Hitler and Stalin--Liberal or Conservative
Ryan O'Rielley
as "Conservatives." For what reason, I have no idea, but they match far
more closely with todays liberals. Here are 5 reasons why:
1. Both were in favor of disarming the public. Much like todays liberals
to whom the second ammendment does not exist.
2. Both believed in limiting religious expression in public. Stalin any
religion, Hitler religions he disliked (Jews, Catholics.)
3. Both followed a path of increased government control of society.
4. Both launched attacks on other countries to distract the public from
problems at home (ala Bill Clinton bombing aspirin factories when news about
Monica got too hot.)
5. Both tried to limit as much as possible, foreign participation int their
economies, like unions, always a liberal favorite.
The list could go on and on. Bottom line is when they are compared to
conservatives, it is just a liberal with no rational argument for liberal
policies.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
Correct, all points.
/E
Those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing.
Visit http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/
Catch me most nights on STARLINK-IRC #politics
Marc
"Ryan O'Rielley" <srd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UHmG6.394$7V4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> A while back, some people here said Hitler and Stalin should be classified
> as "Conservatives." For what reason, I have no idea, but they match far
> more closely with todays liberals. Here are 5 reasons why:
>
> 1. Both were in favor of disarming the public. Much like todays liberals
> to whom the second ammendment does not exist.
a) I'll disregard a discussion of the 2nd amendment, as your "point" has
nothing to do with it.
b) Liberals have no agenda to "disarm" the public. Registering and
regulating cars has not "discarred" the public.
c) Wrong on your "point 1"
>
> 2. Both believed in limiting religious expression in public. Stalin any
> religion, Hitler religions he disliked (Jews, Catholics.)
a) How ironic. It is the Christian Right that dislikes other religions and
seeks to supress their freedoms. Given that and also the fact that Hitler
considered himself a Christian Palidan (Holy Warrior) I think it's pretty
obvious that in this regard, Hitler and the Right Wing of the Republican
party are very close.
b) In what way have Liberals ever wanted to limit the expression of
religious beliefs, in public or otherwise? Our last President - often called
a liberal - often expressed his religious faith. One of the more promenent
Democratic leaders, Jesse Jackson, is pretty openly Christian without
anybody batting an eye.
c) Wrong on your "point 2"
>
> 3. Both followed a path of increased government control of society.
a) Huh? Growing federalism has been true under Repbulican and Democratic
governments. But it has been under Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush that we are
seeing the growing spectre of a police state.
Easy police searches without warrents, "good faith" arrests without probably
cause, growing government survelience have all occured under folks I'd
consider conservatives, not liberal.
b) You are now 0 for 3
>
> 4. Both launched attacks on other countries to distract the public from
> problems at home (ala Bill Clinton bombing aspirin factories when news
about
> Monica got too hot.)
a) Only a total disragard for widely know facts would allow you to say this.
Hitler was widely popular when he started his invasions of other countries.
Stalin certainly had no fear of being unpopular when he carved his share out
of Europe. Both sets of military aggression were pure landgrabbing, not "wag
the dog".
b) gee, now you're 0-4
> 5. Both tried to limit as much as possible, foreign participation int
their
> economies, like unions, always a liberal favorite.
a) Huh - liberals like to limit unions? Thats news to me.
b) I have heard President called a liberal over and over, but he fought hard
for Nafta, Gatt, etc.
c) While your "point 5" was witless and inconsistant, it was also proved
totally false. 0-5
>
> The list could go on and on. Bottom line is when they are compared to
> conservatives, it is just a liberal with no rational argument for liberal
> policies
Your "list" could only go "on and on" if you start using comparisans like
the following
Hitler and Stalin were both bipedal - so are liberals.
Hitler and Stalin both breathed air using lungs - so do Liberals
Etc.
I'd suggest you read more history, but as you have read none at all, that
would be a waste.
Jeff Bishop
news:9cdfv1$s35$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> So easy to refute - but what the hell.
liberals
> > to whom the second ammendment does not exist.
>
> a) I'll disregard a discussion of the 2nd amendment, as your "point" has
> nothing to do with it.
Huh? Attempting to explain away the Second Amendment has a lot to do with
disarming the public.
> b) Liberals have no agenda to "disarm" the public.
Tell that to people residing in D.C., New York, Chicago or San Francisco.
> Registering and
> regulating cars has not "discarred" the public.
Banning cars, however, would have.
> c) Wrong on your "point 1"
How so?
> > 2. Both believed in limiting religious expression in public. Stalin
any
> > religion, Hitler religions he disliked (Jews, Catholics.)
>
> a) How ironic. It is the Christian Right that dislikes other religions and
> seeks to supress their freedoms.
Evidence? Liberal rhetoric about the Christian Right (TM) is not evidence.
> Given that and also the fact that Hitler
> considered himself a Christian Palidan (Holy Warrior)
What the hell kind of "fact" is that?
> I think it's pretty
> obvious that in this regard, Hitler and the Right Wing of the Republican
> party are very close.
If you get to make up your own facts, then I suppose so.
> b) In what way have Liberals ever wanted to limit the expression of
> religious beliefs, in public or otherwise?
Every time anyone talks about school vouchers, allowing students to give
speeches at graduation on any topic of their choice, or just about any other
religion-neutral issue that can possibly be construed as a state endorsement
of religion. And given liberals' expansive view of what the state should
control, that's just about everything.
> Our last President - often called
> a liberal - often expressed his religious faith. One of the more promenent
> Democratic leaders, Jesse Jackson, is pretty openly Christian without
> anybody batting an eye.
And your point is what? That liberals are hypocrites who cry "separation of
church and state" whenever a religious person argues against their views,
but who don't give a flying fuck about separation of church and state when
religion can be twisted to suit their needs? OK, I'll concede that.
> 3. Both followed a path of increased government control of society.
>
> a) Huh? Growing federalism has been true under Repbulican and Democratic
> governments.
As usual, you make a wild assertion with no evidence to back it up. Where
is the evidence of Democrat administrations pushing federalism?
> But it has been under Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush that we are
> seeing the growing spectre of a police state.
> Easy police searches without warrents, "good faith" arrests without
probably
> cause, growing government survelience have all occured under folks I'd
> consider conservatives, not liberal.
If you consider Clinton a conservative, you are an idiot.
> Your "list" could only go "on and on" if you start using comparisans like
> the following
>
> Hitler and Stalin were both bipedal - so are liberals.
> Hitler and Stalin both breathed air using lungs - so do Liberals
Kind of like your logic - I don't like conservatives, and I also don't like
Clinton, therefore, Clinton is a conservative.
Mike Jones
Jeff Bishop wrote:
> "Marc" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:9cdfv1$s35$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > So easy to refute - but what the hell.
> > > 1. Both were in favor of disarming the public. Much like todays
> liberals
> > > to whom the second ammendment does not exist.
> > a) I'll disregard a discussion of the 2nd amendment, as your "point" has
> > nothing to do with it.
> Huh? Attempting to explain away the Second Amendment has a lot to do with
> disarming the public.
The so-called "liberal" explanation of the Second Amendment just happens to be a
lot closer to how quite a number of both liberal and conservative courts have
interpreted it than the "conservative" explanation.
> > b) Liberals have no agenda to "disarm" the public.
> Tell that to people residing in D.C., New York, Chicago or San Francisco.
I'm sure all the hunters in Upstate New York would be surprised to learn they've
been disarmed.
> > Registering and
> > regulating cars has not "discarred" the public.
> Banning cars, however, would have.
But no one in the liberal mainstream is talking about banning guns as a class.
Sure, there are a few nutters out on the fringe, but the Extreme Right Wing With
Counter-Rotating Eyeballs and Screechy Voices has their share of nutters as
well.
> > c) Wrong on your "point 1"
> How so?
>
> > > 2. Both believed in limiting religious expression in public. Stalin
> any
> > > religion, Hitler religions he disliked (Jews, Catholics.)
> > a) How ironic. It is the Christian Right that dislikes other religions and
> > seeks to supress their freedoms.
> Evidence? Liberal rhetoric about the Christian Right (TM) is not evidence.
Well, their reaction to Bush's faith-based initiatives movement is instructive;
several Christian Right leaders (such as Jerry Falwell) expressed opposition to
the idea because other religions (that he doesn't approve of) would qualify for
funding.
> > Given that and also the fact that Hitler
> > considered himself a Christian Palidan (Holy Warrior)
> What the hell kind of "fact" is that?
An inconvenient one from where you sit, I suspect.
--
Mike Jones
Then came lo mein and going insane
At the Chinese cafe way downtown,
I was steamed, I was fried, but you stood by my side
As I had my nervous breakdown.
-- Robert Earl Keen
tewins
dissent in any form, and maintain control through violence and terror.
That word is 'totalitarian' - a term no genuine liberal or conservative
would qualify for. (or social democrat, democratic socialist either) Of
course, because regimes allow a modest (ineffective) level of dissent at
home does not mean they do not encourage totalitarian regimes overseas to
suit their own interests - try the history of US foreign policy in Central
America , for instance. This is where the real HYPOCRICY sets in. To be
quite frank, however, it was the German Conservative parties who propelled
Hitler into power, while in the USSR social democrats, liberals, and
democratic socialists faced Terror: labour camps or death. So if we're going
to take our lead from history, history's being pretty unambiguous.......
Ryan O'Rielley wrote in message ...
bb
news:UHmG6.394$7V4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> as "Conservatives." For what reason, I have no idea, but they match far
> more closely with todays liberals. Here are 5 reasons why:
>
> 1. Both were in favor of disarming the public. Much like todays liberals
> to whom the second ammendment does not exist.
Hitler and Stalin did disarm thier populance. Then they proceded to murder a
large portion of thier own ppl.. No liberal or conservative supports mass
murder. Unless you count abortions I guess.
>
> 2. Both believed in limiting religious expression in public. Stalin any
> religion, Hitler religions he disliked (Jews, Catholics.)
It's not just liberals who think the government should have no part in any
way--at all-- in any religion. Not all conservatives are religious radicals
like the left tries to stereotype them as.
>
> 3. Both followed a path of increased government control of society.
Facist socialism and communist collectivism. Not liberal or conservative at
all.
> 4. Both launched attacks on other countries to distract the public from
> problems at home (ala Bill Clinton bombing aspirin factories when news
about
> Monica got too hot.)
Not true at all.
Germany had no problems at home other than they felt shit upon after WW1. In
fact, they were very powerful and very prosperous. Stalin and the commies
could care less about public opinion.
>
> 5. Both tried to limit as much as possible, foreign participation int
their
> economies, like unions, always a liberal favorite.
You just can't compare thier kind of foreigner bashing with today. You don't
see immigrants rounded up and carted off to be killed now like you did way
back then.
It's supposed to be conservative to limit the amount of competition
anyhow--you can thank issue stealing for that.
>
> The list could go on and on. Bottom line is when they are compared to
> conservatives, it is just a liberal with no rational argument for liberal
> policies.
>
It's really all just cheap shots. Comparing liberal and conservative ideas
with nazi's and commies-- our collective 8th grade education at work.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
<eflo...@KILLSPAMMERSrochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3ae9fe9a.201127613@news-server...
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:49:24 GMT, "Ryan O'Rielley"
> <srd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >A while back, some people here said Hitler and Stalin should be
classified
> >as "Conservatives." For what reason, I have no idea, but they match far
> >more closely with todays liberals. Here are 5 reasons why:
> >
> >1. Both were in favor of disarming the public. Much like todays
liberals
> >to whom the second ammendment does not exist.
The gun laws already existed in Germany before Hitler came to power. He
relaxed the laws somewhat but did not want the Communist leftists to have
guns.
> >
> >2. Both believed in limiting religious expression in public. Stalin any
> >religion, Hitler religions he disliked (Jews, Catholics.)
One of the points on the National Socialist party platform was that the
party was for positive Christianity. This is what it said:
"The party as such, stands for positive Christianity but does not bind
itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession."
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
" But all that I heard had the effect of arousing the strongest
antagonism in me. Everything was disparaged-the nation, because it was held
to be an invention of the 'capitalist' class (how often I had heard that
phrase!); the Fatherland, because it was held to be an instrument in the
hands of the bourgeosie for the exploitation of the working masses; the
authority of the law, because that was a means of holding down the
proletariat; religion, as a means of doping the people, so as to exploit
them afterward; morality, as a badge of stupid and sheepish docility. There
was nothing that they did not drag in the mud.
"At first I remained silent; but that could not last very long."
"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am
defending the handiwork of the Lord."
"Was not the Press instrumental in bringing in a state of moral
degradation among our people? Were not morals and public decency made to
look ridiculous and classed as out-of-date and banal, until finally our
people also became modernized?"
"It must be noted too that the attack on the dogmatic principles
underlying ecclesiastical teaching increased steadily in violence. And yet
this human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical
existance of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not
composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people especially, faith is
absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life."
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His
estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those
enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God"
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be
secured. This was the press. The Jew exercised all his skill and tenacity in
getting hold of it. By means of the Press he began gradually to control
public life in its entirety."
Of religion he (the Jew) makes a mockery. Morality and decency are
described as anti-quated prejudices"
"Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired. Catholics and
Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts content, while the
enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve."
"the Jew trafficked in the freedom of the nation and sold our country
to the masters of international high finance. So in our day he has succeeded
again, this time by raising ructions between the two German religious
denominations while the foundations on which both rest are being eaten away
and destroyed through the poison injected by the international and
cosmopolitan Jew."
"The most devoted Protestant could stand side by side with the most
devoted Catholic in our ranks"
"The National Socialist Movement must see to it that at least in our
own country the mortal enemy is recognized and that the fight against him
may be a beacon light pointing to a new and better period for other nations
as well as showing the way of salvation for Aryan humanity in the struggle
for its existance."
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist Party
Congress:
"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism in
Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham, Dr.
Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of a notary
public, members were requested to register their declaration of withdrawal
from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the fight for atheism was
carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the withdrawals from the German
Evangelical Churches alone amounted to two-and-a-half million persons in
Germany. The programme which these atheistic societies laid down in regard
to sexual matters is amply charcterized in the following demands publicly
expressed at meetings and distributed in leaflet form:
1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with the
crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of charge in
State Hospitals.
2) Non-interference with prostitution.
3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard to
marriage and divorce.
4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be educated by
the community.
5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to be
granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.
"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the wilful
destruction of the nations and their civilization and the substitute of
barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.
"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world movement?
Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted this ensemble
into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it prevail in other
countries? The answer to these question discloses the actual secret of our
anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight against Jewry; for the
Bolshevic International is in reality nothing less than a Jewish
International."
VOELKISCHER BEOBACHTER, 24 March 1933, Page 1
[Hitler's Speech at second meeting of the Reichstag of 1933, on
23 March 1933, asking for the adoption of the Enabling Act.]
"While the Government is determined to carry through the political and
moral purging of our public life, it is creating and insuring
prerequisites for a truly religious life. The Government sees in both
Christian confessions the most important factors for the maintenance of our
folkdom. It will respect agreements concluded between them and the States.
However, it respects that its work will meet with a similar appreciation.
The Government will treat all other denominations with equal objective
justice.
It can never condone, though, that belonging to a certain denomination
or to a certain race might be regarded as a license to commit or tolerate
crimes. The Government will devote its care to the sincere living together
of Church and State."
Hitler said in a speech in Berlin on March 23, 1933 "The Reich
government sees in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the ethics and
morality of the folk."
In a speech delivered April 12, 1922, published in "My New Order," and
quoted in "Freethought Today" (April 1990), Hitler said:
"For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on
my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the
week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. "When I go out
in the morning and see these men
standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe
I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I
did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom
today this poor people are plundered and exploited."
> >
> >3. Both followed a path of increased government control of society.
Hitler may not of been conservative (serving mammon, money), but he was
right wing.
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is not just a little liberal but on
the far left.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about having a
good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like the children in
the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
> >
> >4. Both launched attacks on other countries to distract the public from
> >problems at home (ala Bill Clinton bombing aspirin factories when news
about
> >Monica got too hot.)
The Germans lost some land to Poland after World War One. The Germans
said that their people living on this land were being severely oppressed by
the Polish goverment. This is why Germany fought Poland . If Rhode Island
were taken away from America, Americans would fight to get it back.
Americans will go to war for far less reason than this.
Britain and the other liberal countries then went to war with Germany
even though the Communists also attacked Poland. After they won the war,
Poland was Communist, which shows what the liberals were fighting for.
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
"Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note of
March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a peaceful
solution of the problem of the Corridor?
Month after month no reply was vouchsafed by Poland to the German note.
Meanwhile, insult and outrage occurred with suspicious frequency all along
the German frontier, similar to the technique to which the Jews later
introduced the British in Palestine. Day after day the British public was
deluged with war propaganda and misrepresentation of the situation. Finally
their minds were closed against any further regard to the demands of justice
and reason by a new slogan, "You cannot trust Hitler's word." With this lie
the British public was finally stampeded into throwing all reason and
judgement to the winds and accepting at their face value the war propaganda
in the press.
This slogan was founded upon a misrepresentation of Hitler's assurance
given on more than one occasion after a "putsch" such as that in into
Sudetenland, that he "intended to make no further demands.". The
misrepresentation lay in the fact that the press steadily obscured the major
fact, that the "demands" to which Hitler referred were all along five-fold
in character; and covered those five areas taken from Germany by a dictated
peace in which the population was overwhelmingly German, i.e. Sudetenland,
part of Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Corridor and Danzig.
As German troops occupied each successive section, it is, I believe,
accurate to say that Hitler declared, that he had no additional demands to
make. But here it must be clearly stated in the interests of justice that he
never said that this entailed reducing the demands which he had originally
very clearly delineated, and repeated on many occasions, namely, the five
areas in question.
"The British public was deluded by its press into supposing that when
Hitler said he had no further demands, that there had never been any
statement of his full demands, some of which were still unfulfilled. They
were led to believe that Hitler either never had had other demands, or that
he had abondoned the rest as soon as he had obtained some of them. When,
therefore, the next installment was added, the press built on this
misunderstanding the fallacy that Hitler's word could not be trusted. Honest
dealing needs no such trickery and and deception. Such methods are only
necessary to bolster up bad or unjust causes. Fortunately we have the calm
and disspassionate judgement in this matter by no less a person than the
late Lord Lothian, recently British Ambassador to the U.S.A. In his last
speech at Chatham House on this subject he remarked: "If the principle of
self-determination had been applied in Germany's favour, as it was applied
agaisnt her, it would have meant the return of the Sudetenland,
Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Polish Corridor and Danzig to the
Reich."
Here is a very different presentment of the case to the one which was
foisted upon the British public in 1939: and it is the true one. Small
wonder that these facts had to be withheld from the ordinary citizen.
Had the British public realized the truth, that each of these demands of
Hilter rested on a foundation of reasonable fairness, the people of this
island would have ruled out any question of war; and it was war, not truth
or justice, upon which international Jewry was resolved."
Here is another quote from the book:
"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter to
Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan, which if
not checked by the combined action of the European powers, would engulf
Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of that year the red
flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities of Europe. In Hungary the
Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for some time a merciless and bloody
tyranny similar to the one in Russia. In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht,
Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., made a desperate bid for power.
These and other similar convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its
own way just frustated the onslaughts.
In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the endeavour to
expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one, however, did a political
leader and group arise, who grasped to the full the significance of these
happenings, and perceived behind the mobs of native hooligans the
organisation and driving power of world Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler,
and his group the National Socialist Party of Germany.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact. We
need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded over
these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of supposing that
Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men everywhere from making a
thorough investigation of the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, if any
value liberty, and set out to seek truth and defend it, this duty of
personal investigation is one which they cannot shirk.
To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer idleness, if
for no worse reason."
> >
> >5. Both tried to limit as much as possible, foreign participation int
their
> >economies, like unions, always a liberal favorite.
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being hostile
to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were repeatedly stormed
and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was due to the stupidity of
the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every demand put forward by the
working class. The short-sighted refusal to making an effort towards
improving labour conditions, the refusal to adopt measures which would
insure the workmen in case of accidents in the factories, the refusal to
forbid child labour, the refusal to consider protective measures for female
workers, especially expectant mothers--all this was of assistance to the
Social Democratic leaders, who were thankful for every opportunity which
they could exploit for forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois
parties can never repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was
made. For they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at
social reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone stand up
for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral justification of
the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that the labour organizations
became from that time onwards the chief political recruiting ground to swell
the ranks of the Social Democratic Party."
> >
> >The list could go on and on.
Let's see more then.
Bottom line is when they are compared to
> >conservatives, it is just a liberal with no rational argument for liberal
> >policies.
Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the
problem of how Marxism can be exterminated."
"The largest so-called bourgeois mass meetings were accustomed to
dissolve, and those in attendance would run away like rabbits when
frightened by a dog as soon as a dozen communists appeared on the scene."
" We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeosie and
their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions, and our aims.
"We chose red for our posters after particular and careful
deliberation, our intention being to irritate the Left, so as to arouse
their attention and tempt them to come to our meetings--if only to break
them up--so that in this way we got a chance of talking to the people."
"At meetings, particularly outside Munich, we had in those days from five
to eight hundred opponants against fifteen to sixteen National Socialists;
yet we brooked no interference, for we were ready to be killed rather than
capitulate. More than once a handful of party colleagues offered a heroic
resistance to a raging and violent mob of Reds. Those fifteeen or twenty men
would certainly have been overwhelmed in the end had not the opponants known
that three or four times as many of themselves would first get their skulls
cracked. And that was a risk they were not willing to run."
When Hitler marched through the streets with his Storm Troops he carried
a walking stick. The Reds came to oppose them and throw stones and things,
but when it got very bad Hitler would raise the stick. This was the signal
to his men to clear the streets of the Reds. And soon there was not a Red
left to be found.
> Correct, all points.
>
Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels at
the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.
"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote the
Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22, 1937. That
one sentance precisely defines the international significance of the Spanish
problem. It states exactly what the Spanish problem is. Here the final
decision must lie either with Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On
the one side stands ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive
development."
"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to the
startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one day
experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact that we,
German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising protaganists
against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to play the part of a
preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf ears--this cannot prevent us
from seeing things as they are and calling them by their right names. For if
the constantly increasing extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe
should cause still greater disaster, then future historians will be in a
position to record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not
among those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen by an
insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make us deviate in
the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the subversive
forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage when we clearly
and dispassionately lay bare the background of this revolutionary
developement which is extending through the world. For, after all, they are
the only people who are drawing profit forn the chaotic ruin which
Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this account they will swamp us
with a torrrent of abuse and lies and calumnies is only an honour for us and
a further proof that we are right in warning Europe against this peril."
"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all the
constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native land is at
the same time a fight for civilization."
"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public opinion
thoughout the world the theory that the national movement, which on July 17,
1936, intervened in the seething developements in Spain, was a military
rising oragnised by reactionary generals and that this rising was definately
repudiated by the Spanish people. The truth however is that this national
movement was in reality an act of self-defence on the part of the people,
against the revolt which had been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for
that time and was subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist
revolt had been planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from
Moscow and directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice
from Moscow today."
"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the support of
the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million pesetas, of which two
millions were officially acknowledged as having been paid by the Comintern
itself. At the 7th World Congress of the Comintern in Moscow, in 1935,
Dimitroff gave instructions for the formation of a Front Populaire in Spain.
Between February 16 and April 19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of
red revolutionaries, and 529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before
the Bolshevic Revolution officially broke out."
"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration between
Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we assume it to be
some form of mental disease."
"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped from
Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet Russia were
brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large consignment of was
material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain included 100 heavy tanks,
500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks, 4000 heavy machine guns, 6000
light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes, with their pilots."
"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an idea of
the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support of the Reds
in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the marriage between
Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny features; indeed one might
call them downright perverse. In the historical developement of its
activities Democracy has more and more become the political facade of World
Capitalism. Bolshevism now carries the democratic principle to its ultimate
logical application. We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases
the pace of that sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism
had already mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather
drastic comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the
counting of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The heads
are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and left prey to
international Jews, who are now free to exercise their dictatorship by the
employment of terrorization and money."
"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the workers but
when the communist leaders came into power social terror became the rule of
the day. Among the workers and peasant classes hunger prevailed, as symbol
and sign of the Bolshevic rule."
"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and the
instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague. Degradation of
married women, the socialization of women, the martyrdom of children--these
are the principles which are in vogue here."
"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight nuns
from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable tortures by
relays of red maniacs."
"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most frightful
find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the hatred of the
underworld agianst all those who are representative of Western civilization
and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can never hope to attain."
"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."
"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not seem to
have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that threatens them. This
is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the incarnation of evil. Its
destructive influence on the popular religious instinct goes to the very
roots of that instinct itself. And this ruthless atheistic campaign spares
nothing whatsoever which might serve to remind the people of God and
religion. The one fact alone that the Fuerer has saved the German churches
from this fate should be enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally
thankful to him. But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the
sphere of their religious duties, interfering in political matters and
making their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."
"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on Bolshevic
statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up to February
2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven bishops were
murdered in Spain."
"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen churches
on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung, nuns that had
been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed in rows to the
church walls."
"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of February 27,
1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish children are at the
present moment wandering through Spanish provinces, abandoned and in rags.
All public activities for the welfare of the youth have been abolished. And
so the youngsters, very often no more than four or five years old, are left
no alternative. They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold
and are nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"
"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this system
became universal throughout the world."
"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of terror in
countries which are governed according to the principles of authority. The
whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for example, a Jew in
Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But what is this when
compared with the terror that disrupts whole nations"
"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party, what
were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be to the
advantage of the Revolution.'"
"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to express
his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in London. The
world and the League of Nations are hypocritically appealed to. Before these
tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays the part of the civilised
philistine and fills Europe with cries of protest."
"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was the Jew,
General Kleber."
"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer, the
instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."
"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as director
of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms and munitions,
comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed, sitting by his side. His
Paris agents are his racial compatriots, Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At
Hirtenberg in Austria their collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the
Jew, Wolf. In Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In
Denmark the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."
"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil portent
is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."
"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family and
God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing, for order,
moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives and our daily bread
, has begun. In Germany it has already been brought to a triumphant issue."
Marc
"bb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:_ctG6.736$dH5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Ryan O'Rielley" <srd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:UHmG6.394$7V4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > A while back, some people here said Hitler and Stalin should be
classified
> > as "Conservatives." For what reason, I have no idea, but they match far
> > more closely with todays liberals. Here are 5 reasons why:
> >
> > 1. Both were in favor of disarming the public. Much like todays
liberals
> > to whom the second ammendment does not exist.
>
>
> Hitler and Stalin did disarm thier populance. Then they proceded to murder
a
> large portion of thier own ppl.. No liberal or conservative supports mass
> murder. Unless you count abortions I guess
Perhaps if we could only arm the unborn, imagine that.
If they are legally "people", they have the right to bear arms.
Than when the abortionist came to get them, the fetus could shoot it out
with him.
(too early on a saturday morning to be posting...)
Gary Lantz
Ryan O'Rielley <srd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UHmG6.394$7V4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
As a dimwit you would not understand. What you call government makes little
difference when you are a right wingnut that wants a strong military of
lowly paid peasants to support your accumulation of wealth for just a few.
That is what the current so-called conservatives of today are all about.
The government is just the vehicle they are using to defeat America and
Americans without a single shot fired.
eflo...@killspammersrochester.rr.com
wrote:
>As a dimwit you would not understand.
Oh, I dunno. He's got it closer than you ever have.
==============
|_____viking_|{}
|____________|========@
(@)
95 Chevy Astro Cargo Conversion
92 Viking Spirit SP166
Visit http://home.rochester.rr.com/bitheads/
Ryan O'Rielley
Gary Lantz <gar...@defnet.com> wrote in message
news:tellil2...@corp.supernews.com...
> As a dimwit you would not understand. What you call government makes
little
> difference when you are a right wingnut that wants a strong military of
> lowly paid peasants to support your accumulation of wealth for just a few.
> That is what the current so-called conservatives of today are all about.
> The government is just the vehicle they are using to defeat America and
> Americans without a single shot fired.
And as usual, Lantz can't make a point without calling names. Even if
everybody else could.
Alex Chaihorsky
>
> "Ryan O'Rielley" <srd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:UHmG6.394$7V4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> regulating cars has not "discarred" the public.
This is the case of a privilege vs. a constitutional right.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Ownership of guns is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Marc
"Alex Chaihorsky" <alex_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9cf6ep$m...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Sure inorder to form WELL REGULATED militias.
Who regullate the militias?
THE GOVERNMENT
Hope that clears things up for you.
> Alex Chaihorsky
> Reno, NV
>
>
>
Steve Krulick
And the Const and BOR say NOTHING about "ownership of guns"!
That is a common mistake from people ignorant about how 18th
Century educated gentlemen used the legal terms of art "keep
arms" "bear arms" and "keep and bear arms:
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
Madison was not describing the civil rights of private
individuals. Madison knew that militia duty was conscript duty.
He expressed no reservation about the enrollment and inventory
requirements of the Militia Act of 1792, enacted a few years
later, which was in force when he was president and which he was
under oath to faithfully execute.
There is NOTHING in the drafting and debating and passage of the
2nd Amen that speaks about "individual gun ownership"
independent of militia service! It's all about state versus
federal control and arming of the militia, and the virtues of
militias versus standing armies, since it's a MILITIA amendment
and NOT a GUN amendment!
IF the Amendment was intended to protect arms ownership for its
own sake — or for any purpose desired by the owner — the
ratification debates would be full of references to the virtues
of arms ownership, or to frontier-dwellers' need to protect
themselves, or to rural Americans' need to hunt game.
That is simply not the case. The Anti-Federalists offered no
purpose for the Second Amendment other than the perceived danger
of standing armies. Jonathan Elliot's records of the debates in
the ratifying conventions contain at least 80 pages of
discussion concerning standing armies and the militia, 1
Elliot's Debates, supra, at 88, 371-72; 2 Id. at 96-99, 406,
520-522, 531, 536-37, 3 Id. at 378-94, 400-03, 405-31, 440-41; 4
Id. at 97-100, 214-15, 260-62; 5 Id. at 127, 440, 443-44, 451,
464-67, 480, and not a single reference to the need to bear arms
for any purpose other than militia service. Similarly, the index
to Herbert Storing's The Complete Anti-Federalist — the most
comprehensive collection of Anti-Federalist writings — lists 76
references to "standing armies." 7 Complete Anti-Federalist,
supra, at 94-95. That same index shows only 2 references to a
"right to bear arms,"...
Only those who "bear arms" have any militia interest in "keeping
them" in the sense Madison and Adams used the term. Your right,
if any, to "possess and carry guns" is up to state and local
ordinances, under their police powers and public order and
safety concerns. Once you understand that "bear arms" MEANS "to
serve as a soldier" and DOES NOT MEAN "carry guns" it all starts
to make sense.
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military
activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages
were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Constitutional amendment proposed by Rhode Island's 1790
ratifying convention: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Do you think that this last one means that a wealthy Quaker
could pay to have his butler march by his side to tote his rifle
around for him on the battlefield or parade grounds?
Did Quakers have "religious scruples" about "carrying guns" out
to the woods to hunt turkeys?
Does one "bear arms" against a rabbit?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning
"to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter,
"OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be
engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use
of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to
all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from
1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id"
In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was
still understood:
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no
citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided
he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we
know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we
must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th
section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A
man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his
rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said
of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol
concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
When drafting a constitution, one has to enumerate what is
allowed and what is not allowed, what is mandated and what is
prohibited. Using available examples they had, the FFs could
have made their words as narrow or broad as they desired. They
chose a very narrow, militia-related wording, and this can be
confirmed by what they DID and DID NOT discuss during the
process, as well as the choice of words.
Madison spoke of "bearing arms" and immediately described it as
to "render military service in person" in the same sentence of
his original draft resolution. He did not say "own and carry
guns" which he certainly could have. He could have left out the
militia clause entirely, or said "the right of every individual
person" but he didn't. Why not deal with what he said, and what
it meant in 18th Century everyday and legal usage, and what was
the historical and political context in which it was written?
But if you don't know what the RIGHT IS, the point you make is
moot.
If you are unfamiliar with the "plain language" written by
Madison, as USED by him in 1789, you need to be
educated -- http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
ALL the debates about the 2nd Amen involved the militia:
universal militia vs. select militia, state vs. fed control of
the militia, who - state or feds - was going to provide arms. I
challenge you to produce ANY 2nd Amen debate material that
discusses private ownership of weapons. As the term "keep and
bear arms" MEANS militia service and preservation, "owning and
using guns" is NOT what Madison was protecting. As Miller said:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces [the well regulated
Militia armed, organized, and disciplined by the Congress, as
stated in the previous paragraph] the declaration and guarantee
of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and
applied with that end in view..."
And the courts have consistently determined this NOT to be a
FUNDAMENTAL right, as they have applied the rational scrutiny
basis, something NOT applied to fundamental rights. Indeed, the
"right" has consistently been determined NOT to be an INDIVIDUAL
right:
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
possess a firearm...
It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK
No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
"The courts have consistently held that the Second Amendment
only confers a COLLECTIVE RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms
which must bear a "reasonable relationship to the preservation
or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
So, to claim otherwise is to be flying in the face of over 60
years of consistent judicial rulings from the SCOTUS and EVERY
Appellate Circuit.
And, finally, SCOTUS justices and other have used the words
"privilege" and "right" interchangably when referring to the
same exact item.
UNITED STATES v. TOT.
No. 7961. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Decided Oct. 28, 1942.
(complete ruling at
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/131f2d261.html)
Key points:
1. Second Amendment "was not adopted with individual rights in
mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of
their militia organizations..."
2. Under authority of US v. Miller: "in the absence of evidence
tending to show that possession of such a gun at the time has
some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia, it could not be said that the
Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep such an
instrument."
3. "Weapon bearing was never treated as anything like an
absolute right by the common law."
4. "One could hardly argue seriously that a limitation upon the
privilege of possessing weapons was unconstitutional when
applied to a mental patient of the maniac type... a child of
immature years...
aggressors against society. Such a classification is entirely
reasonable and does not infringe upon the preservation of the
well regulated militia protected by the Second Amendment."
Other justices use the term to mean rights.
Here's Justice Scalia's dissent from Dickerson v. U.S. Scalia is
one of the most conservative and possibly the most legally-sharp
Supreme Court Justice, and here's how he uses the word
"privilege"-
"It was once possible to characterize the so-called Miranda rule
as resting (however implausibly) upon the proposition that what
the statute here before us permits the admission at trial of
un-Mirandized confessions violates the Constitution. That is
the fairest reading of the Miranda case itself. The Court began
by announcing that the Fifth Amendment PRIVILEGE against
self-incrimination applied in the context of extrajudicial
custodial interrogation, see 384 U.S., at 460‹467itself a
doubtful proposition as a matter both of history and precedent,
see id., at, at 510‹511 (Harlan, J., dissenting) (characterizing
the Courtąs conclusion that the Fifth Amendment privilege,
rather than the Due Process Clause, governed stationhouse
confessions as a 'trompe l'oeil'). Having extended the
privilege into the ..."
Scalia says "privilege" and he's talking about constitutional
rights.
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Krulick
kru...@dem101.org
http://dem101.org
Democracy101:
Improve Democracy with... MORE Democracy!
* 1 Person = 1 Vote
* 1 Vote, More Choice
* 1 Vote + 50% = Win
* 1 % Voters = 1 % Representation
* 1 Nation, 1 Electoral System
* 1 Voter, More Voice
-------------------------------------------------
Gary Lantz
There is nothing wrong with calling people names unless they are wrong. You
are a dimwit and that creates a picture, a picture is worth a thousand
words, that is why we save space by calling you dimwits what you are so
people don't waste time with your idiocy.
Ryan O'Rielley
And Lantz makes my point AGAIN! If he couldn't call names, he couldn't
post. He is just jealous that his core audience is one (himself) while the
thinman, Rush Smartbugh has millions!
Ernie DiMicco, Jr.
news:5PuG6.2$h45....@news1.i1.net...
> The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about having a
> good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
> like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
> interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
> of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like the children in
> the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
The MOVIE "Lord of the Flies"? ROFLMAO.
<snip the rest... along with any semblance of credibility you have...>
Jeff Bishop
news:3AEA5189...@earthlink.net...
> Jeff Bishop wrote:
> > Huh? Attempting to explain away the Second Amendment has a lot to do
with
> > disarming the public.
>
> The so-called "liberal" explanation of the Second Amendment just happens
to be a
> lot closer to how quite a number of both liberal and conservative courts
have
> interpreted it than the "conservative" explanation.
So? It also happens to be wrong, and as devoid of historical basis as it is
of logic (why pass a law prohibiting Congress from disarming its own
troops?!). Besides, the only court that really counts is the U.S. Supreme
Court, which has never indulged the nonsensical "collective rights"
malarkey. It also happens that almost all serious scholars of the issue,
including such liberals as Laurence Tribe, Sanford Levinson, Alan Dershowitz
and Akhil Reed Amar, have all concluded that the Second Amendment means
exacly what it says. [They are split, however, as to whether or not that
is a good thing, or as to how broadly it should be construed. On those
issues, as with any others, reasonable minds can differ.]
> > > b) Liberals have no agenda to "disarm" the public.
> > Tell that to people residing in D.C., New York, Chicago or San
Francisco.
>
> I'm sure all the hunters in Upstate New York would be surprised to learn
they've
> been disarmed.
I was referring to New York City, not upstate New York. Although I might
add that as a gun owner and a lawyer who could be disbarred over the most
technical firearms violation, I'm not too wild about living anywhere in that
state, or even travelling there more often than I have to.
And to save time, I might add that a lot of gun owners in San Francisco (or
should I say, BOTH of them) might be surprised to hear that their city
council had attempted to disarm them, as well. If they weren't around in
the early 1980s, they may not remember that ordinance, which the California
courts struck down as a very obvious violation of California's preemption
law. Unfortunately for those residing in Chicago or New York (city), those
states do not have preemption laws.
> > > Registering and
> > > regulating cars has not "discarred" the public.
> > Banning cars, however, would have.
>
> But no one in the liberal mainstream is talking about banning guns as a
class.
Nonsense. One of the biggest anti-gun groups, and a major contributor to
Democrats, as the Coalition to Prevent Handgun Violence. Care to guess what
that group originally called itself?
> Sure, there are a few nutters out on the fringe,
The "few nutters" are in the mainstream of that group.
> but the Extreme Right Wing With
> Counter-Rotating Eyeballs and Screechy Voices has their share of nutters
as
> well.
But that's the difference. The extreme right nutters, at least those who
really warrant that description (as opposed to everyone who a liberal has
ever CALLED "The Extreme Right," i.e., all registered Republicans and many
registered Democrats), are on the fringe and do not set policy on a national
basis or even on a state level in most cases. When David Duke preteneded to
be a Republican and ran for Governor of Louisiana, the other President Bush
endorsed his liberal + Democrat + extremely corrupt opponent, Edwin
Edwards. When the Democrats start treating Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
that way, then we can talk equivalence.
> > > a) How ironic. It is the Christian Right that dislikes other religions
and
> > > seeks to supress their freedoms.
> > Evidence? Liberal rhetoric about the Christian Right (TM) is not
evidence.
>
> Well, their reaction to Bush's faith-based initiatives movement is
instructive;
> several Christian Right leaders (such as Jerry Falwell) expressed
opposition to
> the idea because other religions (that he doesn't approve of) would
qualify for
> funding.
I'd like to see the evidence of that. If it's true, then it only proves
that The Christian Right (TM) is not all that influential in the Bush
administration after all.
> > > Given that and also the fact that Hitler
> > > considered himself a Christian Palidan (Holy Warrior)
> > What the hell kind of "fact" is that?
>
> An inconvenient one from where you sit, I suspect.
From where I sit, it is neither inconvenient (I'm neither Xian, holy nor a
warrior), nor is it a fact (Hitler identified more with Nietzsche than with
anything arguably Xians, although it is true that many Xians, especially
Catholics, proved to be useful idiots for his cause). BTW, it IS a slightly
inconvenient fact for Nietzsche, but only slightly so, as Hitler didn't do a
very good job applying Nietzsche's philosophy, either.
Jeff Bishop
> > This is the case of a privilege vs. a constitutional right.
> > Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> > Ownership of guns is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
>
> Sure inorder to form WELL REGULATED militias.
> Who regullate the militias?
> THE GOVERNMENT
> Hope that clears things up for you.
Actually, it doesn't clear anything up. For one thing, it doesn't clear up
why the Second Amendment rights apply to "the people" rather than the
"well-regulated militia." For another, it doesn't tell us why on earth the
framers of the Constitution felt the need to include an amendment, cleverly
sandwiched into the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure that soldiers get to
carry guns (unless Congress wants to disarm them, too).
No, the only thing it clears up is the fact that you would rather explain
away an inconvenient right than accept the fact that freedom means freedom
for other people, not just you.
bb
"Jeff Bishop" <jwbi...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:j25H6.1723$hP4.4...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> "Marc" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:9cf88i$vuo$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > This is the case of a privilege vs. a constitutional right.
> > > Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> > > Ownership of guns is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
> >
> > Sure inorder to form WELL REGULATED militias.
> > Who regullate the militias?
> > THE GOVERNMENT
> > Hope that clears things up for you.
>
> Actually, it doesn't clear anything up. For one thing, it doesn't clear
up
> why the Second Amendment rights apply to "the people" rather than the
> "well-regulated militia."
Because the militia WAS the people. They needed a way to let private
citizens have guns yet allow the government the ability to regulate them. As
in any Joe Schmoe can't have a cannon, but they would want him to have a
musket so he could come all prepared to a battle. Plus that way the
government could afford to buy the big guns and start a navy. (actually
ended up stealing most cannons from the British) Got to remember back then,
it was a big deal if your militia unit even had shelter and food. The
government back then didn't have the cash to even supply such basic needs as
food for the troops--let alone individual weapons.
So one reason was so they could have a large enough army without breaking
the bank. Another is it was just something in there to really piss off the
English. Much of the constitution and Bill of Rights had things specifically
designed to go against everything British rule had outlawed or controlled.
Ron Thomas
Go read what they say about the right to keep and bear arms.
It may open your eyes.
>>> Jeff Bishop<jwbi...@mediaone.net> Sunday, April 29,
2001 9:33:35 PM >>>
"Marc" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9cf88i$vuo$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > This is the case of a privilege vs. a constitutional
right.
> > Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> > Ownership of guns is a constitutional right, not a
privilege.
>
> Sure inorder to form WELL REGULATED militias.
> Who regullate the militias?
> THE GOVERNMENT
> Hope that clears things up for you.
>Actually, it doesn't clear anything up. For one thing, it
doesn't clear up
>why the Second Amendment rights apply to "the people"
rather than the
."well-regulated militia." For another, it doesn't tell us
Steve Krulick
>
> You and steve convieniently left out the Federalsit Papers.
The Federalist Papers do not address the 2nd Amen or the BOR, as
they were written way earlier. Madison introduced his draft to
Congress in New York for a series of amendments to the Const in
June of 1789, after more than enough states had already ratified
the Const to put it into effect and get a Congress elected under
it.
If you want to read the relevant discussions and debates
regarding the 2nd Amen, you'd have to look toward material from
1789. True, some earlier material may be partly relevant,
particularly ratification debates over the Militia clauses of
the Const, but these will only tend to strengthen MY contention
that the 2nd Amen is a MILITIA Amendment designed to address
anti-Fed concerns over fed vs. state control of the Militias.
> Go read what they say about the right to keep and bear arms.
> It may open your eyes.
You are a maroon! Why don't you EVER present the specific
evidence you imply is hiding there, as if it somehow
automatically supports your claims without having to be hauled
out?
I'm pretty familiar with the material of the period, and how the
language was used by Madison, Adams, and Hamilton. Why don't YOU
tell us what THEY say about the right to keep and bear arms,
since YOU brought it up?
IF YOU think there is something in the Federalist Papers that
has a bearing on the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amen, how
about presenting it here! I'll be happy to show you how you are
WRONG in any claims you're sure to make, based on incorrect
assumptions and obvious misreadings.
By the way, could you adjust your news program to not create
such narrow lines that crunch the lines of previous posters into
harder-to-read segments?
-------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bishop
news:3AEE4261...@ulster.net...
> Ron Thomas wrote:
> >
> > You and steve convieniently left out the Federalsit Papers.
> You are a maroon! Why don't you EVER present the specific
> evidence you imply is hiding there, as if it somehow
> automatically supports your claims without having to be hauled
> out?
As for me, I guess I'm too much of a "maroon" to understand the "Federalsit"
Papers. Spelling flames aside, now that the substance of the debate has
shifted to "the Federalist Papers tell us how to interpret an amendment that
hadn't even been written yet" vs. "the framers of the Constitution drafted
the Second Amendment because they were too stupid to realize that soldiers
would be allowed to carry guns without it," I think this is my cue to bow
out.
Ron Thomas
Your problem is that you think you know everything.
You only find facts and figures that support YOUR claims,
but you leave everything that opposes you out. Now you have
resorted to calling me names. Boy, that sure is big of you.
I look at both sides of the issue, and I look at facts that
support me and facts that don't support me, and if the facts
show me wrong, I change my position. That seems something
that you find too hard to do. You called me a liar (maybe
it was clavius) but I 'm sure you would agree with him if it
was him. My degree in psycholody was questioned, my motives
were questioned. I look for the truth, what exactly are you
after? If you want to discuss the facts here and not some
"feelings about the facts" Like were presented in the
condom discussion. When you are ready to talk about the
facts without all of the childish name calling like gary
lantz, then you let me know, otherwise I am done with you.
You are right, I am not going to post my findings about the
condoms, because you don't want to know the truth, you want
to be able to call people names and try to discredit them.
I admit that I am not the greatest writer, but verbally I
can hold my own. Writing is a weakness that I have. I am
not here to convince you. You are already convinced that
all republicans are stupid. That's too bad for you. I have
a lot of GOOD friends that are democrats. We hve very good
discussions, but we don't have to call each other names.
They have shown me some points of view that I had not
considered before, and I feel like I am a better person for
our discussions. Not the same with you. I feel that you are
here to deride and degrade. It is typical of the liberal
mindset in this newsgroup. Myers and the other rebublicans
post facts and usually keep thier cool and don't resort to
names UNLESS it is the truth. Unlike the likes of Lantz et.
al. who cannot do anything BUT call names. Goodbye. Que
dios te bendiga. Que te vaya bien. Ojala emieces a usar tu
cabeza y la mente que tal vez esta adentro de tu cabeza.
Ahora se que tu no la usas como debes. Vaya y pon tu cabeza
en tu cola!!!!!
>>> Steve Krulick<kry...@ulster.net> Monday, April 30, 2001
10:58:26 PM >>>
Clave
news:9cmpt6$1im0$1...@news.aros.net...
<...>
> I look at both sides of the issue, and I look at facts that
> support me and facts that don't support me, and if the facts
> show me wrong, I change my position.
BWWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahaaaaaaa!!!
You crack me up, Ron.
Jim
Gary Lantz
Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:a%CH6.473$oy1.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Ron Thomas is some kind of dimwit. Only the true dimwits complain about
name calling because they are sensitive to the truth. You don't find
intelligent people complaining about name calling because it doesn't stick
in the light of truth. But the dimwits know that it will stick with them so
they complain about it and they are the only ones that are called names for
long.
Ron Thomas
Clave
And do exactly what, Ron?
Jim
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Tuesday, May 01, 2001
3:25:04 PM >>>
I posted that just to see how a liberal would react.
Bawaaaawaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Get a sense of humor!!!!!
Jim
Clave
<...>
> > >Ron Thomas is some kind of dimwit. Only the true
> dimwits
> > complain about
> > >name calling because they are sensitive to the truth.
> You
> > don't find
> > >intelligent people complaining about name calling
> because
> > it doesn't stick
> > >in the light of truth. But the dimwits know that it
> will
> > stick with them so
> > >they complain about it and they are the only ones that
> are
> > called names for
> > >long.
> >
> >
> > I'm going to find you!!!
>
>
> >And do exactly what, Ron?
>
> I posted that just to see how a liberal would react.
> Bawaaaawaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaaaaa.
> Get a sense of humor!!!!!
The fact that I interact with you at all is ample proof that there's nothing
wrong with my sense of humor.
You're just not funny, that's all.
How old *are* you, anyway? 12? What's next from you? Poop jokes?
Jim
Ron Thomas
>>> Clave<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> Tuesday, May 01, 2001
4:21:45 PM >>>
<...>
>Jim
Ooooh, and that was funny too. Since I told you that I had
a degree from a university, if I was only 12, that would
make me a pretty smart 12 year old. I don't think I need to
tell poop jokes in this newsgroups since ALL of the post by
people like you are filled with it.
Clave
<...>
> Ooooh, and that was funny too. Since I told you that I had
> a degree from a university, if I was only 12, that would
> make me a pretty smart 12 year old...
No, you'd be dim for any age, Ron.
And anyway, I think you're fulla shit about that "degree." Nobody as
intellectually lazy as you are could possibly string four years of passing
grades together at any reputable university.
OK, maybe it's possible, but that would mean that since then you've had either
a severe head trauma or a chronic paint-huffing habit.
So where's your "degree" from, Ron? Just to pre-empt your first attempt to
sidestep, mine's a BS in Computer Science from the University of Minnesota
Institute of Technology (Minneapolis, 1987).
Jim
Steve Krulick
>
> Steve,
> Your problem is that you think you know everything.
Did I ever say that? Did I even imply that? Why the ad hominem
side-step? Why not address the issues?
Actually, I DO know quite a lot about quite a lot, which comes
from years of reading, study, and experience. When I don't know
something, I know how to look up reference material quickly and
find out what I need to know. You seem to have a hard time doing
simple research for simple info, which would explain why you
spend most of your time spouting fact-free and unsubstantiated
opinion.
> You only find facts and figures that support YOUR claims,
> but you leave everything that opposes you out.
Not necessarily, but, hey, when I makes a case, why wouldn't I
present, in the best package, the material that supports what
I've claimed? The difference is that ALL the material I present
is accurate and true, and not, as others are likely to do,
snipped and paraphrased to say other than what they CAN bear. I
certainly have no intention of presenting the inaccurate and
irrelevant material that opposes what I claim; IF there WERE
material that opposes what I claimed, and it held up to
scrutiny, THEN I would change MY opinion to include that NEW
data. YOU haven't presented anything of that sort to make me
reconsider ANYTHING.
> Now you have
> resorted to calling me names. Boy, that sure is big of you.
And which NAMES (plural) would THAT be? You may recall, in your
very FIRST response to me, on another thread, you called me an
idiot, without any name-calling or provocation on my part;
here's your initial foray, and my responses:
-------------------------
> Hey, idiot,
Are you now accusing me of having an IQ of less than 50? Based
on what evidence? The self-evident words I've written would seem
to disparage and deflate THAT claim. Is name-calling all you
have left in your pitiful arsenal? No debate points for you
there, pal...
> but unlike you idiots,
... you feel that name-calling is a substitute for logic and
proof. Yeah, I sense that.
-------------------------
So, your high horse about name-calling comes a little late and
rather
lame.
> I look at both sides of the issue, and I look at facts that
> support me and facts that don't support me, and if the facts
> show me wrong, I change my position.
Yeah, right. But you seem to discard the facts you don't like
out of hand, with lame excuses that, because you call the
sources "liberal" or the like, you don't have to accept them as
facts.
> That seems something that you find too hard to do.
Based on what? When did I fail to change a position when the
newer facts warranted it? Do you always make things up like
that?
> You called me a liar (maybe it was clavius)
Great work, Ron! You're not even sure who said what, but you
make a claim that I called you a liar, but maybe it wasn't me
after all! Why don't you just do the simple research FIRST, to
review what I DID say, before shooting off like that!
> but I 'm sure you would agree with him if it
> was him.
You're sure?! Now you're putting words I DIDN'T SAY in my mouth
because YOU'RE NOT SURE if I even DID say them, so to cover
yourself, you assume I WOULD agree with Jim, without any
evidence to that effect!
Why not go back and see IF I called you a liar! Wouldn't that be
simple and final? Will you apologize if you find nothing?
> My degree in psycholody was questioned,
Not by me. As if I cared that you studied "psycholody" [sic]!
> my motives were questioned.
Not by me. Getting a bit paranoid now, I see.
> I look for the truth, what exactly are you
> after?
We're still waiting for you to support your unsubstantiated
opinions.
> If you want to discuss the facts here and not some
> "feelings about the facts"
You've presented NO facts to date, so what am I supposed to
discuss? I presented some facts about the BOR vis-a-vis the Fed
Papers, and challenged you to show WHERE in the FP they mention
the right to keep and bear arms:
"Why don't YOU tell us what THEY say about the right to keep and
bear arms, since YOU brought it up?"
"IF YOU think there is something in the Federalist Papers that
has a bearing on the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amen, how
about presenting it here!"
We're still waiting for something!
> Like were presented in the
> condom discussion. When you are ready to talk about the
> facts without all of the childish name calling like gary
> lantz, then you let me know, otherwise I am done with you.
You haven't begun to "talk about the facts" YET! Or PRESENT any
facts!
"All the childish name calling"? As I said, YOU began your FIRST
reply to me by calling me an idiot, unprovoked. What "ALL"
name-calling have I done? I believe the extent of it was the
single use of the expression: "What a maroon!" That mild
expression of exasperation and pity is credited to Bugs Bunny,
going back to 1940s Warner Bros. cartoons, for that's what you
appear to be, a cartoon character, somewhat like Yosemite Sam!
> You are right, I am not going to post my findings about the
> condoms, because you don't want to know the truth, you want
> to be able to call people names and try to discredit them.
HO, HO, HO!
Oh, I'd like to know the truth, but I have a feeling YOU don't
have it because you couldn't find ANY evidence to support your
claims, and that's why you're looking for any excuse to avoid
being proven to be so deficient!
I have no interest in calling people names, but when I'm called
a name FIRST, without provocation, I have no obligation to let
it slide. To me, you're just another coprophagous malefactor, in
over his head!
And I don't set out to discredit people, but when they set
themselves up for a fall by making unsubstantiated claims and
then trying to discredit OTHER people who DO present material,
they make too tempting a target.
> I admit that I am not the greatest writer, but verbally I
> can hold my own.
Who cares? What does THAT have to do with your continued
inability to deal with the issue at hand?
> Writing is a weakness that I have.
In spades.
> I am not here to convince you.
Then why bother posting? Why bring up unsubstantiated claims you
have NO intention of backing up with evidence? Why are you
wasting our time?
> You are already convinced that all republicans are stupid.
When did I ever say THAT? Where did THAT come from? Since when
were we even DISCUSSING Republicans?
And how do you know what I am convinced of? There you go making
things up again!
It so happens that I would not subscribe to a statement
couched in such absolute terms as "all republicans." I know
smart republicans, not so smart republicans, and middling
republicans. What difference does THAT make to THIS discussion?
> That's too bad for you.
Now you're making a judgment about me based on the previous
false assumption, O slinger of straw!
> I have
> a lot of GOOD friends that are democrats.
Who cares? Besides, that's your unsubstantiated claim! Can you
PROVE they are GOOD friends?
> We hve very good
> discussions, but we don't have to call each other names.
I repeat; YOU called me an idiot in your FIRST reply to me,
unprovoked. So this whining about name-calling is not convincing
anyone that you've been traumatized and abused. Suck it up, man!
This is the Internet; if you can't take it, may I suggest you
turn off the computer and watch some Barney videos!
> They have shown me some points of view that I had not
> considered before, and I feel like I am a better person for
> our discussions.
Isn't that special!
> Not the same with you. I feel that you are
> here to deride and degrade.
No, I was merely pointing out that YOU hadn't presented facts to
back up your claim, and that you hadn't refuted the evidence
others had presented simply because you dismissed them as
"liberal" (The AMA, that great "liberal" bastion!). We are STILL
waiting for you to back up your claims!
> It is typical of the liberal mindset in this newsgroup.
Typical? Mindset? Liberal? You DO go on with fact-free
unsubstantiated claims, don't you? Besides, who says I'm a
liberal? What is YOUR definition?
> Myers and the other rebublicans
> post facts and usually keep thier cool and don't resort to
> names UNLESS it is the truth.
We were talking about YOU! What does anyone else's supposed
behavior have to do with it? Besides, THEY also post
unsubstantiated opinions by the bushel, and employ name-calling,
and there is plentiful lack of truth to go around.
> Unlike the likes of Lantz et.
> al. who cannot do anything BUT call names.
Who cares about him. We were talking about YOUR failure to
produce support for the unsubstantiated claims you make.
> Goodbye. Que
> dios te bendiga. Que te vaya bien. Ojala emieces a usar tu
> cabeza y la mente que tal vez esta adentro de tu cabeza.
> Ahora se que tu no la usas como debes. Vaya y pon tu cabeza
> en tu cola!!!!!
What a pathetic loser! You saved me the trouble of killfiling
your sorry ass.
Steve Krulick
Ron, if you spent less time side-stepping the various issues on
these threads by focussing on "personalities" and ad hominems,
and more time looking up supporting evidence for you
unsubstantiated opinions, you might have been able to come up
with something informative by now. You are a total waste of time
and electrons!
Alex Chaihorsky
> Marc wrote:
> >
> > "Alex Chaihorsky" <alex_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9cf6ep$m...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > >
> > > "Marc" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9cdfv1$s35$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > So easy to refute - but what the hell.
> > > >
> > > > "Ryan O'Rielley" <srd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:UHmG6.394$7V4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > b) Liberals have no agenda to "disarm" the public. Registering and
> > > > regulating cars has not "discarred" the public.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the case of a privilege vs. a constitutional right.
> > > Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> > > Ownership of guns is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
> >
> > Sure inorder to form WELL REGULATED militias.
> > Who regullate the militias?
> > THE GOVERNMENT
> > Hope that clears things up for you.
-- snipped about 30 paragraphs of legalese tap-dancing --
It was clear from the beginning.
""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
One has to be a complete cretin to assume that its "The right of the Army
soldier to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
I need one quote to support my claim.
You need twenty+ paragraphs of legalese to muddy the water.
Another hired gun lawyer will use twenty more paragraphs to turn it yet
another way around.
The truth remains - most of the people who own guns interpret The Second the
easy and simple way. You will learn that when you will attempt to take that
right away.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Alex Chaihorsky
"tewins" <tew...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:oQsG6.13100$482....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> There's this word 'totalitarian' we use to describe societies who brook no
> dissent in any form, and maintain control through violence and terror.
> That word is 'totalitarian' - a term no genuine liberal or conservative
> would qualify for. (or social democrat, democratic socialist either)
Of
> course, because regimes allow a modest (ineffective) level of dissent at
> home does not mean they do not encourage totalitarian regimes overseas to
> suit their own interests - try the history of US foreign policy in Central
> America , for instance. This is where the real HYPOCRICY sets in. To be
> quite frank, however, it was the German Conservative parties who propelled
> Hitler into power, while in the USSR social democrats, liberals, and
> democratic socialists faced Terror: labour camps or death. So if we're
going
> to take our lead from history, history's being pretty unambiguous.......
Stalin's Terror was first and foremost directed against simple folks who did
not wanted to become agrarian and industrial slaves. They died by millions.
In 1936-39 the Terror reached the top and that is when the world woke up.
What social democrats? What democratic socialists? What liberals? They never
even used these words.
Lenin got rid of Kadets - Constitutional Democrats, SRs (Social
Revolutionaries), Mensheviks (centrist Communists), etc.
Stalin eliminated more members of his own party (Bolsheviks) that anyone
else. First he got rif of Trotsists - extreme left wing of Communists, (yes,
that IS possible!) The most accurate statement would be that Stalin killed
two generations of Communists, because by the time he became a real power,
there was no one else left but Commies on the political arena.
Please, tell us how German Conservatives "propelled" Hitler to power?
The elections were divided between Communists, Nazis and SocDems. Communists
refused to join SocDems to create coalition government and Hitler won
Chancellorship because Nazis got bigger vote than any single party.
If not - please, tell us how.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Steve Krulick
>
> "Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
> news:3AEB62E7...@ulster.net...
> > Marc wrote:
> > >
> > > "Alex Chaihorsky" <alex_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9cf6ep$m...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Marc" <msylv...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9cdfv1$s35$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > > So easy to refute - but what the hell.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ryan O'Rielley" <srd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:UHmG6.394$7V4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > > b) Liberals have no agenda to "disarm" the public. Registering and
> > > > > regulating cars has not "discarred" the public.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is the case of a privilege vs. a constitutional right.
> > > > Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> > > > Ownership of guns is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
> > >
> > > Sure inorder to form WELL REGULATED militias.
> > > Who regullate the militias?
> > > THE GOVERNMENT
> > > Hope that clears things up for you.
>
> -- snipped about 30 paragraphs of legalese tap-dancing --
That may be the lamest response I've ever seen to historical
evidence, linguistic analysis, and court rulings that address
the issue at hand! Calling it "legalese tap-dancing" is a mere
unsubstantiated opinion side-step that doesn't deal with a
SINGLE one of the many points I made. It is clear you lack the
intellectual firepower and intestinal fortitude to actually DEAL
with the evidence presented, so instead of attempting to refute
or even address ANY of what I said, you dismiss it cavalierly
with a sweep of the hand.
I suppose if you were on trial for your life, and the prosecutor
had just concluded his 30-paragraph opening remarks damning you
with specific evidence that shows you had the means, motive, and
opportunity to commit the deed, plus there are witnesses and DNA
samples that place you there, and, finally there's a video of
you with the smoking gun in your hand, and YOUR defense attorney
merely said, "Your honor, the prosecutor has wasted our time
with 30 paragraphs of legalese tap-dancing; the defense rests!"
you'd want to strangle him then and there!
Sorry, Sparky, you get NO debate points for this avoidance of
the evidence. Here, try again:
"privilege" and "right" interchangeably when referring to the
same exact item.
Key points:
the Court¹s conclusion that the Fifth Amendment privilege,
rather than the Due Process Clause, governed stationhouse
confessions as a 'trompe l'oeil'). Having extended the
privilege into the ..."
Scalia says "privilege" and he's talking about constitutional
rights.
> It was clear from the beginning.
> ""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
AND just what happened to the first half of the ENTIRE
amendment? You seem to make believe it isn't there! There is NO
surplusage in the Constitution, and the courts have been
consistent in reading it that way:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of such forces [the well regulated
Militia armed, organized, and disciplined by the Congress, as
stated in the previous paragraph] the declaration and guarantee
of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and
applied with that end in view..." (US v. Miller, SCOTUS, 1939)
> One has to be a complete cretin to assume that its "The right of the Army
> soldier to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
You must be that cretin then, since nobody has made that
assumption that that's what's being implied except YOU in your
lame strawman.
The 2nd Amen does NOT talk about "the Army solider" but about
the "citizen-soldiers" who make up the state militias. The Army
is not addressed in the 2nd Amen, but in the clauses about the
power of the Congress to raise an Army, something completely
different. Either you are being disingenuous, or have severe
comprehension problems.
> I need one quote to support my claim.
And that ONE quote is...? Oh, yeah, "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
First, you leave off the entire first half, which puts it into
historical and legal context and perspective; then you leave out
the comma between arms and shall, which makes it impossible to
be a sentence on its own:
The functional sentence IS and ALWAYS WAS "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed." In its entirety.
Because there ARE three commas, four clauses/phrases, it could
just as clearly be written:
"A well regulated militia, ... , shall not be infringed."
Further to this grammatical analysis, from
http://www.potomac-inc.org/yass.html:
At the same time the congressional drafters switched the order
of the clauses, they inserted two unusual commas that further
emphasize the framers' intention to prevent federal interference
with the militia. Under ordinary usage, the first and third
commas in the Amendment are unnecessary. If these commas had not
been inserted, it would be possible to understand the Well
Regulated Militia Clause as simply explaining the rationale for
the Bear Arms Clause (the Amendment would then read: "A well
regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."). But the commas are in fact in the text proposed
by Congress and ratified by the states, and they prevent this
reading. The first unusual comma — between "Militia" and "being"
— forces the reader to search for a verb for which "Militia" is
the subject. That verb does not appear until "shall not be
infringed" near the end of the Amendment.
The second unusual comma — between "Arms" and "shall" — sets off
the verb phrase "shall not be infringed" from the preceding
language; it suggests that the subject for this verb phrase is
not simply "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The
grammatical effect of these two unusual commas is to link "A
well regulated Militia" to "shall not be infringed" to
emphasize, in other words, that the goal of the Amendment is to
protect the militia against federal interference. The
Constitution was drafted with great care, and (unlike much legal
writing from the Founding period) its use of punctuation
generally conforms to modern conventions, suggesting that the
commas in the Second Amendment are not haphazard but rather
deserve scrupulous attention.
Here's another interpretation:
-------
http://patriot.net/~tlj/xplaindp.htm --
The Second Amendment is split by commas into four phrases, the
last of which is a verbal phrase starting with the verb "shall":
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed."
The first two phrases are related to each other. The fact that
the third phrase is separated from the verbal phrase by a comma
indicates that the verbal phrase has more than the third phrase
as its subject. The abbreviated grammatical construction
actually renders the meaning of the Second Amendment as:
"Neither a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, nor the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall be infringed."
> You need twenty+ paragraphs of legalese to muddy the water.
It's called overwhelming evidence (and an attempt to educate
your ignorant ass), and YOU address and refute NONE of it!
Settled case law from the SCOTUS and the Appellate Courts are
more than mere "legalese": they are the LAW OF THE LAND! Just
because YOU wish to ignore it doesn't make it less so!
> Another hired gun lawyer will use twenty more paragraphs to turn it yet
> another way around.
Since I doubt you're going to actually HIRE a lawyer to do it,
why don't YOU try to show where my logic is faulty, or my facts
are wrong, or my cites are not valid.
> The truth remains - most of the people who own guns interpret The Second the
> easy and simple way.
And they would be as wrong as you, letting their wishes replace
facts. This is not a matter where polls decide the facts and the
law; people believe lot's of dumb things, and that doesn't
change the facts:
-- 64% of Americans believe that the Constitution establishes
English as the national language.
-- 49% believe the President has the power to suspend that
Constitution.
-- "nearly half" believe the Constitution contains the phrase
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need."
-- 70% believe the Constitution states "all men are created
equal."
-- 23% of survey respondents know the correct number of Supreme
Court Justices.
-- 51% believe the right to privacy is stated explicitly in
Constitution.
-- two-thirds of college seniors believe the concluding lines of
Lincoln's Gettysburg address are part of the Constitution.
H.L. Mencken said, "To every complex problem, there's a solution
that's simple, straightforward... and wrong."
Why don't YOU start with one easy one: What did Madison, the
state constitutions, and Judge Green MEAN by "bearing arms" in
these cites:
The best evidence for the Second Amendment meaning of "bear
arms" is in the original draft of the Amendment proposed in the
First Congress by James Madison: "The right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and
well regulated militia being the best security of a free
country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms,
shall be compelled to render military service in person."
In the last clause of this version (the conscientious
objector provision), Madison clearly used the phrase "bearing
arms" to refer solely to using weapons as part of military
service usage. It is implausible to contend that virtually the
same phrase "bear arms" should have a different, much broader
meaning elsewhere in the very same sentence. (David Yassky)
Madison's use of the phrase "bear arms" to refer to military
activities is echoed in other contemporary usages; these usages
were standard at the time the Second Amendment was adopted:
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784: "No person who is
conscientiously scrupulous about the lawfulness of bearing arms,
shall be compelled thereto, provided he will pay an equivalent."
Constitutional amendment proposed by Rhode Island's 1790
ratifying convention: "That the people have a right to keep and
bear arms; ... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing
arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to
employ another to bear arms in his stead."
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no
citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided
he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we
know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we
must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th
section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A
man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his
rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said
of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol
concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
> You will learn that when you will attempt to take that
> right away.
Macho posturing and chest-thumping! Get a clue... the 2nd Amen
doesn't address a right to "own guns" independent of citizen
service in the state militias. THAT right, if it exists, is a
matter for state and local authorities, using their police
powers for public order and safety.
Alex Chaihorsky
Than we would have a USENET discussion, in which I be willing to
participate.
What we have here is you presenting your client (ideology can be a client
too) and doing one-side court presentation.
The matter is not in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion,
where you arguments mean nothing.
When and if the matter would be in a court of law or constitutional court,
there would be other lawyers, not less crafty than you, presenting the other
side with no less vigor and one-sidedness that you did. And the jury will
make their minds. The fact that jury always side one way or another means
that the other side always lose, making all their crafty lawyers diatribes,
arguments, acting, etc. laughable useless and ridiculous attempt to sway the
world their own way.
That is why we do not think of legal profession as honorable profession any
more. The only exclusion I make is for ex-military lawyers who I have an
honor to have in my company.
That is why legal arguments have power only in the courts, where they
belong, as boxing belong on the boxing ring and mud wrestling in appropriate
concerns and nowhere else.
In the meantime more and more Americans realize that gun ownership is their
constitutional right and take advantage of laws and regulations that allow
them to own and bear guns.
More and more states allow CCW and more and more are "must issue".
I guess they have not read your argument yet, and as soon as they do they
will ban.
Guns are not on trial, so you analogy of me being on trial is meaningless.
If you are questioning my intellectual abilities, my MENSA membership number
is 1135767, what is yours?
I can also supply you with my US patent numbers in immunology, mathematical
genetics and virology:
PAT. NO. Title
1 6,015,566 Peptide composition generating an immune response against
herpes virus
2 5,837,262 Pharmaceutical compositions against several herpes virus
infections and/or atherosclerotic plaque
3 5,760,175 Peptide to detect several herpes virus infections
5 5,534,258 Polypeptides to prevent atherosclerotic plaque
Check them out at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/
I would be very interested in your intellectual record, as you called me
"ignorant ass", so I know that I just deal with a childish tantrum-throwing
lawyer (that I can do), and not an intellectual dwarf (usually the kind of
people who start questioning other people's intellectual abilities), which
would be a waste of my time.
Regards,
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
"Steve Krulick" <kry...@ulster.net> wrote in message
news:3AF30A6B...@ulster.net...
> own sake - or for any purpose desired by the owner - the
> ratification debates would be full of references to the virtues
> of arms ownership, or to frontier-dwellers' need to protect
> themselves, or to rural Americans' need to hunt game.
>
> That is simply not the case. The Anti-Federalists offered no
> purpose for the Second Amendment other than the perceived danger
> of standing armies. Jonathan Elliot's records of the debates in
> the ratifying conventions contain at least 80 pages of
> discussion concerning standing armies and the militia, 1
> Elliot's Debates, supra, at 88, 371-72; 2 Id. at 96-99, 406,
> 520-522, 531, 536-37, 3 Id. at 378-94, 400-03, 405-31, 440-41; 4
> Id. at 97-100, 214-15, 260-62; 5 Id. at 127, 440, 443-44, 451,
> 464-67, 480, and not a single reference to the need to bear arms
> for any purpose other than militia service. Similarly, the index
> to Herbert Storing's The Complete Anti-Federalist - the most
> comprehensive collection of Anti-Federalist writings - lists 76
> reading. The first unusual comma - between "Militia" and "being"
> - forces the reader to search for a verb for which "Militia" is
> the subject. That verb does not appear until "shall not be
> infringed" near the end of the Amendment.
>
> The second unusual comma - between "Arms" and "shall" - sets off
Steve Krulick
>
> I would accept your diatribe if you would present both sides.
Calling my reasoned and well-supported exposition a "diatribe"
doesn't make it one.
Nor am *I* obligated to make YOUR argument for you! How long
have you been on USENET? How many people here EVER present the
"liberal" and "conservative" "sides" of an issue, as if they
were Jim Lehrer hosting a PBS documentary?
Besides, I don't "buy" the "other side's" validity; so to me,
there is MY correct and supported side, and the opinions and
distortions of hoplophile apologists who CAN'T support their
side with history, language, logic, or the law.
If YOU think there IS a valid argument to make that refutes my
argument, do it here, line by line. Show me where I am wrong or
illogical, and do so by presenting facts and cites in context
that can be verified. Otherwise, you are STILL doing nothing
more than a side-step dance around the issue, by sending up a
flurry of irrelevant and unsubstantiated opinion.
> Than we would have a USENET discussion, in which I be willing to
> participate.
No, slacker... if *I* presented BOTH sides, YOU wouldn't be
needed to make it a discussion! What would YOU contribute if *I*
spoke for everyone? Did you ever see a political debate where
THAT happened?
No, Sparky, *I* present MY side as best I can, with supportive
evidence, and YOU respond with YOUR side. THEN we would have a
USENET discussion! Your unwillingness "to participate" by not
addressing ANY of my points shows the lack of evidence you have,
or your lack of ability to make a defense.
> What we have here is you presenting your client (ideology can be a client
> too) and doing one-side court presentation.
Your point being?
NOW, YOU present the OTHER side, and we can get that discussion
going!
Why should *I* do ALL the work?!!!
So far, YOU'VE contributed NOTHING factual or supportive. YOUR
client is going to hang!
> The matter is not in the court of law, but in the court of public opinion,
> where you arguments mean nothing.
Oh? Since the only arguments made here so far are MINE, your
LACK of ANY arguments means even less. Who do you think YOU'VE
convinced with your fact-free side-step?
Besides, much of my argument WAS based on the court of law, and
what the LAW says is the meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amen.
Since these cases haven't been overturned, and since the SCOTUS
and ALL Appellate circuits have been consistently agreeing on
this point for over 60 years, YOUR opinions mean nothing if they
are contrary to judicial rulings and interpretations. Or don't
you hold with Article III of the Const and the role of the
judiciary?
Take your wrong opinions up to the SCOTUS and see where it gets
you!
> When and if the matter would be in a court of law or constitutional court,
And it has been. And the courts have been consistent to the
rulings I've posted; no gun-related legislation has been
overturned or shown to be unconstitutional in federal court on
2nd Amen grounds and has been sustained as such. Ignore the
courts' rulings at your own peril!
> there would be other lawyers, not less crafty than you, presenting the other
> side with no less vigor and one-sidedness that you did.
And they ALWAYS lose! Hell, the NRA doesn't even fight cases on
2nd Amen grounds any more! Nor have they EVER won a 2nd Amen
argument in court, and those who have entered as their defense
the NRA's positions have ALWAYS lost in Appellate and SCOTUS 2nd
Amen cases!
> And the jury will make their minds.
Are you THAT ignorant of how civil trials arguing constitutional
issues work? There's NO jury in Appellate and SCOTUS cases! The
judges and justices decide the case on LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL
grounds, stare decisis and all, not on how some Perry Mason
sways emotions of a jury.
> The fact that jury always side one way or another means
> that the other side always lose, making all their crafty lawyers diatribes,
> arguments, acting, etc. laughable useless and ridiculous attempt to sway the
> world their own way.
What does this fact-free and irrelevant side-step have to do
with anything, since juries are not involved in these cases? Why
didn't you just deal with the evidence *I* presented?
> That is why we do not think of legal profession as honorable profession any
> more.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> The only exclusion I make is for ex-military lawyers who I have an
> honor to have in my company.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> That is why legal arguments have power only in the courts, where they
> belong, as boxing belong on the boxing ring and mud wrestling in appropriate
> concerns and nowhere else.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> In the meantime more and more Americans realize that gun ownership is their
> constitutional right and take advantage of laws and regulations that allow
> them to own and bear guns.
No, they don't realize something IF that something isn't true;
they are swallowing a bunch of lies from the NRA and other
hoplophile apologists.
Let's get back to the issue: you are claiming that gun ownership
is a constitutional right... prove it!
Your mere say-so is NOT sufficient! I have presented evidence
that says you are wrong, and you haven't refuted it.
And "own and bear guns" is NOT what the Const means by "keep and
bear arms" as I've shown, but which you ignore. Why didn't you
answer my challenge re Madison et al?
> More and more states allow CCW and more and more are "must issue".
Since states are the entities that can make those
determinations; it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amen, which
has NEVER been incorporated to apply to the states.
> I guess they have not read your argument yet,
AND neither have YOU apparently, since my argument about what
the 2nd Amen means has nothing to do with what states and
localities allow or prohibit based on their own police powers
and public order and safety considerations. Apples and oranges.
> and as soon as they do they
> will ban.
The point of my argument is to remove emotion and erroneous
assumptions from how decisions are made. Laws and regulations
should be decided on their merit, not on false understanding of
what the constitution does or doesn't permit.
> Guns are not on trial, so you analogy of me being on trial is meaningless.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
Nope. My analogy wasn't about guns being on trial, but that your
response was as lame and useless as if a defense attorney had
done as little as you to respond to a damning indictment by the
prosecution in which your life hung in the balance; nobody would
accept or retain a defense attorney who had done so little to
mount a defense!
Likewise, to my comprehensive and fact-based argument, all YOU
could do was sneer "legalese tap-dancing." THAT'S supposed to be
a convincing response? Would a high-school debater be allowed to
get away with such a lame defense?
> If you are questioning my intellectual abilities, my MENSA membership number
> is 1135767, what is yours?
Irrelevant side-step. Why not deal with what I presented?
You could be Einstein for all the good it has done in building
your case, which is nothing.
> I can also supply you with my US patent numbers in immunology, mathematical
> genetics and virology:
Irrelevant side-step. Why not deal with what I presented?
> PAT. NO. Title
> 1 6,015,566 Peptide composition generating an immune response against
> herpes virus
> 2 5,837,262 Pharmaceutical compositions against several herpes virus
> infections and/or atherosclerotic plaque
> 3 5,760,175 Peptide to detect several herpes virus infections
> 5 5,534,258 Polypeptides to prevent atherosclerotic plaque
And I could present my US patent numbers for solar energy
devices, but so what? How does THAT address the issue at hand,
and YOUR refusal to deal with IT? No debate points for you
there, O side-stepper!
> Check them out at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/
Will it explain what Madison meant when he used the term
"bearing arms"? No? Then why should I bother?
> I would be very interested in your intellectual record, as you called me
> "ignorant ass",
I didn't call you "ignorant ass" OR AN ignorant ass; I said that
my presentation of this overwhelming and fact-based evidence was
to "educate YOUR ignorant ass." It seems reading comprehension
is NOT your strong suit, as your claim about the "Army
soldier"'s right to keep and bear arms demonstrated. On THIS
material, you are clearly ignorant of the facts and the law and
what the constitution says.
> so I know that I just deal with a childish tantrum-throwing
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
I have thrown no tantrums, and have tried to keep this on a fact
and logic-based level.
> lawyer (that I can do), and not an intellectual dwarf (usually the kind of
> people who start questioning other people's intellectual abilities), which
> would be a waste of my time.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
All this irrelevant meandering by you is wasting everyone's
time; you haven't given ONE piece of factual or logical evidence
yet to refute anything I've said.
The argument remains below; for the THIRD time, why not try
again to address IT!
--
Alex Chaihorsky
>Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
>what I presented?
In my opinion these arguments are absolutely irrelevant in this context.
Legal profession has only one special priviledge - to represent others who
choose not to represent themselves. Only in these situations your wording
battles have any meanings to the world. Engaging in this exchange outside
that context is as sensless as arguing military strategy using chess
language.
You developed a language of legal argument and you want me to argue this
matter using the rules of your profession, which I find no need for.
Why should I play your game, when I do not need to play any?
The words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed" do not in my opinion, need to be interpreted. They are simply
self-evident.
You may win in court using your arguments, hell you may even convince the
Supreme Court. That will not change anything for me. I will just make a
decision that the government is leaning toward tyranny and that the
Constitution need protection. And will seek others who think the same way.
Like Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership www.jpfo.com
Why?
My people was disarmed once already. The result - shameful slavery,
dehumanization and death in concentartion camps.
I lived most of my life in Russia, where Commies disarmed everybody and was
running the biggest slave enterprise in the history of civilization. What is
a theory and intellectual excersize for you is a matter of honor and
correcting the mistakes of my forfathers for me.
Again - you may or may not win in court - irrelevant. If you lose, you lose.
If you win - you and your side will be met with armed, deadly defence of the
average people of this country and we will have another Civil war.
Your arguments are clever and crafty. You leave in a legal world where both
sides paint every case as black and white. And the jury chooses. Effectively
that paints the whole world as black and white and the society accept that
simplification because basically the question guilty-non-guilty is a black
and white question.
When this mentality creeps into the complex world of real and the reality of
the social landscape, it creates laughable consequencies.
The last two or three decaded were decades of high influence of legal over
civil approaches in Western world. The results are terrible. Doctors are
afraid to heal, police is afraid to protect, army is afraid to fight, kids
cannot read, big money parked off-shore, people marry with prenaps, children
are public property (Trotsky would love this). You think it is good and
normal, I do not.
Now, for a long time opinions of people like me didn't matter. The tide is
flat now and it will start turning in about 3-5 years. And not becasue I
want so - because your collegues never had smarts to slow down. The error of
all enslavers - no sense of balance. You over-pushed the pendulum and its
coming back.
I admire your passion and commitment. It is an honor to have a decent
adversary. If you can defend the task of disarming us as self-less as we are
prepared to defend ourselves, we will have serious fun killing each other.
Looking forward.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Gary Lantz
Nice post Alex.
>
>
>
Mathew
Were not the Nazi's conservatives?
>
>
> Alex Chaihorsky
> Reno, NV
>
>
>
>
Steve Krulick
>
> You repeated many times:
> >Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
> >what I presented?
Because YOU kept side-stepping the previous issues of the thread
with irrelevant side-steps... as you are STILL doing. YOU did
not address a single fact or logical argument I presented.
> In my opinion these arguments are absolutely irrelevant in this context.
YOUR opinion in this matter is unsubstantiated and irrelevant.
Don't you even remember what was the claim that led to my
detailed reply?:
> > This is the case of a privilege vs. a constitutional right.
> > Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> > Ownership of guns is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
Isn't that YOUR post? Isn't that YOUR claim? Did YOU support
that claim with any evidence THEN? Have you supported that claim
with any evidence SINCE?
I showed, in detail, that 1) ownership of guns was NOT a
constitutional right, and 2) the words "right" and "privilege"
are used interchangeably by the courts regarding the
constitution. I supported my arguments with incontrovertible
facts, linguistic analysis, historical context, court rulings,
and authoritative cites.
YOU did not refute ANY of this. YOU did not show how YOUR claim
was supportable. YOU went off on totally irrelevant tangents
that had nothing to do with YOUR claim or MY refutation of your
claim. Why are you wasting people's time on these irrelevancies?
> Legal profession has only one special priviledge - to represent others who
> choose not to represent themselves.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> Only in these situations your wording
> battles have any meanings to the world.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
You made a false statement; I challenged it and showed proof to
any reasonable person that YOU were wrong. You offered no
counter-evidence. Therefore, in THIS newsgroup world, MY words
have meaning and validity and support MY argument; YOUR lack of
supportive words mean you have either surrendered your claim,
but won't admit it, or you are too thick to realize that you
have already lost the argument by default.
> Engaging in this exchange outside
> that context is as sensless as arguing military strategy using chess
> language.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
In newsgroups one makes verbal claims; one either supports those
claims with facts or logic, or one is merely bloviating. YOU
have merely bloviated, and are still doing so.
> You developed a language of legal argument and you want me to argue this
> matter using the rules of your profession, which I find no need for.
Why do you assume I'm a lawyer? Where has that been stated or
established? Once again, you make assumptions and claims that
lack any support or proof, which further undermines what little
credibility you had.
The language I have used is standard to making ANY convincing
argument, whether in court, in a newspaper editorial, before a
debating club, or on the election campaign trail. Present a
claim, then back it with facts, quotes, cites, law, logic,
definitions, history. Your saying it is merely and only "a
language of legal argument" is YOUR false assumption and dodge,
an irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> Why should I play your game, when I do not need to play any?
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
YOU made a claim; YOU failed to support it. *I* refuted your
claim with overwhelming evidence; YOU failed to refute it, or
even address it. What the hell ARE you doing here? It all
amounts to endless, irrelevant "tap-dancing" around the issue on
YOUR part.
> The words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed" do not in my opinion, need to be interpreted.
YOUR opinion is worthless, as it is uninformed. YOU do not know
what the words as used by Madison MEANT to an educated person of
1789, or you wouldn't be saying what you are saying. I already
gave you a site to go to and learn what the words mean, but you
apparently haven't gone there, or at least you haven't read and
comprehended it:
If you are unfamiliar with the "plain language" written by
Madison, as USED by him in 1789, you need to be
educated -- http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html
I already gave you Madison's original draft, the "bear arms"
clauses from two contemporaneous documents, and Judge Green's
ruling, and asked you to address what "bear arms" meant in those
contexts, and you have avoided all mention of it. I explained
how the amendment MUST be read and understood in its ENTIRETY,
as the SCOTUS demands, and how YOUR version is not correct
(missing comma) and therefore CAN'T be an independent sentence,
and YOU have avoided all mention of it, and refuse to be
educated on it.
IF the words were so obvious to everyone, why have there been
debates and why have court cases been necessary? It is BECAUSE
the words have to be interpreted and APPLIED to particular laws.
The old, "It means what it means, and says what it says" dodge
is so lame, particularly when it is clear YOU DON'T KNOW what
Madison MEANT by the words as HE USED THEM in the 18th Century:
For example, the word "reticent" means silent, holding one's
thoughts to oneself, or at least it originally did to, say, an
18th Century author. Today, the word is often "used" (one MIGHT
say "misused," although that is going a bit far; language DOES
evolve) to mean "reluctant."
Take the sentence: "He's reticent about going on the voyage."
Now, an 18th Century author, seeing THAT sentence, would take it
to mean, "He's silent about and not telling anyone his thoughts
about going on the voyage." That is a valid interpretation,
based on HIS use of the language. And if an 18th Century novel
contained that sentence, we MUST interpret it THAT way, since
THAT is how they used the word then. We CAN'T assume the author
means "He's reluctant to go on the trip," just because WE use
the word that way today. IF we did, we'd be MISINTERPRETING the
author -- and it's NOT the author's fault, but OUR OWN ignorance
of the language AS it WAS used THEN!
It's the same with "bear arms" -- its 18th Century usage was
CONSISTENT in describing military service ONLY! "Bearing arms"
is NOT the same as "carrying guns": For hundreds of examples of
how "bear arms" was used in military context ONLY, go to
http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html and then you'll
understand the difference. Unless you have a mental block about
learning, of course.
> They are simply self-evident.
They might as well be written in Chinese then, since you have no
more understanding of what Madison understood the words to mean
than if he had been a Mandarin clerk. "Right" "people" "keep and
bear arms" "infringed" ALL meant specific things to Madison, and
YOU show NO evidence of having a clue of what an 18th Century
landed aristocrat like Madison meant by those words. To say they
are "self-evident" is a bogus dodge, based on 21st Century
hubris that what YOU want the words to mean, independent of
context, history, linguistic analysis, and logic, is what WE ALL
should believe they mean.
Common usage today is NOT relevant to common usage 200 years
ago; the authors of the 2nd Amen didn't use 21st century English
but 18th century English. If people today have forgotten the
original usage, or if some hoplophile apologists have decided to
hide the truth, that doesn't change what the term "bear arms"
meant to the people who used it in 18th century America. GET IT?
ALL the court decisions I presented show you are wrong.
Rowland's linguistic analysis shows you are wrong. Madison's own
draft and other cites show you are wrong. Here's MORE
evidence:--
Why not look at what was said about the terms from late 19th
century through early 20th century:
"see also English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1872)("The word
'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the
United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and
the word is used in its military sense."); Hill v. Georgia, 53
Ga. 472, 475 (1874) ("the language of the constitution of this
state as well as that of the United States guarantees only the
right to keep and bear the 'arms' necessary for a militiaman");
State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, 373 (1891) ("in regard to the
kind of arms protected by the [Second A]mendment, it must be
held to refer to weapons of warfare to be used by the militia");
City of Salina v. Blaksly, 72 Kan. 230, 233 (1905) (both U.S.
and Kansas Constitutions "appl[y] only to the right to bear arms
as a member of the state militia, or some other military
organization provided by law"); Ex parte Thomas, 21 Okla. 770
(1908) (interpreting Oklahoma Constitution) ("As the object for
which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of general
and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for
their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is
secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized
warfare"); In re Rameriz, 193 Cal. 633, 651-52 (1924) ("An
examination of the numerous authorities in various states will
show that the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by a
state constitutional provision similar to the federal amendment
refers only to the bearing of arms by the citizens in defense of
a common cause"); cf. Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the
Law of Statutory Crimes 497 (1873) (Second Amendment "protects
only the right to 'keep' such 'arms' as are used for purposes of
war . . . since such, only, are properly known by the name of
'arms;' and such, only, are adapted to promote 'the security of
a free State.' In like manner, the right to 'bear' arms refers
merely to the military way of using them. . . .); Lucilius
Emery, The Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 28 Harv.
L. Rev. 473, 476 (1915) ("The single individual or the
unorganized crowd, in carrying weapons, is not spoken of or
thought of as 'bearing arms.'").
> You may win in court using your arguments, hell you may even convince the
> Supreme Court.
That's because they are based on SOUND facts and logic. Hell,
you may convince a bunch of ignorant yahoos that you are right,
but that wouldn't MAKE you right.
The SCOTUS and Appellate courts HAVE confirmed what I have
claimed, so your opinions are moot.
> That will not change anything for me.
Because you choose to be an ignorant troll who would rather hold
on to wrong cherished fantasies, and stick your head in the
ground, than accept the truth. My, aren't YOU a great example of
an educated truth-seeker!
> I will just make a
> decision that the government is leaning toward tyranny and that the
> Constitution need protection.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
Based on what evidence is your opinion to be taken seriously?
Again, no support of any kind, just mere bloviating. The Const
needs protection from people who would misinterpret what it
originally meant, in order merely to fulfill there own personal
fantasy beliefs, independent of any facts or logic, as you have
done.
> And will seek others who think the same way.
OR non-think, as the case would more accurately be.
> Like Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership www.jpfo.com
> Why?
> My people was disarmed once already. The result - shameful slavery,
> dehumanization and death in concentartion camps.
YOUR people? And who would THEY be? Do you think it's possible
they could be MY people too?
Are you talking of the Jews in 30's Germany? Do you really think
that if they had some Mausers and PPKs Hitler wouldn't have been
able to do what he did? Here's some info from a PRO-GUN site:
The Myth of Nazi Gun Control By N. A. Browne
A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the
National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their
ascent to and maintenance of power. A corollary argument is
sometimes made that had the Jews (and presumably, the other
targeted groups) been armed, they could have fought off Nazi
tyranny. This tract will counter these misassumptions about Nazi
gun control.
Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced
to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right
to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the
nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka "the
brownshirts"). The Weimar government was attempting to bring
some stability to German society and politics (a classic "law
and order" position). Violent extremist movements (of both the
Left and Right) were actively attacking the young democratic
state.
A government that cannot maintain some degree of public order
cannot maintain the confidence and support of its citizenry. Nor
was the German citizenry well grounded in Constitutional,
republican government (as was evidenced in their choices at the
ballot box). Gun control was not initiated at the behest or on
behalf of the Nazis - it was in fact designed to keep them, or
others of the same ilk, from executing a revolution against the
lawful government.
The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third
Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the
contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control).
However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time
the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not
passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the
dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933.
Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as
they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in
Germany. The only feasible argument that gun control favored the
Nazis would be that the 1928 law deprived private armies of a
means to defeat them. The basic flaw with this argument is that
the Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through
their success at the ballot box (and the political cunning of
Hitler himself). When does the ammo box become a legitimate
alternative to the ballot box?
The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time
thereafter) to maintain their power. The success of Nazi
programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political
chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of
terror (the Gestapo) assured the compliance of the German
people. Arguing otherwise assumes a resistance to Nazi rule that
did not exist. Further, supposing the existance of an armed
resistance also requires the acceptance that the German people
would have rallied to the rebellion. This argument requires a
total suspension of disbelief given everything we know about
1930s Germany. Why then did the Nazis introduce this program? As
with most of their actions (including the formation of the Third
Reich itself), they desired to effect a facade of legalism
around the exercise of naked power. It is unreasonable to treat
this as a normal part of lawful governance, as the rule of law
had been entirely demolished in the Third Reich. Any direct
quotations, of which there are several, that pronounce some
beneficence to the Weapons Law should be considered in the same
manner as all other Nazi pronouncements - absolute lies. (See
Bogus Gun Control Quotes and endnote [1].)
An even more farfetched question is the hypothetical proposition
of armed Jewish resistance. It hardly seems conceivable that
armed resistance by Jews (or any other target group) would have
led to any weakening of Nazi rule, let alone a full scale
popular rebellion. If anything, it would have exacerbated the
roiling anti-Semitism of the Party faithful and whipped them
into a frenzy. Rather than silent deaths in the camps, Jewish
blood would have flowed in the streets. That armed and resistant
Jews might have killed some of their Nazi persecutors (as they
did in the Warsaw ghetto), while a laudable sentiment, would
have been of little significance to the overall operations of
the Nazi death machine.
The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the
efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the
first half of this century. There is no credible argument to be
made that an armed German populace would have been any hindrance
whatsoever to the Nazi march to power, or the insanity of their
deadly hatred. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure
that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic
and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis
were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and
were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the
danger to which we should pay great heed.
Sources:
Shirer, William L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman and Alan Rice, Lethal Laws.
International Constitutional Law
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
And who is talking about disarming anyone? Again, you would be
making assumptions without basis. Where have I called for taking
away any weapons? The cases are NOT identical, so it's just a
slippery slope red herring fallacy on your part to bring it up.
> I lived most of my life in Russia, where Commies disarmed everybody and was
> running the biggest slave enterprise in the history of civilization. What is
> a theory and intellectual excersize for you is a matter of honor and
> correcting the mistakes of my forfathers for me.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> Again - you may or may not win in court - irrelevant. If you lose, you lose.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
Except that the facts as confirmed by ALL the standing court
rulings IS that the 2nd Amen doesn't protect an individual right
to own a weapon independent of militia service:
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies
only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and not to
the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious
claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to
possess a firearm...
I really don't know how to say it any clearer and more directly
that YOUR opinion is false and irrelevant, and that the opinion
as expressed in this and ALL other Circuits AND the SCOTUS is
reality!
"Leaning toward tyranny"? 60 years of lib/con, Dem/Rep,
north/south, black/white, male/female, old/young,
pro-gun/anti-gun judges... and they ALL agree on the 2nd Amen!
They have consistently established, as former Solicitor General
Erwin Griswold once wrote: "[T]hat the Second Amendment poses no
barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled
proposition in American Constitutional law."... but YOU, in your
divine wisdom, know better!
How about some evidence to prove it, Sparky!
Did you ever consider that it might be YOU with the reading
comprehension problems?:
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen."
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the
[Supreme] Court found [in US v. Miller] that the right to keep
and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the states
to keep and maintain armed militia.
The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.
> If you win - you and your side will be met with armed, deadly defence of the
> average people of this country and we will have another Civil war.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
IF we win? WE have won EVERY court case on this matter in the
SCOTUS and Circuits since it is clear what the 2nd Amen means to
ANY justice who looks at the evidence!
As for your civil war blather, you are indulging in paranoid
delusions of the Hollywood kind. Get real.
> Your arguments are clever and crafty.
And your arguments are non-existent. YOU have made NO refutation
of ANYTHING I've said!
> You leave in a legal world where both
> sides paint every case as black and white.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
And you make assumptions based on your own lack of information.
> And the jury chooses.
As I already pointed out (Boy, are YOU thick!) juries don't
decide Appellate and SCOTUS cases involving constitutional
interpretations.
> Effectively
> that paints the whole world as black and white and the society accept that
> simplification because basically the question guilty-non-guilty is a black
> and white question.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> When this mentality creeps into the complex world of real and the reality of
> the social landscape, it creates laughable consequencies.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> The last two or three decaded were decades of high influence of legal over
> civil approaches in Western world. The results are terrible. Doctors are
> afraid to heal, police is afraid to protect, army is afraid to fight, kids
> cannot read, big money parked off-shore, people marry with prenaps, children
> are public property (Trotsky would love this).
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> You think it is good and
> normal, I do not.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
Excuse me, but HOW do you know WHAT I THINK?! Where have I said
anything that expressed MY opinion on the above irrelevant
topics? Putting words I never said into MY mouth is NOT going to
win you any debate points, Sparky! Nor is all your
straw-slinging.
> Now, for a long time opinions of people like me didn't matter.
Uninformed opinions by people ignorant of the facts STILL don't
matter when it comes to matters of constitutional law and what
people like Madison MEANT.
As Lincoln said, "If you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many
legs does a sheep have? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make
it one."
> The tide is
> flat now and it will start turning in about 3-5 years. And not becasue I
> want so - because your collegues never had smarts to slow down. The error of
> all enslavers - no sense of balance. You over-pushed the pendulum and its
> coming back.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> I admire your passion and commitment.
I laugh with scorn at your stubborn refusal to address the
issues I presented, choosing to bloviate instead with irrelevant
side-stepping.
> It is an honor to have a decent adversary.
It is probably a waste of my time to try to debate an issue with
someone who won't even make a passing attempt to define and
defend his position. Unless you can begin to mount even a
more-than-lame argument to defend your unsubstantiated claim,
there will be no point in my continuing this one-sided debate.
> If you can defend the task of disarming us
And WHERE did I talk about DISARMING anyone? THAT'S more of YOUR
strawman slop. Why can't you get any of this straight?
> as self-less as we are
> prepared to defend ourselves, we will have serious fun killing each other.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> Looking forward.
It seems you are looking nowhere but up your own butt. You are
one serious waste of electrons!
Alex Chaihorsky
complete idiots, as apparently you think I am, if you decided to even pay
attention.
Save your passion for your girlfriend. And I mean no insult here.
I do not understand how you fail to see that subjecting the Constitution to
Talmudic argumenting is wrong. I do nor care what Madison MEANT 200 years
ago. It was not written for intellectual elite, it was written for
commonfolk.
That is why it was a subject to a debate among commonfolk before it was
actually accepted.
I said that your argument may very well be brilliant.
Irrelevant.
When a citizen reads that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be
infringed" he/she understand it perfectly well without any interpretation.
Any interpretation that would take away what perceived to be our right to
bear arms, will be interpreted as a Communist propaganda enslavement
attempt.
Which it is.
When your side will decide that you are done with the First Amendment too,
there will be people like you that will present OVERWHELMING, CONVINCING,
BRILLIANT, CLEVER, CRAFTY arguments that the freedom of speech is anything
BUT a freedom of speech.
For example, in all Soviet Constitutions freedom of speech were present, but
it was explained as only FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO SUPPORT SOVIET SYSTEM.
Again - your arguments are irrelevant in the context of how Constitution is
perceived by the very people who it belong to - American Public. Certainly
you will call me all the names and all the epithets you can find, because
this is the only way you can convince yourself that only your system of
arguing is valid.
Now, about German Jews being able or not being able to protect themselves if
they wouldnt surrender their weapons to Nazis.
1. You need to read about Warsaw ghetto. BTW, there too, were Jews like you
who agitated against disarming and resistance. The meant well and were shown
respect by Germans, better rations, even some power over their fellow Jews,
which they craved. They even died the last.
2. You need to learn what is a difference between an honorable death of the
Resistance fighter and a death of a prisoner who, disarmed and, therefore,
dishonored, allowed to be rounded up like cattle and, after much
denigration, was killed when and how his tormenters wanted him to be killed.
If you talk to any Holocaust survivors and ask them what would they do next
time, you'll know.
Regards to Babs.
Alexander Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Alex Chaihorsky
"Gary Lantz" <gar...@defnet.com> wrote in message
news:tf80rd5...@corp.supernews.com...
Thank you Gary.
Apparently our friend Steve Krulick does not think so. But are we surprised?
Certainly we need to forget about our right to bear arms, disarm, take all
necessities and jewelry and be at the train station at 8am.
There, we will be taken care of and tamed Jews Krulicks will tell us not to
fear and that we will all be just fine.
I hope you keep your .45 well oiled.
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, Nevada.
Steve Krulick
>
> You should learn how to address your opponents honorably, even if they are
> complete idiots, as apparently you think I am, if you decided to even pay
> attention.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
I didn't say you were a complete idiot; I said that you were
avoiding discussing the issue YOU brought up without any
evidence to support it, and which I refuted by presenting facts,
cites, logic, and legal rulings.
Can't you tell the difference? Gee, maybe you ARE right about
something... perhaps you ARE a complete idiot after all.
> Save your passion for your girlfriend. And I mean no insult here.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> I do not understand how you fail to see that subjecting the Constitution to
> Talmudic argumenting is wrong.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented? Why didn't you refute what I said by
supporting YOUR claim with facts, cites, logic, and legal
rulings?
It's not Talmudic "argumenting" [sic] to view the Const in its
historic and linguistic context, and to include judicial
interpretation from settled case law, as I've done.
> I do nor care what Madison MEANT 200 years ago.
Then you ARE an idiot. Obviously, he was not using 21st Century
language and word usage. Did you read the Rowland piece YET?
Isn't it important to know what the words mean AS they WERE
written?
> It was not written for intellectual elite, it was written for
> commonfolk.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
The Const IS a legal document, the foundation of a government.
Many of those who wrote and passed it and the BOR were lawyers
who used terms of art familiar to lawyers and educated men of
the time. "Bear arms" was ALWAYS used in a military or militia
context, which you ignore or refuse to want to know.
> That is why it was a subject to a debate among commonfolk before it was
> actually accepted.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
And the subject of personal ownership of guns was NOT debated...
or can you show otherwise? The debate was ONLY about the
militia, what was the balance of state/federal control, and who
was going to arm the militia, and why the militia must be
maintained to counter a possible standing army supporting a
tyrannical fed govt.
But personal gun ownership? NO!
> I said that your argument may very well be brilliant.
>
> Irrelevant.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> When a citizen reads that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms
> shall not be
> infringed" he/she understand it perfectly well without any interpretation.
You are bloviating again. First, you keep leaving out the first
half of the amendment, which confirms that it is a MILITIA
AMENDMENT. And if people don't KNOW that "bear arms" MEANS "to
render military service in person" (Madison) and to "serve as a
soldier" (OED) then they (and YOU) understand NOTHING! They (and
YOU) may THINK you understand it "perfectly well without any
interpretation" but you'd be deluding yourself and believing a
lie.
People used to think they understood "perfectly well" that the
Sun went around the Earth, but they were WRONG. What people
think means nothing if it is WRONG thinking, based on WRONG
understanding, and WRONG assumptions.
> Any interpretation that would take away what perceived to be our right to
> bear arms, will be interpreted as a Communist propaganda enslavement
> attempt.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
Sorry that the "right to bear arms" doesn't mean what you think
it means and never did and was never meant to. Your right to
"own a gun" independent of militia service has nothing to do
with "the right to bear arms" since that IS militia service. Any
gun ownership rights you have are a matter for state and local
ordinances to deal with. As I've already explained.
> Which it is.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> When your side will decide that you are done with the First Amendment too,
Irrelevant strawman slippery-slope side-step and your mere
opinion. Why not deal with what I presented?
> there will be people like you that will present OVERWHELMING, CONVINCING,
> BRILLIANT, CLEVER, CRAFTY arguments that the freedom of speech is anything
> BUT a freedom of speech.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented? It must be clear to EVERYONE by now that you
don't because you CAN'T, and that's why you've gone off on this
loony paranoid tangent that has NOTHING to do with the original
points.
> For example, in all Soviet Constitutions freedom of speech were present, but
> it was explained as only FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO SUPPORT SOVIET SYSTEM.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> Again - your arguments are irrelevant in the context of how Constitution is
> perceived by the very people who it belong to - American Public.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
How the Constitution is "perceived" by people ignorant of what
the words mean is irrelevant; the Const itself gives the power
to determine what laws conform to the constitution to the
judiciary, and the courts have spoken clearly what the 2nd Amen
means and what laws don't "trench any constitutional liberties."
> Certainly
> you will call me all the names and all the epithets you can find, because
> this is the only way you can convince yourself that only your system of
> arguing is valid.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
Certainly you will continue to avoid defending YOUR original
claim with supporting facts, cites, quotes, logic, and legal
rulings, and continue to avoid refuting MY evidence because you
obviously can't.
So you take the pathetic way out of making it all an ad hominem
pre-emption, rather than stepping up to the plate and playing
the game as everyone with an ounce of integrity does, by
defending YOUR claims.
I knew you wouldn't do it:
"It is probably a waste of my time to try to debate an issue
with someone who won't even make a passing attempt to define and
defend his position. Unless you can begin to mount even a
more-than-lame argument to defend your unsubstantiated claim,
there will be no point in my continuing this one-sided debate."
You had your chance to do it and you didn't, so you obviously
can't and won't.
> Now, about German Jews being able or not being able to protect themselves if
> they wouldnt surrender their weapons to Nazis.
Why don't you address the argument I presented by Browne? Why do
you ignore it?
> 1. You need to read about Warsaw ghetto.
I have. It doesn't refute what Browne said.
> BTW, there too, were Jews like you
> who agitated against disarming and resistance.
Ad hominem irrelevant side-step. Why not deal with what I
presented?
> The meant well and were shown
> respect by Germans, better rations, even some power over their fellow Jews,
> which they craved. They even died the last.
And they ALL died, armed or not. Arms did NOT protect or save
them from an overwhelming force.
And this has nothing to do with the original claim you made,
remember?
> 2. You need to learn what is a difference between an honorable death of the
> Resistance fighter and a death of a prisoner who, disarmed and, therefore,
> dishonored, allowed to be rounded up like cattle and, after much
> denigration, was killed when and how his tormenters wanted him to be killed.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> If you talk to any Holocaust survivors and ask them what would they do next
> time, you'll know.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> Regards to Babs.
Who? What the hell are you talking about?
I've given you every chance to address the issue YOU brought up,
by supporting YOUR unsubstantiated claim, AND refuting MY
evidence that countered it.
YOU haven't done squat for either, so I guess you never will.
You are now going into my killfile loony bin, where similar
cowards, timewasters, and pathetic losers earn the right to stay
out of my consciousness.
Goodbye.
<PLOINK>
Steve Krulick
>
> "Gary Lantz" <gar...@defnet.com> wrote in message
> news:tf80rd5...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Nice post Alex.
> > >
> > >
>
> Thank you Gary.
Irrelevant side-step and HIS mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
Getting an endorsement from Gary is hardly an honor. I notice HE
doesn't offer to help you defend your claims.
> Apparently our friend Steve Krulick does not think so.
And I told you in detail WHY, but YOU can't make the effort to
deal with it.
> But are we surprised?
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
I'm not surprised that you have run away from defending your
erroneous claim, as I've shown overwhelming evidence to prove
you are wrong. So rather than be a mensch and admit your
failure, you are "tap-dancing" an irrelevant ad hominem
side-step. You have offered NO facts to this debate. You have
offered NO useful information in this one-sided debate. YOU are
a waste of time.
> Certainly we need to forget about our right to bear arms, disarm, take all
> necessities and jewelry and be at the train station at 8am.
Irrelevant paranoid strawman side-step and your mere opinion.
Why not deal with what I presented?
> There, we will be taken care of and tamed Jews Krulicks will tell us not to
> fear and that we will all be just fine.
Irrelevant side-step and your mere opinion. Why not deal with
what I presented?
> I hope you keep your .45 well oiled.
What does THIS have to do with your original erroneous claim:
> > This is the case of a privilege vs. a constitutional right.
> > Driving is a privilege, not a right.
> > Ownership of guns is a constitutional right, not a privilege.
Isn't that YOUR post? Isn't that YOUR claim? Did YOU support
that claim with any evidence THEN? Have you supported that claim
with any evidence SINCE?
I showed, in detail, that 1) ownership of guns was NOT a
constitutional right, and 2) the words "right" and "privilege"
are used interchangeably by the courts regarding the
constitution. I supported my arguments with incontrovertible
facts, linguistic analysis, historical context, court rulings,
and authoritative cites.
YOU did not refute ANY of this. YOU did not show how YOUR claim
was supportable. YOU went off on totally irrelevant tangents
that had nothing to do with YOUR claim or MY refutation of your
claim. Why are you wasting people's time on these irrelevancies?
Goodbye.
<PLOINK>
Alex Chaihorsky
> YOU haven't done squat for either, so I guess you never will.
> You are now going into my killfile loony bin, where similar
> cowards, timewasters, and pathetic losers earn the right to stay
> out of my consciousness.
Good. Your tantrums started to get on my nerves.
When you will learn how to argue honorably, and more importantly, how to
listen to anything, but your own diatribes, feel free to contact me.
If you would pay attention, you would notice that I said that all your
arguments are valuable and probably right on target in the context of a
legal dispute between lawyers in court.
They are irrelevant completely outside of that context, because the People
do not see the Constitution as a historical artifact only, but rather as a
message of freedom and liberty extended from the enlightened past to the
troublesome present, as a foundation for their freedom and liberty. And
interpretation of its language will always be look upon as dangerous game.
The decision of commonfolk to take arms against tyrannical government will
not be based on some hysterical lawyer's argument, but on the moral
assessment of Constitutional ideology as it perceived by the nation.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
You can win an argument that
1. "the right" means "a privilege",
2. "Keep" mean "Not keep"
3. "Bear arms " means "have arms securely locked in an arsenal by the
government"
4 "Arms" actually mean hammer and sickle,
5 "Shall not be infringed" mean "Open game for every loony lawyer who looses
case after case in a criminal court, so he reaps his wins on USENET".
And still, majority of free Americans will read it as it reads:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And will keep their arms oiled.
You called my coward. At any time, please, feel free to knock on my door at
5774 Tappan Dr. Reno, NV. Bare hands, gloves, anything you want. And tell me
if you are an organ donor. If I run away - then you will call me anything
you want.
Until then, keep your loose Jewish mouth shut on that subject.
Respectfully (I know, I know, but I was brought up in a honorable Jewish
family),
Alexander Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Ernie DiMicco, Jr.
> You called my coward. At any time, please, feel free to knock on my door at
> 5774 Tappan Dr. Reno, NV. Bare hands, gloves, anything you want. And tell me
> if you are an organ donor. If I run away - then you will call me anything
> you want.
> Until then, keep your loose Jewish mouth shut on that subject.
Ha ha ha!!! You threaten to FISTFIGHT him over a Usenet argument? What a LOON
you are!!!
Alex Chaihorsky
"Ernie DiMicco, Jr." <spar...@wpi.edu> wrote in message
news:tfbhktb...@corp.supernews.com...
Sir,
Throwing words around is easy.
He can call me an idiot, stupid ass, whatever.
But he called me a coward. And I invited him to test how much of a coward I
am. That is all.
I stand behind my honor and I put my money where my mouth is. I will even
pay for his ticket here, if he decide to come.
USENET is what we make of it. It can stay a blabber-space where adults call
each other names and throw insults to heal their childish childhood wounds
knowing that unlike in high school they cannot be slapped across the face,
or it can become (I hope) a place where honorable people argue with vigor,
passion, even insults, but if you question guy's honor, you are invited to
prove your point. And if you chicken - people know what you are made of.
Respectfully,
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Alex Chaihorsky
Hitler was a CONSERVATIVE? How? By destroying Germany traditional values of
education, honesty, hard work and diversity (yes, pre-Hitler Germany was a
heaven for minorities including Jews, gays, socialists, weird religious
cults) - and creating radical racial dictatorship?
Have you got some sugar into your system today?
Alex.
"Mathew" <m...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSD/.3.91.1010506015919.17155C-100000@saba.kuentos.guam.net...
Aaron R. Kulkis
Wrong.
Leeches and parasites should NOT be permitted to vote.
>
> * 1 Person = 1 Vote
> * 1 Vote, More Choice
> * 1 Vote + 50% = Win
> * 1 % Voters = 1 % Representation
> * 1 Nation, 1 Electoral System
> * 1 Voter, More Voice
> -------------------------------------------------
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Steve Shitlick called Alex a coward.
Alex says, "You think so? Come here and PROVE IT"
That's not a threat, it's a challenge.
If you still don't understand, Ernie, I'm sure Bert can explain it for you.
Oh, and your shirt is buttoned crooked.
Ernie DiMicco, Jr.
news:3AF72384...@yahoo.com...
> > Ha ha ha!!! You threaten to FISTFIGHT him over a Usenet argument? What a
LOON
> > you are!!!
> Steve Shitlick called Alex a coward.
>
> Alex says, "You think so? Come here and PROVE IT"
>
> That's not a threat, it's a challenge.
Violence is used by only two types of people (or nations):
(1) People that use it because it is their last alternative to defend themselves
or others.
(2) People that try to use metal in their hand to make up for lack of mettle in
their character.
A "challenge" as you illustrate here is the most juvenile adolescent thing I've
ever seen, and most definitely does not fall under (1). "Meet me behind the
school at 3:00 and we'll settle this thing about Wendy there!" What a godawful
stupid response to anything, particularly a Usenet post. I mean seriously!
Particularly since the taunt "coward" was used to goad him into defending his
ideas e.g. "you are too much of a coward to address my points", maybe the proper
response would be to post a rebuttal to Steve's point like Steve had been asking
him to. But no, that would require heavy lifting on Alex's part, so Alex just
decides to make a middle-school type of challenge that most of us grew up past
the need to do when we were twelve.
"Come to my house and we'll settle this like MEN!" AHAHAHAHAHAHHA.... what a
dumbass.
Alex Chaihorsky
Sir,
If you have no idea what honor is, I can't help. I am sure that someone in
your family can explain this concept to you, especially of DiMicco Sr. is
still alive.
Until then Sir, feel free to insult, call names, whatever. The insults of
men without honor like bird shit on the windshield - annoying, but harmless.
In your opinion insults and tantrum online are OK, but G-d forbid if you
would need to tell this to person's face. As a person of CHARACTER, you, of
course, can only be brave in front of your computer.
What a waste of Roman blood!
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
Alex Chaihorsky
<ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sodae4o...@world.std.com...
> >>>>> Alex Chaihorsky writes:
>
> Alex> "Ernie DiMicco, Jr." <spar...@wpi.edu> wrote in message
> news> tff7irk...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news> 3AF72384...@yahoo.com...
> >>
> >> > > Ha ha ha!!! You threaten to FISTFIGHT him over a Usenet
argument? What
> >> LOON
> >> > > you are!!!
> >>
> >> > Steve Shitlick called Alex a coward.
> >> >
> >> > Alex says, "You think so? Come here and PROVE IT"
> >> >
> >> > That's not a threat, it's a challenge.
> >>
> >> Violence is used by only two types of people (or nations):
> >>
> >> (1) People that use it because it is their last alternative to
defend
> >> or others.
> >> (2) People that try to use metal in their hand to make up for lack
of
> >> their character.
> >>
> >> A "challenge" as you illustrate here is the most juvenile adolescent
thing
> >> ever seen, and most definitely does not fall under (1). "Meet me
behind
> >> school at 3:00 and we'll settle this thing about Wendy there!" What
a
> >> stupid response to anything, particularly a Usenet post. I mean
seriously!
> >> Particularly since the taunt "coward" was used to goad him into
defending
> >> ideas e.g. "you are too much of a coward to address my points",
maybe the
> >> response would be to post a rebuttal to Steve's point like Steve had
been
> >> him to. But no, that would require heavy lifting on Alex's part, so
Alex
> Alex> just
> >> decides to make a middle-school type of challenge that most of us
grew up
> >> the need to do when we were twelve.
> >>
AHAHAHAHAHAHHA.... what
> Alex> a
> >> dumbass.
> >>
>
> Alex> Sir,
>
> Alex> If you have no idea what honor is, I can't help. I am sure that
someone in
> Alex> your family can explain this concept to you, especially of
DiMicco Sr. is
> Alex> still alive.
> Alex> Until then Sir, feel free to insult, call names, whatever. The
insults of
> Alex> men without honor like bird shit on the windshield - annoying,
but harmless.
> Alex> In your opinion insults and tantrum online are OK, but G-d forbid
if you
> Alex> would need to tell this to person's face. As a person of
CHARACTER, you, of
> Alex> course, can only be brave in front of your computer.
> Alex> What a waste of Roman blood!
>
> Honor has to do with telling the truth, being good to others.
> It has nothing to do with being strong or skilled at fighting.
>
> You sir, are an adolescent.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.rush-limbaugh...)
Dear Sir,
Telling the truth, etc. is a pre-requisite. But not enough.
I will remind you abou the case two years ago (was it three?) when a bus
with American students was stopped in Central American country and women was
taken away and raped. Their male teacher was, probably nice, truthful and
good to others guy. But he was not an honorable man. Sorry.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I hope you live and can
afford a comfortable and safe life. Because if you do not, and tough time
will come to you or someone you love, I hope that person will not be
surrounded by honorable men of your definition.
BTW, you can make your case without calling me an adolescent. This just
shows what you are made of.
Al Welch
Stalin was a dictator and quite ruthless in trying to defeat Germany and
to avoid political revolts in the Soviet Union. Hitler was also a
ruthless dictator.
The difference between Hitler and Stalin is that Stalin supported an
experiment in extreme socialism while Hitler led the Nazi party which
was formed as an extreme right-wing antithesis to the Communist
movement.
Both Hitler and Stalin had plans that included social engineering. The
Communist dream was the classless society of harmonious "comrades" but
Hitler favored a stratified society with a genetically selected master
race at the top. Both are examples of the dangers of extremists.
Alex Chaihorsky
<ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sodu22u...@world.std.com...
> >>>>> Alex Chaihorsky writes:
>
> >> ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com> wrote in message
> news> sodae4o...@world.std.com...
> >> >>>>> Alex Chaihorsky writes:
> >>
> Alex> "Ernie DiMicco, Jr." <spar...@wpi.edu> wrote in message
> news> tff7irk...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news> 3AF72384...@yahoo.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> > > Ha ha ha!!! You threaten to FISTFIGHT him over a Usenet
> Alex> a
> >> >> LOON
> >> >> > > you are!!!
> >> >>
> >> >> > Steve Shitlick called Alex a coward.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Alex says, "You think so? Come here and PROVE IT"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's not a threat, it's a challenge.
> >> >>
> >> >> Violence is used by only two types of people (or nations):
> >> >>
> >> >> (1) People that use it because it is their last alternative to
> Alex> themselves
> >> >> or others.
> >> >> (2) People that try to use metal in their hand to make up for
lack
> Alex> mettle in
> >> >> their character.
> >> >>
> >> >> A "challenge" as you illustrate here is the most juvenile
adolescent
> Alex> I've
> >> >> ever seen, and most definitely does not fall under (1). "Meet me
> Alex> the
> >> >> school at 3:00 and we'll settle this thing about Wendy there!"
What
> Alex> godawful
> >> >> stupid response to anything, particularly a Usenet post. I mean
> >> >> Particularly since the taunt "coward" was used to goad him into
> Alex> his
> >> >> ideas e.g. "you are too much of a coward to address my points",
> Alex> proper
> >> >> response would be to post a rebuttal to Steve's point like Steve
had
> Alex> asking
> >> >> him to. But no, that would require heavy lifting on Alex's part,
so
> Alex> Alex
> Alex> just
> >> >> decides to make a middle-school type of challenge that most of us
> Alex> past
> >> >> the need to do when we were twelve.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Come to my house and we'll settle this like MEN!"
> Alex> a
> >> >> dumbass.
> >> >>
> >>
> Alex> Sir,
> >>
> Alex> If you have no idea what honor is, I can't help. I am sure that
> Alex> your family can explain this concept to you, especially of
> Alex> still alive.
> Alex> Until then Sir, feel free to insult, call names, whatever. The
> Alex> men without honor like bird shit on the windshield - annoying,
> Alex> In your opinion insults and tantrum online are OK, but G-d forbid
> Alex> would need to tell this to person's face. As a person of
> Alex> course, can only be brave in front of your computer.
> Alex> What a waste of Roman blood!
> >>
> >> Honor has to do with telling the truth, being good to others.
> >> It has nothing to do with being strong or skilled at fighting.
> >>
> >> You sir, are an adolescent.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew Hall
> >> (Now reading Usenet in alt.rush-limbaugh...)
>
>
>
> Alex> Telling the truth, etc. is a pre-requisite. But not enough.
> Alex> I will remind you abou the case two years ago (was it three?)
when a bus
> Alex> with American students was stopped in Central American country
and women was
> Alex> taken away and raped. Their male teacher was, probably nice,
truthful and
> Alex> good to others guy. But he was not an honorable man. Sorry.
>
> You are speaking of physically harming others for their words, not their
> rapes or physical attacks. That is not an act of honor but of childish
> macho.
>
> Physical force is of course justified in a bona-fide self-defense
situation.
>
> Alex> You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but I hope you live
and can
> Alex> afford a comfortable and safe life. Because if you do not, and
tough time
> Alex> will come to you or someone you love, I hope that person will not
be
> Alex> surrounded by honorable men of your definition.
>
> Alex> BTW, you can make your case without calling me an adolescent.
This just
> Alex> shows what you are made of.
>
> I consider threatening people with physical harm for their words to be
> the act not of an honorable man, but an adolescent.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.rush-limbaugh...)
You should pay more attention when you read my post. I never threaten
anyone. I said - if you called me a coward, this is my address, so come
prove your point or shut up. He choose to shut up.
Where is the threat? Did I threatened to COME TO HIM?
Gary Lantz
Al Welch <awe...@aero.net> wrote in message
news:3AF94A08...@aero.net...
As is Capitalism. Any form of government that loses sight of the purpose of
mankind runs the risk of greed and the period of the present state of the
United States.
Alex Chaihorsky
Alex.
Mathew
The British don't seem to need to carry guns.
>
> Alex Chaihorsky
> Reno, Nevada.
>
>
>
>
Lone Haranguer
Not true. British police are now being armed. Since gun ownership is
so restricted, the crime rate has increased dramatically.
Police estimate that 3,000,000 criminals in GB are armed with illegal
weapons. This has made them pretty nervous.
LZ
> >
> > Alex Chaihorsky
> > Reno, Nevada.
> >
> >
> >
> >
Mathew
Crime has increased with an increase in population,for a population of
10 million,London still has much less murders than the U.S.
> Police estimate that 3,000,000 criminals in GB are armed with illegal
> weapons. This has made them pretty nervous.
> LZ
I would say that most of these guns are in the hands of IRA members.
> > >
> > > Alex Chaihorsky
> > > Reno, Nevada.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>