing nut spectrum has been credible. In politics, the truth is
elusive.
Howevever, politics and American presidents are of little consequence in
the overall scheme of things. We are a very young species, and humanoids
have only been around about 200,000 years, a relative very short time for
a species. And, we'll go the way others have gone in spite of what
presidents or prime ministers do about nations and markets.
What is amazing is how much we know and how short a time we have known it
and for that matter how much we do not know. We are also insignificant in
the overall scheme of things. A tiny speck of life with a unique
perception that we exist and our larger brains motivate us to sustain
ourselves long enough so life doesn't become extinquished before we can
pass on our individual blueprint.
Space-time is a relative movement which seems normal but relies on a
self-centered, anthropomorphic perception and while life is perception, it
is not reality.
We are a speck - merely space dust. Our sun is among hundreds of billions
of stars in an island universe which is perhaps one of billions of
universes, and galaxies; ours is called the Milky Way - about 3/5th of the
way from the black hole in the center of the galaxy and we inhabit and in
our little space, in our little corner of one universe we will stay lost.
It is unlikely we will suvive long enough to ever meet other life like us.
So what and why does any of this matter?
HR
RichTravsky
Yes, you do know. You don't care because it negates "arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time" and "The Second Amendment is about what
a normal infantryman would carry". So that would only allow what was in use
200 years ago.
> >> >> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
> >> >>
> >> >> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
> >> >> having trouble with?
> >> >
> >> > Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?
> >>
> >> Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was
> >> militia and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is no
> >> requirement for that membership.....you must change with the times.
> >> Learn to read. Heller would be a good place to start.
> >
> > "normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?
>
> You have to go back and look at context.
Context for what? Your forgetting that it was *you* who brought up
the military?
> >> >> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
> >> >> >> were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
> >> >> >> handgun.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
> >> >> The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
> >> >
> >> > "the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
> >> > Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.
> >>
> >> Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you
> >> cannot read it and understand it.........
> >
> > I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up your
> > claim.
>
> Of what? That there isn't a direct quote of "the best firearm for that
> defense was a handgun"? Good for you. Do you know how to take two
> thoughts and put them together into one?
Do you know how to not blow your argument?
> >> >> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
> >> >> >> >> infantryman
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
> >> >> >> > launcher?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my
> >> >> >> point of view and that of the federal government.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your point of view doesn't count.
> >> >>
> >> >> The feds do and they agree with me.
> >> >
> >> > Good luck buying grenades...
> >>
> >> Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire
> >> for launcher.....why buy grenades for one.
> >
> > Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but
> > about the Constitution.
>
> Then why are you asking if *I* can buy them?
"The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry".
Today, "normal infantryman" carry grenade launchers....
> >> >> >> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
> >> >> >> >> again.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
> >> >> >> perfectly legal per federal law.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > They don't ALL have to.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now, where do you buy grenades?
> >> >>
> >> >> No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a
> >> >> reaction when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
> >> >
> >> > Not a tangent. You started this train.
> >>
> >> Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the end
> >> of this one, I am responding to you.
> >
> > Yes, you did. And then you hilariously sputter on about tangents...
>
> Right.......
Hilarious, he brings up "normal infantryman" and considers it someone else's
tangent.......
> >> >> >> How hard is that to conceal? How do
> >> >> >> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution
> >> >> >> > have to do with TORONTO?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you
> >> >> >> should take that up with the poster who made the comment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
> >> >> >
> >> >> > DUH...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
> >> >>
> >> >> That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed
> >> >> to simply registration.
> >> >
> >> > You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
> >> > when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
> >>
> >> I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't
> >> handle.
> >
> > (laughs and points)
> >
> > Got that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for that self
> > defense was a handgun"
> >
> > Oh wait - "Don't have to"
> >
> > Get back to us when you understand that the American Constitution is
> > not binding in Canada. And when you understand that registration has
> > nothing to do with the 2nd.
>
> I understand both of those....I am, however, surprized that you do.
If you did understand it you would have acknowledged it long ago. You may
sit down now...
Now, about that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for that self
defense was a handgun" ...
RD (The Sandman)
news:4ADAA852...@hotmMOVEail.com:
> "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> >> >> @hotmMOVEail.com:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Advocate"
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>gun s-t oro nto -
Wrong, unless you think the First Amendment only protects town criers.
>> >> >> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are
>> >> >> you having trouble with?
>> >> >
>> >> > Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?
>> >>
>> >> Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was
>> >> militia and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is
>> >> no requirement for that membership.....you must change with the
>> >> times. Learn to read. Heller would be a good place to start.
>> >
>> > "normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?
>>
>> You have to go back and look at context.
>
> Context for what? Your forgetting that it was *you* who brought up
> the military?
As I said.....look at context. Do you understand what that means?
>> >> >> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self
>> >> >> >> defense were fine and the best firearm for that self defense
>> >> >> >> was a handgun.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
>> >> >> The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget
>> >> >> that?
>> >> >
>> >> > "the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
>> >> > Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.
>> >>
>> >> Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you
>> >> cannot read it and understand it.........
>> >
>> > I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up
>> > your claim.
>>
>> Of what? That there isn't a direct quote of "the best firearm for
>> that defense was a handgun"? Good for you. Do you know how to take
>> two thoughts and put them together into one?
>
> Do you know how to not blow your argument?
Why ask, you don't even understand it.
>> >> >> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
>> >> >> >> >> infantryman
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel
>> >> >> >> > grenade launcher?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from
>> >> >> >> my point of view and that of the federal government.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Your point of view doesn't count.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The feds do and they agree with me.
>> >> >
>> >> > Good luck buying grenades...
>> >>
>> >> Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire
>> >> for launcher.....why buy grenades for one.
>> >
>> > Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but
>> > about the Constitution.
>>
>> Then why are you asking if *I* can buy them?
>
> "The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry".
>
> Today, "normal infantryman" carry grenade launchers....
Some of them....and, yes, I can legally purchase a grenade launcher.
Happy now?
You want my gun? Come and get it, you coward. I'm in the phone book.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RichTravsky
Since you cannot buy grenades, you cannot arm yourself with "what a normal
infantryman" of today would carry.
> >> >> >> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are
> >> >> >> you having trouble with?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was
> >> >> militia and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is
> >> >> no requirement for that membership.....you must change with the
> >> >> times. Learn to read. Heller would be a good place to start.
> >> >
> >> > "normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?
> >>
> >> You have to go back and look at context.
> >
> > Context for what? Your forgetting that it was *you* who brought up
> > the military?
>
> As I said.....look at context. Do you understand what that means?
Yes, it's where you bring something up and then claim someone else did it.
> >> >> >> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self
> >> >> >> >> defense were fine and the best firearm for that self defense
> >> >> >> >> was a handgun.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
> >> >> >> The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget
> >> >> >> that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
> >> >> > Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you
> >> >> cannot read it and understand it.........
> >> >
> >> > I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up
> >> > your claim.
> >>
> >> Of what? That there isn't a direct quote of "the best firearm for
> >> that defense was a handgun"? Good for you. Do you know how to take
> >> two thoughts and put them together into one?
> >
> > Do you know how to not blow your argument?
>
> Why ask, you don't even understand it.
You're the one tossing out claims they can't support.
> >> >> >> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
> >> >> >> >> >> infantryman
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel
> >> >> >> >> > grenade launcher?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from
> >> >> >> >> my point of view and that of the federal government.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Your point of view doesn't count.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The feds do and they agree with me.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Good luck buying grenades...
> >> >>
> >> >> Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire
> >> >> for launcher.....why buy grenades for one.
> >> >
> >> > Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but
> >> > about the Constitution.
> >>
> >> Then why are you asking if *I* can buy them?
> >
> > "The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry".
> >
> > Today, "normal infantryman" carry grenade launchers....
>
> Some of them....and, yes, I can legally purchase a grenade launcher.
> Happy now?
Now, about those grenades for the grenade launcher....
> >> >> >> >> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
> >> >> >> >> >> again.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
> >> >> >> >> perfectly legal per federal law.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > They don't ALL have to.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Now, where do you buy grenades?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a
> >> >> >> reaction when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle?
> >> >> >> ;)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not a tangent. You started this train.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the
> >> >> end of this one, I am responding to you.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, you did. And then you hilariously sputter on about tangents...
> >>
> >> Right.......
> >
> > Hilarious, he brings up "normal infantryman" and considers it someone
> > else's tangent.......
No comment.
Dodge noted.
Bob
wrote:
|>
|>> Don't know.....don't care. As I noted, I have no interest in one.
|>
|>Yes, you do know. You don't care because it negates "arms supplied by themselves
|>and of the kind in common use at the time" and "The Second Amendment is about what
|>a normal infantryman would carry". So that would only allow what was in use
|>200 years ago.
|>
That would be at the least considered , as any kind of handgun
today,
2A is interesting but when a bunch of ugly niggers are gang baking
in your home's door, it does't really mean anything at that point.
You can also equate a "ball" canon to any infantry rifles of today,
maybe even a LAWs rocket launcher, but you only have one shot with that and
the use in sporting purposes unless you are adept enough to make a merciful
quick kill by blowing a moose's head right off.....no pain there, no
arrogant trophy, just a lot of food.
Gray Ghost
news:fcc5e5lnm35r49ota...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:32:02 -0600, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
>|>
>|>> Don't know.....don't care. As I noted, I have no interest in one.
>|>
>|>Yes, you do know. You don't care because it negates "arms supplied by
>|>themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" and "The Second
>|>Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry". So that would
>|>only allow what was in use 200 years ago.
>|>
>
> That would be at the least considered , as any kind of handgun
> today,
>
> 2A is interesting but when a bunch of ugly niggers are gang baking
> in your home's door, it does't really mean anything at that point.
Hmm, niggers? Given your scenaroi though an MP5 might be useful.
>
> You can also equate a "ball" canon to any infantry rifles of today,
> maybe even a LAWs rocket launcher, but you only have one shot with that
> and the use in sporting purposes unless you are adept enough to make a
> merciful quick kill by blowing a moose's head right off.....no pain
> there, no arrogant trophy, just a lot of food.
>
> Bob
It isn't about sporting purposes.
10x
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>
>>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seized-
>>police523.html
>
>You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
>"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
>registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns
>on the city's streets."
>
>Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
>
>Did you really think that would get by me?
>
>You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
Small correction.
Licensed gun owners let their firearms license lapse. They are
currently currently covered by an amnesty allowning them to renew
their firearms license without facing criminal charges. That amnesty
expires May 16, 2010.
Some of these folks had registration ceritifcates for guns attached
to the expired license that were revoked. Some have not had their
registrations revoked.
Toronto police were seizing firearms from gun owners who's firearms
license had expired.
The police had every right to seize these guns and if there were no
amnesty in place the police had every right to charge these ex legal
gun owners under section 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of Canada.
Any individiual who knowling lets their firearms license expire and is
in possession of firearms is liable to a five year prision sentence.
Alex Cunningham
in message news:1gidi592htnmgtdvo...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:53:38 -0500, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seized-
>>>police523.html
>>
>>You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
>>"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
>>registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns
>>on the city's streets."
>>
>>Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
>>
>>Did you really think that would get by me?
>>
>>You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
>>
> Small correction.
> Licensed gun owners let their firearms license lapse. They are
> currently currently covered by an amnesty allowning them to renew
> their firearms license without facing criminal charges. That amnesty
> expires May 16, 2010.
> Some of these folks had registration ceritifcates for guns attached
> to the expired license that were revoked. Some have not had their
> registrations revoked.
> Toronto police were seizing firearms from gun owners who's firearms
> license had expired.
> The police had every right to seize these guns and if there were no
> amnesty in place the police had every right to charge these ex legal
> gun owners under section 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of Canada.
> Any individiual who knowling lets their firearms license expire and is
> in possession of firearms is liable to a five year prision sentence.
Does not make it right that owning legal property comes under The Criminal
Code of Canada. This only came about because the Supreme Court labelled
firearms "Inherently Dangerous"
--
Cheers!
Alex.C
There are twelve million sheep in Ontario.
Problem is nine million of them think they are people.
10x
Bill C68(1995) ammended section 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of
Canada to prohibit possession of firearms in Canada. Section 91 and
92 allow limited possession of firearms through a license granted by
the Minister of Justice.
The Firearsms Act (Chapter 39, Statutes of Canada) establishes the
rules that a license to possess firearms that suspends any charges
under section 91 and 92 of the criminal code.
The Supreme court told us that if the federal government outlaws
something then the federal government can create a license that allows
some to break the law without being charged.
BTW: The courts did make statements about firearms being "inerently
dangerous" but there has been no evidence presented in the courts to
support that claim. Go figure.
Lookout
Sounds right to me.
Thanks for the info.
Lookout
<sly_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Uh..they have the right to do that.
And they are correct.
Alex Cunningham
in message news:9q3ei59rdujs63np7...@4ax.com...
No they are not correct. A firearm is not dangerous until picked up and used
by a person.The only reason they have the right to "do that" is because the
constitution we got stuck with by Trudeau specifically omitted the rights of
Canadians to "own" property. That same constitution has been proven to be
worth less than the paper it is written on.
Jamir Quay
Lookout
<sly_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"proven"? Really? By whom?
Alex Cunningham
>>>>> Small correction.
>>>>> Licensed gun owners let their firearms license lapse. They are
>>>>> currently currently covered by an amnesty allowning them to renew
>>>>> their firearms license without facing criminal charges. That amnesty
>>>>> expires May 16, 2010.
>>>>> Some of these folks had registration ceritifcates for guns attached
>>>>> to the expired license that were revoked. Some have not had their
>>>>> registrations revoked.
>>>>> Toronto police were seizing firearms from gun owners who's firearms
>>>>> license had expired.
>>>>> The police had every right to seize these guns and if there were no
>>>>> amnesty in place the police had every right to charge these ex legal
>>>>> gun owners under section 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of Canada.
>>>>> Any individiual who knowling lets their firearms license expire and is
>>>>> in possession of firearms is liable to a five year prision sentence.
>
>>>>Does not make it right that owning legal property comes under The
>>>>Criminal
>>>>Code of Canada. This only came about because the Supreme Court labelled
>>>>firearms "Inherently Dangerous"
>>>
>>>"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Uh..they have the right to do that.
>>> And they are correct.
>
>>No they are not correct. A firearm is not dangerous until picked up and
>>used
>>by a person.The only reason they have the right to "do that" is because
>>the
>>constitution we got stuck with by Trudeau specifically omitted the rights
>>of
>>Canadians to "own" property. That same constitution has been proven to be
>>worth less than the paper it is written on.
>
> "proven"? Really? By whom?
For starters the province of Quebec. They are not even signatories yet they
were permitted to invoke the "Notwithstanding Clause" to keep and enforce
their racist language laws.
There are two other instances that I know of where the Supreme Court has
agreed that the laws were infringements on peoples rights according to the
charter but were allowed to stand because the court considered them to be
"reasonable infringements."
As far as I'm concerned these decisions render the charter useless as it
allows the Supreme Court to infringe it at will and have the charter say
what ever they wish it to say.
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
YOu mean in that Canadian registration database that has over 50% non
compliance?
Devil's Advocate
> Small correction.
> Licensed gun owners let their firearms license lapse. They are
> currently currently covered by an amnesty allowning them to renew
> their firearms license without facing criminal charges. That amnesty
> expires May 16, 2010.
> Some of these folks had registration ceritifcates for guns attached
> to the expired license that were revoked. Some have not had their
> registrations revoked.
> Toronto police were seizing firearms from gun owners who's firearms
> license had expired.
> The police had every right to seize these guns and if there were no
> amnesty in place the police had every right to charge these ex legal
> gun owners under section 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of Canada.
> Any individiual who knowling lets their firearms license expire and is
> in possession of firearms is liable to a five year prision sentence.
Why should anyone have to get a license ( government permission ) to
exercise a HUMAN RIGHT?!
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
Any government that requires a license to exercise a HUMAN RIGHT is a
tyranny to that extent!
Devil's Advocate
>
> in message news:1gidi592htnmgtdvo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:53:38 -0500, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>>><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seize
>>>>d- police523.html
So are kitchen knives. Do you need permission for them?
http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
Devil's Advocate
> No they are not correct. A firearm is not dangerous until picked up
> and used by a person.The only reason they have the right to "do that"
> is because the constitution we got stuck with by Trudeau specifically
> omitted the rights of Canadians to "own" property. That same
> constitution has been proven to be worth less than the paper it is
> written on.
Ours in the U.S. is being shat on and shredded by tyrants too.
RichTravsky
Self defense may be a human right but how that's accomplished isn't.
Jamir Quay
You need to be run over by a bus.
Lookout
Is the law being enforced?
End of discussion. You lose.
10x
wrote:
Could you please prove that firearms are "Inherently Dangerous"?
10x
I mean the Canadian gun owners licensing scheme that probably has less
than 50% compliance. Compliance with the gun registry is very likely
even less.
10x
<Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>10x <1...@telious.net> wrote :
>
>> Small correction.
>> Licensed gun owners let their firearms license lapse. They are
>> currently currently covered by an amnesty allowning them to renew
>> their firearms license without facing criminal charges. That amnesty
>> expires May 16, 2010.
>> Some of these folks had registration ceritifcates for guns attached
>> to the expired license that were revoked. Some have not had their
>> registrations revoked.
>> Toronto police were seizing firearms from gun owners who's firearms
>> license had expired.
>> The police had every right to seize these guns and if there were no
>> amnesty in place the police had every right to charge these ex legal
>> gun owners under section 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of Canada.
>> Any individiual who knowling lets their firearms license expire and is
>> in possession of firearms is liable to a five year prision sentence.
>
>Why should anyone have to get a license ( government permission ) to
>exercise a HUMAN RIGHT?!
Because the government thinks it has the power to do so....
Alex Cunningham
>>For starters the province of Quebec. They are not even signatories yet
>>they
>>were permitted to invoke the "Notwithstanding Clause" to keep and enforce
>>their racist language laws.
>>There are two other instances that I know of where the Supreme Court has
>>agreed that the laws were infringements on peoples rights according to the
>>charter but were allowed to stand because the court considered them to be
>>"reasonable infringements."
>>As far as I'm concerned these decisions render the charter useless as it
>>allows the Supreme Court to infringe it at will and have the charter say
>>what ever they wish it to say.
>>
> Is the law being enforced?
No. it isn't It's being excused in the case of Quebec and the other
"allowable" infringements.
>Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> End of discussion. You lose.
"Alex Cunningham" wrote:
The only thing I lose is my freedom to own property. A loss brought about by
a tyrannical government led by a socialist egomaniac.
Sid9
"10x" <10x@telu�s.net> wrote in message
news:ojkii5h7o5595ltt8...@4ax.com...
.
Only when the function correctly.
Lookout
<Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>10x <1...@telious.net> wrote :
>
>> Small correction.
>> Licensed gun owners let their firearms license lapse. They are
>> currently currently covered by an amnesty allowning them to renew
>> their firearms license without facing criminal charges. That amnesty
>> expires May 16, 2010.
>> Some of these folks had registration ceritifcates for guns attached
>> to the expired license that were revoked. Some have not had their
>> registrations revoked.
>> Toronto police were seizing firearms from gun owners who's firearms
>> license had expired.
>> The police had every right to seize these guns and if there were no
>> amnesty in place the police had every right to charge these ex legal
>> gun owners under section 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of Canada.
>> Any individiual who knowling lets their firearms license expire and is
>> in possession of firearms is liable to a five year prision sentence.
>
>Why should anyone have to get a license ( government permission ) to
>exercise a HUMAN RIGHT?!
It's not a HUMAN fight you fucking dolt.
>http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
>
>Any government that requires a license to exercise a HUMAN RIGHT is a
>tyranny to that extent!
You're a fucking ignorant idiot.
Lookout
You really are this stupid?
Lookout
The court already has.
Case closed, as they say.
Lookout
And each one caught should serve hard time.
Lookout
Hey dipshit.. the government DOES have the power to do so.
Jamir Quay
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:47:21 -0600, "Devil's Advocate"
> <Devil'sAdv...@devils.xxx> wrote:
>
>> 10x <1...@telious.net> wrote :
>>
>>> Small correction.
>>> Licensed gun owners let their firearms license lapse. They are
>>> currently currently covered by an amnesty allowning them to renew
>>> their firearms license without facing criminal charges. That amnesty
>>> expires May 16, 2010.
>>> Some of these folks had registration ceritifcates for guns attached
>>> to the expired license that were revoked. Some have not had their
>>> registrations revoked.
>>> Toronto police were seizing firearms from gun owners who's firearms
>>> license had expired.
>>> The police had every right to seize these guns and if there were no
>>> amnesty in place the police had every right to charge these ex legal
>>> gun owners under section 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of Canada.
>>> Any individiual who knowling lets their firearms license expire and is
>>> in possession of firearms is liable to a five year prision sentence.
>> Why should anyone have to get a license ( government permission ) to
>> exercise a HUMAN RIGHT?!
>
> It's not a HUMAN fight you fucking dolt.
>
Listen to me, you mewling little left wing shitbag!
The "FIGHT" occurs when the "RIGHT" is licensed, do you get it yet
shit-for-brains????
>> http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html
>>
>> Any government that requires a license to exercise a HUMAN RIGHT is a
>> tyranny to that extent!
>
> You're a fucking ignorant idiot.
You are a subhuman, boot-licking leftist whore.
Jamir Quay
Do you think anyone out here doesn't know what lying little left wing
cunt you are?
Drop fucking dead.
Jamir Quay
NO, the court has NOT!
> Case closed, as they say.
No, it isn't you left wing enemy of liberty.
Drop damned dead.
Jamir Quay
What a scumsucking little fascist you are.
Jamir Quay
Hey fascist, YOU are an enemy of Liberty and a no friend of the
Constitution.
DROP DAMNED DEAD!
10x
wrote:
Please cite the evidence presented by "the court".
10x
wrote:
That would mean the majority of taxpayers would be "doing hard time".
Who would be left to pay the taxes?
Jamir Quay
The day you get that little candy ass pinko to cite anything stronger
than a comic book I'll bust out in song!
10x
wrote:
Maybe, maybe not.
Much depends on whether or not the people allow the government to have
that much power.
Devil's Advocate
> Could you please prove that firearms are "Inherently Dangerous"?
No more than a rock or a brain.
Quemadmoeum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
"A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands."
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger" (ca. 4 BCE-65 CE ).
Look how long ago the liberals were doing the same stupidity!
It's not about guns, it's about control.
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
Thought so. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Lookout
I don't have to. The incident is history. Look it up yourself.
Lookout
Prove the majority of citizens own guns legally or illegally.
Lookout
The case is closed. They DO have the power.
Jamir Quay
YOU FUCKING LOSE!