Felons Now Claiming Individualist Right To Guns
Bret Cahill
Rights. Now, for the first time in the court's history, Scalito will
soon declare that felons no longer have full rights under the Bill of
Rights.
Law clerks just love a snarled up judiciary. It's called "job
security."
Bret Cahill
WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr.
faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning
guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles
at his home south of Pittsburgh.
ADVERTISEMENT
As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases
argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep
loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
"Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect
themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says
David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.
Cormagh
Now see what you've done!
_ Prof. Jonez _
> Convicted felons have always had full rights under the Bill of
> Rights. Now, for the first time in the court's history, Scalito will
> soon declare that felons no longer have full rights under the Bill of
> Rights.
>
> Law clerks just love a snarled up judiciary. It's called "job
> security."
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
> WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr.
> faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning
> guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles
> at his home south of Pittsburgh.
>
>
> argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep
> loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
>
> "Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect
> themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says
> David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.
Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
RTKBA ?
Jack G.
There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about excluding felons and it is
up to the States to make those laws. The recent court decision left
the door open and it is wait and see. You have a sharp eye.
John Wetton
> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
> RTKBA ?
Either yer a retard or yer not, Poofter Jonez.
YOU gave up yer rights when you became a criminal and commited crimes.
THAT is why you are a STILL classified as a felon, and WHY YOU ran away
to Canaduh.
You have no rights as seen as a free person.
RD (The Sandman)
9d46-1cc...@l8g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
It didn't really leave that door open. The opinion stated that:
"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a
right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions
have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's
opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws
forbidding the carrying of arms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on
the commercial sale of arms."
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
Never complain about old age......many others never had that opportunity.
_ Prof. Jonez _
So the States can contravene the U$ Constitution ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
So if prohibitions are "longstanding" they should continue to stand,
in the opinion of Benito Scalia ... like the longstanding prohibition
on allowing Negroes to vote, or intermarry Whites, or wander off
the plantation without permission from their "massa" ...
_ Prof. Jonez _
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>
>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>> RTKBA ?
>
> Either yer a retard or yer not, Poofter Jonez.
>
> YOU gave up yer rights when you became a criminal and commited crimes.
Sez who?
>
> THAT is why you are a STILL classified as a felon, and WHY YOU ran
> away to Canaduh.
Are you drunk again, nutter?
>
> You have no rights as seen as a free person.
So the Gov't can revoke any right for any reason they see fit, eh numbnuts?
'Key
>---snip---
What does all this have to do with motorcycles ?
Please reframe from cross-posting to groups off-topic...
motorcycle group cut from this response..
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
You mean they can do that?
Mary! Get the gun!
<snip/>
Michael Ejercito
imprisonment is unconstitutional?
Michael
Arisaka
br...@pobox.com
If you were something other than an ignorant limey serf, you might
realise that the Consittution is primariliy a check on the powers of
the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
You really should stick to affairs on your sandbox of an island,
infant. The affairs of a real country are beyond your comprehension.
Reality_CheckŠ
<br...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:sua584h1jb04uqnjm...@4ax.com...
Sez the pig-ignorant Amerikkkunt oblivious of the 13th Amendment.
Reality_CheckŠ
"'Key" <K...@Ya.Net> wrote in message
news:hJmdnez0xLNl4x_V...@comcast.com...
> "Jack G." <jgra...@pioneernet.net> wrote in message
>>---snip---
>
> What does all this have to do with motorcycles ?
Are you claiming that motorcyclists aren't felons or don't own guns?
> Please reframe from cross-posting to groups off-topic...
Define "reframe", numbnuts.
>
> motorcycle group cut from this response..
groups restored
>
>
Reality_CheckŠ
"Arisaka" <arisak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6Lxgk.5402$np7...@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
Where in the Constitution does it make the RTKBA contingent on felony
convictions?
PS- your RTKBA is revoked for some misdemeanor convictions too, even some
"allegations"
that aren't proven in court.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ba5dbeb2-dcc5-412a...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
tankfixer
says...
Sorry but you won't get your dream and have those laws come back.
I'm sure it must break your cold liberal heart.
--
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.
Benj
> > There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about excluding felons and it is
> > up to the States to make those laws.
>
> So the States can contravene the U$ Constitution ?
Ah, so there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal
government or the states to deny a person their rights if convicted of
a crime. I guess that means we have to empty all the jails. You'd
love that wouldn't you? It'd go a long way for your desire to "Smash"
the American System! Hey if a convicted felon wants to vote or give a
speech or wander the streets you just have to let him because he's got
the "individual" right? Moron.
Hey Poofter, do I detect more than just a little bitterness that you
just got your ass handed to you over the "collective rights" thing?
Scout
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1710f0ee-1a40-4de2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 19, 7:04 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
> > There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about excluding felons and it is
> > up to the States to make those laws.
>
> So the States can contravene the U$ Constitution ?
Ah, so there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal
government or the states to deny a person their rights if convicted of
a crime.
*****answer
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law;..."
Maybe you should take the time to actually READ the Constitution sometime.
Patriot Games
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>Convicted felons have always had full rights under the Bill of
>Rights.
True, but characteristically irrelevant.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1710f0ee-1a40-4de2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> So the States can contravene the U$ Constitution ?
>Ah, so there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal
>government or the states to deny a person their rights if convicted of
>a crime. I guess that means we have to empty all the jails. You'd
>love that wouldn't you? It'd go a long way for your desire to "Smash"
>the American System! Hey if a convicted felon wants to vote or give a
>speech or wander the streets you just have to let him because he's got
>the "individual" right? Moron.
So in Benj the racist piece of shit's world, once convicted of a crime,
the Gov't can deny all further due process, torture, abuse, inflict
cruel and unusual punishments and even execute the convict at any
time subsequent to their conviction, even after they are released from
their prison sentence, because Benj the fascist piece of crap says the
Gov't can do whatever the fuck they want in spite of the Constitution.
Now go fuck yourself again, Benj you repugnant racist piece of shit.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:W7Hgk.119$X2.102@trnddc03...
>
> "Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> news:1710f0ee-1a40-4de2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 19, 7:04 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
>> > There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about excluding felons and it is
>> > up to the States to make those laws.
>>
>> So the States can contravene the U$ Constitution ?
>
> Ah, so there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal
> government or the states to deny a person their rights if convicted of
> a crime.
Ah, so the Gov't can deny ANY and ALL Constitutional rights once
someone is convicted of ANY crime, even after their prison sentence
is terminated, eh numbnuts?
>
> *****answer
>
> "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
> law;..."
So where, exactly, is the specific "due process" that denies or revokes
the RTKBA after someone is convicted of a crime?
>
> Maybe you should take the time to actually READ the Constitution sometime.
Maybe you should extract your head from your rectum sometime.
Reality_CheckŠ
"Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.Com> wrote in message
news:g8m6845nk88lfjbg9...@4ax.com...
They used to say the same thing about the "neegruz" ...
Michael Ejercito
> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Michael
Michael Ejercito
<me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
after due process of law.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> "Scout" <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:W7Hgk.119$X2.102@trnddc03...
>
>
>
> > "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> >news:1710f0ee-1a40-4de2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 19, 7:04 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
> >> > There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about excluding felons and it is
> >> > up to the States to make those laws.
>
> >> So the States can contravene the U$ Constitution ?
>
> > Ah, so there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal
> > government or the states to deny a person their rights if convicted of
> > a crime.
>
> Ah, so the Gov't can deny ANY and ALL Constitutional rights once
> someone is convicted of ANY crime, even after their prison sentence
> is terminated, eh numbnuts?
>
>
>
> > *****answer
>
> > "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
> > law;..."
>
> So where, exactly, is the specific "due process" that denies or revokes
> the RTKBA after someone is convicted of a crime?
Michael
Reality_CheckŠ
process"
that denies or revokes the RTKBA for life?
Reality_CheckŠ
Reality_CheckŠ
any or all rights.
Scout
Well, given that it is a liberty, that would be my reading. After all, if I
can kill or enslave someone for life because they have been convicted of a
crime, it seems that lesser punishments could also be imposed for life as
well.
Reality_CheckŠ
So you could torture or otherwise inflict cruel and unusual punishments,
being those are "lesser punishments" than death, eh numbnuts?
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>>> RTKBA ?
>>
>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that mean
>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>
> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>
How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of their
sentences incarcerated anyway. None of them remain incarcerated after the
termination of sentence at least not for that crime.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
Never complain about old age......many others never had that opportunity.
Reality_CheckŠ
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>
>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>>>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>>>> RTKBA ?
>>>
>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that mean
>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>>
>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>>
>
> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of their
> sentences incarcerated anyway.
More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
> None of them remain incarcerated after the
> termination of sentence at least not for that crime.
You really are dumber than a bucket of dirt, aren't you boy?
'Key
seems to be beyond your comprehension..
<br...@pobox.com> wrote in message
---snip the cross-posted, off-topic message---
'Key
"Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
---snip the off-topic, cross-posted message---
the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
seems to be beyond your comprehension too...
'Key
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
---snip---
'Key
'Key
'Key
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>>
>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>>>>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>>>>> RTKBA ?
>>>>
>>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that mean
>>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>>>
>>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>>>
>>
>> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of their
>> sentences incarcerated anyway.
>
> More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
Care to argue with government data, shithead?
Prisoners expect to serve about half their sentence
A 1991 BJS survey of inmates in State prisons indicated that prisoners
also believe that they are likely to serve just under half of the
sentence
they received. For each of the violent offenses, prisoners reported:
Type of Average Expected time Percent
offense sentence to serve of sentence
-------------------------------------------------------
All violent 216 months 100 months 46%
Murder 381 178 47
Manslaughter 185 81 44
Sexual
assault 211 95 45
Robbery 200 82 41
Assault 158 68 43
-------------------------------------------------------
You really need to read this source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/vospats.pdf
Or this one:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/tssp.pdf
>> None of them remain incarcerated after the
>> termination of sentence at least not for that crime.
>
> You really are dumber than a bucket of dirt, aren't you boy?
Nope, but I have doubts about you.
Michael Ejercito
> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:271512cd-53f9-4ba3...@v28g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
I am sure that you have heard of the concept of sentencing.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Michael
John Wetton
> On Jul 20, 9:06 am, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>>"Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:271512cd-53f9-4ba3...@v28g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
No, he did not.
Liberals like him want IDIOTS like him released and set free soon, so
that they can recommit the same crimes again... to save MONEY!
While I agree that a person WHEN released and be "FREE", SHOULD have all
rights restored, I also believe that a person that is not to be trusted
with all "restored rights" SHOULD be released at all!
Liberals and other retards will NEVER understand that concept!
I truly believe that a person PROVEN to be a murderer, or otherwise
convicted of a violent or federal crime, etc. they should be LIFE
SENTENCED(natural life! Not that 5-14 years with whatever) to hard
labor, to grow food for others, dig ditches, chain ganged to REBUILD the
Infrastructure of our country!
No meat in prison!
WORK!
No money!
WORK!
No Health care!
WORK!
They can only eat what they grow!
WORK!
Make Prisons Very horrible!
No TV, No outside contact, No mail, contact with just lawyers, gangs
will be shot!
Give ME just 24 hours in total control, and I will make these United
States so stable and crime free, that it'll make you wonder why you
didn't think of it before!
OK.. maybe 48! :)
Reality_CheckŠ
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in news:6eh9kmF6stanU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>>>>>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>>>>>> RTKBA ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that mean
>>>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>>>>
>>>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>>>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of their
>>> sentences incarcerated anyway.
>>
>> More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
>
> Care to argue with government data, shithead?
>
> Prisoners expect to serve about half their sentence
>
> A 1991 BJS survey
ROTFLMAO!
Welcome to the 21st century you stammering ignoramus.
Felix D.
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of their
> sentences incarcerated anyway. None of them remain incarcerated after the
> termination of sentence at least not for that crime.
Susan Atkins, the Manson follower who stabbed Sharon Tate to death then
licked the blade, now has a brain tumor. Miss Atkins was originally
sentenced to death, then the Rose Bird court changed it to life without
parole, and (of course) now that she's sick, the move is on to get her out
under "compassionate release."
Amazingly, the parole board said no, and it looks like she will die in
prison, one of the few times I can recall where there actually is such a
thing as "life without parole."
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in news:6eh9kmF6stanU1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>>>>>>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>>>>>>> RTKBA ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that mean
>>>>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>>>>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of their
>>>> sentences incarcerated anyway.
>>>
>>> More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
>>
>> Care to argue with government data, shithead?
>>
>> Prisoners expect to serve about half their sentence
>>
>> A 1991 BJS survey
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Welcome to the 21st century you stammering ignoramus.
>
>
>
The other two cites were from '94 and '99. Not my fault if the government
is slow. Sorry.
RD (The Sandman)
Scout
"'Key" <K...@Ya.Net> wrote in message
news:TsednQ0FD97f4R7V...@comcast.com...
For one that bitches about crossposting........why are you doing so?
Scout
"'Key" <K...@Ya.Net> wrote in message
Maybe you should take your own advice?
Reality_CheckŠ
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in news:6ehg68F75333U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>>>>>>>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>>>>>>>> RTKBA ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that mean
>>>>>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>>>>>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of their
>>>>> sentences incarcerated anyway.
>>>>
>>>> More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
>>>
>>> Care to argue with government data, shithead?
>>>
>>> Prisoners expect to serve about half their sentence
>>>
>>> A 1991 BJS survey
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> Welcome to the 21st century you stammering ignoramus.
>>
> The other two cites were from '94 and '99. Not my fault if the government
> is slow. Sorry.
Your assertion is still false.
Buck Mulligan
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Because it's OK when he does it. See, he's better than all of us and
deserves to post in peace.
RD (The Sandman)
news:6ehih6F...@mid.individual.net:
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AE17D74...@216.196.97.136...
>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in news:6ehg68F75333U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in news:6eh9kmF6stanU1
>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any
>>>>>>>>> of those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't
>>>>>>>>> from the RTKBA ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that
>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>>>>>>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of
>>>>>> their sentences incarcerated anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
>>>>
>>>> Care to argue with government data, shithead?
>>>>
>>>> Prisoners expect to serve about half their sentence
>>>>
>>>> A 1991 BJS survey
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>
>>> Welcome to the 21st century you stammering ignoramus.
>>>
>> The other two cites were from '94 and '99. Not my fault if the
>> government is slow. Sorry.
>
> Your assertion is still false.
>
>
That they don't serve their full sentences or much over half of them?
No, it wasn't wrong.
Reality_CheckŠ
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in
> news:6ehih6F...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AE17D74...@216.196.97.136...
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any
>>>>>>>>>> of those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't
>>>>>>>>>> from the RTKBA ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that
>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>>>>>>>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of
>>>>>>> their sentences incarcerated anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to argue with government data, shithead?
>>>>>
>>>>> Prisoners expect to serve about half their sentence
>>>>>
>>>>> A 1991 BJS survey
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to the 21st century you stammering ignoramus.
>>>>
>>> The other two cites were from '94 and '99. Not my fault if the
>>> government is slow. Sorry.
>>
>> Your assertion is still false.
>>
>>
>
> That they don't serve their full sentences or much over half of them?
Yes.
> No, it wasn't wrong.
Yes, it is wrong, liar.
bigdog
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
> > "Jack G." <jgran...@pioneernet.net> wrote in news:46bb3136-decd-4fb3-
> > 9d46-1cc751ea4...@l8g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> On Jul 19, 2:23 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >>> Bret Cahill wrote:
> >>>> Convicted felons have always had full rights under the Bill of
> >>>> Rights. Now, for the first time in the court's history, Scalito
> >>>> will soon declare that felons no longer have full rights under the
> >>>> Bill of Rights.
>
> >>>> Law clerks just love a snarled up judiciary. It's called "job
> >>>> security."
>
> >>>> Bret Cahill
>
> >>>> WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr.
> >>>> faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning
> >>>> guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five
> >>>> rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.
>
> >>>> As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun
> >>>> cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to
> >>>> keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
>
> >>>> "Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect
> >>>> themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home,"
> >>>> says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.
>
> >>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
> >>> RTKBA ?
>
> >> left the door open and it is wait and see. You have a sharp eye.
>
> > It didn't really leave that door open. The opinion stated that:
>
> > "2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is
> > not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
> > whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons
> > prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
> > The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
> > prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
> > ill,
>
> So if prohibitions are "longstanding" they should continue to stand,
> in the opinion of Benito Scalia ... like the longstanding prohibition
> on allowing Negroes to vote, or intermarry Whites, or wander off
> the plantation without permission from their "massa" ...
>
>
>
> > or laws forbidding the carrying of arms in sensitive places such
> > as schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions and
> > qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Constitution states that no one may be deprived of life, liberty,
or propery without due process. This clearly implies the government
can deprive them of those things through due process, i.e. a criminal
conviction. Ex-convicts can be denied fundamental rights such as the
right to vote or in this case RKBA. It therefore is a policy decision,
not a Constitutional issue, which determines which crimes should cause
a person to lose these rights. Personally, I think RKBA should only be
denied to those who have been convicted of serious violent crimes, but
unfortunately, I don't rule the world. (Although I'm working on it).
Benny Hill
"Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message news:6ehla7F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AE1871F...@216.196.97.136...
> > news:6ehih6F...@mid.individual.net:
> >
> >>
> >> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns9AE17D74...@216.196.97.136...
> >>> @mid.individual.net:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
> >>>> message news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
> >>>>> @mid.individual.net:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
> >>>>>> message news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any
> >>>>>>>>>> of those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't
> >>>>>>>>>> from the RTKBA ?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that
> >>>>>>>>> mean
> >>>>>>>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
> >>>>>>>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of
> >>>>>>> their sentences incarcerated anyway.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Care to argue with government data, shithead?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Prisoners expect to serve about half their sentence
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A 1991 BJS survey
> >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>>
> >>>> ROTFLMAO!
> >>>>
> >>>> Welcome to the 21st century you stammering ignoramus.
> >>>>
> >>> The other two cites were from '94 and '99. Not my fault if the
> >>> government is slow. Sorry.
> >>
> >> Your assertion is still false.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That they don't serve their full sentences or much over half of them?
>
> Yes.
>
> > No, it wasn't wrong.
>
> Yes, it is wrong, liar.
You have no clue about the penal system do you??
I have a good friend that works in a prison, who would simply laugh
at your "assertion" that all cons serve their full sentence, or even close
to it. Laughable notion.
br...@pobox.com
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
><br...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:sua584h1jb04uqnjm...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:04:11 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack G. wrote:
>>>> On Jul 19, 2:23 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>>>> Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>> Convicted felons have always had full rights under the Bill of
>>>>>> Rights. Now, for the first time in the court's history, Scalito
>>>>>> will soon declare that felons no longer have full rights under the
>>>>>> Bill of Rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Law clerks just love a snarled up judiciary. It's called "job
>>>>>> security."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>
>>>>>> WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr.
>>>>>> faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning
>>>>>> guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five
>>>>>> rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun
>>>>>> cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to
>>>>>> keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect
>>>>>> themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home,"
>>>>>> says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>>>>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>>>>> RTKBA ?
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about excluding felons and it is
>>>> up to the States to make those laws.
>>>
>>>So the States can contravene the U$ Constitution ?
>>
>> If you were something other than an ignorant limey serf, you might
>> realise that the Consittution is primariliy a check on the powers of
>> the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
>>
>> You really should stick to affairs on your sandbox of an island,
>> infant. The affairs of a real country are beyond your comprehension.
>
>Sez the pig-ignorant Amerikkkunt oblivious of the 13th Amendment.
More yapping by a gutless left wing parasite.
How about if you come repeat that comment to the face of this old,
retired cop, loudmouthed scum? Show the world that unlike most useless
left wing vermin, YOU possess a spine.
What's that you say?
No cojones?
Why isn't that surprising?
br...@pobox.com
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>"Michael Ejercito" <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ba5dbeb2-dcc5-412a...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 19, 2:23 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>> Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> > Convicted felons have always had full rights under the Bill of
>>> > Rights. Now, for the first time in the court's history, Scalito will
>>> > soon declare that felons no longer have full rights under the Bill of
>>> > Rights.
>>>
>>> > Law clerks just love a snarled up judiciary. It's called "job
>>> > security."
>>>
>>> > Bret Cahill
>>>
>>> > WASHINGTON - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr.
>>> > faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning
>>> > guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles
>>> > at his home south of Pittsburgh.
>>>
>>> > As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases
>>> > argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep
>>> > loaded handguns at home for self-defense.
>>>
>>> > "Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect
>>> > themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says
>>> > David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer.
>>>
>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>>> RTKBA ?
>>
>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that mean
>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>
>Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>
I'm surprised. Given the criminal bent of you left wing vermin, I
would have expected you would know several felons who had lost their
franchise as a result of their crimes and are now unable to vote.
Oh, you do know several such, and were just lying again?
Typical.
br...@pobox.com
>the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
>seems to be beyond your comprehension..
How about if you just STFU, vermin?
Better yet, go dive under a bus.
br...@pobox.com
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>news:1710f0ee-1a40-4de2...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jul 19, 7:04 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So the States can contravene the U$ Constitution ?
>
>>Ah, so there is nothing in the constitution that allows the federal
>>government or the states to deny a person their rights if convicted of
>>a crime. I guess that means we have to empty all the jails. You'd
>>love that wouldn't you? It'd go a long way for your desire to "Smash"
>>the American System! Hey if a convicted felon wants to vote or give a
>>speech or wander the streets you just have to let him because he's got
>>the "individual" right? Moron.
>
>So in Benj the racist piece of shit's world, once convicted of a crime,
>the Gov't can deny all further due process, torture, abuse, inflict
>cruel and unusual punishments and even execute the convict at any
>time subsequent to their conviction, even after they are released from
>their prison sentence, because Benj the fascist piece of crap says the
>Gov't can do whatever the fuck they want in spite of the Constitution.
>
>Now go fuck yourself again, Benj you repugnant racist piece of shit.
It's always fun to listen to a lying, limp-wristed, left wing maricon
act as though he actually has a set of cojones.
>
>
>
>
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AE1871F...@216.196.97.136...
>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in
>> news:6ehih6F...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9AE17D74...@216.196.97.136...
>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in news:6ehg68F75333U1
>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in news:6eh9kmF6stanU1
>>>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any
>>>>>>>>>>> of those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't
>>>>>>>>>>> from the RTKBA ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The 5th amendment protects the right to liberty. Does that
>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>> imprisonment is unconstitutional?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is continued imprisonment AFTER the termination of the sentence
>>>>>>>>> imposed constitutional, eh numbnuts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would we know. Those felons don't serve much over half of
>>>>>>>> their sentences incarcerated anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More lies from the pig-ignorant gun-loon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Care to argue with government data, shithead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prisoners expect to serve about half their sentence
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 1991 BJS survey
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO!
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to the 21st century you stammering ignoramus.
>>>>>
>>>> The other two cites were from '94 and '99. Not my fault if the
>>>> government is slow. Sorry.
>>>
>>> Your assertion is still false.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That they don't serve their full sentences or much over half of them?
>
> Yes.
>
>> No, it wasn't wrong.
>
> Yes, it is wrong, liar.
You have seen the data from three cites.....that is if you looked at
them. Sorry, you lose.
"Reality Check" What a misnomer. ;)
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:39:30 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>> <br...@pobox.com> wrote in message
What difference would that make, like exactly?
> Show the world that unlike most useless
> left wing vermin, YOU possess a spine.
>
>
>
> What's that you say?
>
>
> No cojones?
>
>
> Why isn't that surprising?
So you actually can't refute anything that was posted, can you moron?
RD (The Sandman)
125e09...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
> Personally, I think RKBA should only be
> denied to those who have been convicted of serious violent crimes,
Bingo!! As far as felons are concerned.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Rule #1 = Rightards ALWAYS Lie.
_ Prof. Jonez _
_ Prof. Jonez _
Then try it some time, moron.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AE1871F...@216.196.97.136...
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9AE17D74...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
Any usenet moron can claim to "have a friend" who's smarter than they
are.
> who would simply laugh
> at your "assertion" that all cons serve their full sentence, or even
> close
> to it. Laughable notion.
Then provide a citation to law, moron.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "Reality_CheckŠ" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AE1871F...@216.196.97.136...
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:Xns9AE17D74...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
Outdated data from 3 cities out of the U$$A?
>.that is if you looked at
> them. Sorry, you lose.
You're still wrong.
br...@pobox.com
That's funny, coming from limey vermin who insists on sticking his big
nose into something that is none of his business and which he lacks
the intelligence to comprehend.
>
>
br...@pobox.com
How cute. The yapping little limey mutt thinks that it's a human being
instead of a critter.
>
>
br...@pobox.com
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
Very simple. The left wing in this country is nearly as gutless as you
limey vermin. Of course you limeys can't help it. You're the dregs
left over when all those with any intelligence or courage have either
left for better places or been killed in one of the never ending
conflicts that you eurovermin have fought throughout your history.
>
>> Show the world that unlike most useless
>> left wing vermin, YOU possess a spine.
>>
>>
>>
>> What's that you say?
>>
>>
>> No cojones?
>>
>>
>> Why isn't that surprising?
>
>So you actually can't refute anything that was posted, can you moron?
I'm the one that made the statement originally, limey scum. All you
vermin have done is sling insults rather than refutation. I have
simply shown that you vermin are all mouth and no backbone -- trash to
be stepped on and then thrown in the dumpster.
Do try to tell the truth once in a while. Even a limey can manage that
once in a while, can't you?
>
>
>
br...@pobox.com
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>Benny Hill wrote:
>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in message
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9AE1871F...@216.196.97.136...
>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote in
>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> message news:Xns9AE17D74...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:Xns9AE170A0...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
>>>>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> message news:Xns9AE1661C...@216.196.97.136...
>>>>>>>>>> "Reality_Check©" <Rea...@Check.it> wrote
Hoiw about if you stick to affairs in your native sewer, limey scum?
>
John Wetton
Rule #1: POOFTER Jonez is a cross posting homo that ran away.
tankfixer
says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> ---snip---
>
Since you fail to indicate what group you object this being posted to
may I suggest you,
FOAD ?
--
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.
Benny Hill
" I " dont have to prove anything. Its you moronic libs that have
claimed that cons all serve their full sentences, which is patently laughable.
Try reading a fucking newspaper sometime asswipe.
Benny Hill
Here ya go shithead:
http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/12483781.html
A low of 44% time served of whole senetence
to a high of 66% time served of whole sentence
Fucking choke on it moronic lib
br...@pobox.com
I doubt that the Liverpool papers carry much about American crime
anymore due to the rampant crime in England.
_ Prof. Jonez _
So what difference would it make to speak to a pompous
deluded blowhard like you to your face?
>
>>
>>> Show the world that unlike most useless
>>> left wing vermin, YOU possess a spine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What's that you say?
>>>
>>>
>>> No cojones?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why isn't that surprising?
>>
>> So you actually can't refute anything that was posted, can you moron?
>
> I'm the one that made the statement originally, limey scum. All you
> vermin have done is sling insults rather than refutation. I have
> simply shown that <snip>
No, you haven't.
Didn't take your anti-psychotic medications today, did you psycho?
_ Prof. Jonez _
Not really.
_ Prof. Jonez _
Stammer much, eh moron?
_ Prof. Jonez _
You're lying again, asswipe.
br...@pobox.com
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
Would you care to repeat your insults to the face of this retired old
cop, limey vermin?
Of course we both know that vermin like you NEVER face adults, don't
we?
You limeys prefer to diddle little kids.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Show the world that unlike most useless
>>>> left wing vermin, YOU possess a spine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's that you say?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No cojones?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why isn't that surprising?
>>>
>>> So you actually can't refute anything that was posted, can you moron?
>>
>> I'm the one that made the statement originally, limey scum. All you
>> vermin have done is sling insults rather than refutation. I have
>> simply shown that <snip>
>
>No, you haven't.
>
>Didn't take your anti-psychotic medications today, did you psycho?
More of the usual lies from the igniorant limey serf..
>
>
>
br...@pobox.com
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
And once again, the limey vermin lies -- this time via creative
editing.
Don't you limey vermin EVER tell the truth?
_ Prof. Jonez _
What difference would it make, eh jackass?
>
> Of course we both know that vermin like you NEVER face adults, don't
> we?
>
> You limeys prefer to diddle little kids.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Show the world that unlike most useless
>>>>> left wing vermin, YOU possess a spine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's that you say?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No cojones?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why isn't that surprising?
>>>>
>>>> So you actually can't refute anything that was posted, can you
>>>> moron?
>>>
>>> I'm the one that made the statement originally, limey scum. All you
>>> vermin have done is sling insults rather than refutation. I have
>>> simply shown that <snip>
>>
>> No, you haven't.
>>
>> Didn't take your anti-psychotic medications today, did you psycho?
>
> More of the usual lies from the igniorant limey serf..
Stammer much, eh psycho ?
tankfixer
says...
> Any usenet moron can claim to "have a friend" who's smarter than they
> are.
With you that's not hard to do...
Reality_CheckŠ
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3cd9b816-91e2-4f43-ae54-
> 125e09...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Personally, I think RKBA should only be
>> denied to those who have been convicted of serious violent crimes,
>
> Bingo!! As far as felons are concerned.
Why should the suspension/denial of *any* rights extend *beyond* the
term of the sentence imposed by the court?
'Key
news:2c6784l0mab94mqsm...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"'Key" <K...@Ya.Net> wrote in message
>>news:TsednQ0FD97f4R7V...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>>> ---snip---
>>>
>>> the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
>>> seems to be beyond your comprehension too...
>>
>>doing so?
>
> Because it's OK when he does it. See, he's better than all
> of us and
> deserves to post in peace.
cross-posted back only to find your clueless ass.
you made my point that its "beyond your comprehension"
thanks
--
'Key
=====
'Key
> In article <TsednQ0FD97f4R7V...@comcast.com>,
> K...@Ya.Net
> says...
>>
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> ---snip---
>>
>> the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
>> seems to be beyond your comprehension too...
>
> Since you fail to indicate what group you object this
> being posted to
> may I suggest you,
> FOAD ?
well duh !
the one thats cut from the cross-post...
you know,
the one you put back just so you could respond with a troll
:-)
--
'Key
=====
tankfixer
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22ed602db...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <TsednQ0FD97f4R7V...@comcast.com>,
> > K...@Ya.Net
> > says...
> >>
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> ---snip---
> >>
> >> the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
> >> seems to be beyond your comprehension too...
> >
> > Since you fail to indicate what group you object this
> > being posted to
> > may I suggest you,
> > FOAD ?
>
> well duh !
> the one thats cut from the cross-post...
> you know,
> the one you put back just so you could respond with a troll
> :-)
I didn't think Harley riders were such cowards.
Reality_CheckŠ
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> In article <FZWdnX6yR_CVjBnV...@comcast.com>, K...@Ya.Net
> says...
>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.22ed602db...@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <TsednQ0FD97f4R7V...@comcast.com>,
>> > K...@Ya.Net
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>> >> ---snip---
>> >>
>> >> the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
>> >> seems to be beyond your comprehension too...
>> >
>> > Since you fail to indicate what group you object this
>> > being posted to
>> > may I suggest you,
>> > FOAD ?
>>
>> well duh !
>> the one thats cut from the cross-post...
>> you know,
>> the one you put back just so you could respond with a troll
>> :-)
>
> I didn't think Harley riders were such cowards.
Only a vacuous shitbag like you would equate equipment with courage.
tankfixer
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.22edb881a...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <FZWdnX6yR_CVjBnV...@comcast.com>, K...@Ya.Net
> > says...
> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.22ed602db...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> >> > In article <TsednQ0FD97f4R7V...@comcast.com>,
> >> > K...@Ya.Net
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> >> >> ---snip---
> >> >>
> >> >> the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
> >> >> seems to be beyond your comprehension too...
> >> >
> >> > Since you fail to indicate what group you object this
> >> > being posted to
> >> > may I suggest you,
> >> > FOAD ?
> >>
> >> well duh !
> >> the one thats cut from the cross-post...
> >> you know,
> >> the one you put back just so you could respond with a troll
> >> :-)
> >
> > I didn't think Harley riders were such cowards.
>
> Only a vacuous shitbag like you would equate equipment with courage.
That is a hoot coming from someone who believes inanimate object cause
crime
Scout
"'Key" <K...@Ya.Net> wrote in message
> "Buck Mulligan" <bkmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2c6784l0mab94mqsm...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"'Key" <K...@Ya.Net> wrote in message
>>>news:TsednQ0FD97f4R7V...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>>>> ---snip---
>>>>
>>>> the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
>>>> seems to be beyond your comprehension too...
>>>
>>>For one that bitches about crossposting........why are you doing so?
>>
>> Because it's OK when he does it. See, he's better than all of us and
>> deserves to post in peace.
>
> cross-posted back only to find your clueless ass.
Which was all those that your responded to were attempting to do. Seems once
again that when you do it, it's ok, but not for anyone else.
> you made my point that its "beyond your comprehension"
It's certainly beyond yours.
Buck Mulligan
>"Buck Mulligan" <bkmul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:2c6784l0mab94mqsm...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"'Key" <K...@Ya.Net> wrote in message
>>>news:TsednQ0FD97f4R7V...@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
>>>> ---snip---
>>>>
>>>> the wrong in cross-posting, off-topic,
>>>> seems to be beyond your comprehension too...
>>>
>>>For one that bitches about crossposting........why are you
>>>doing so?
>>
>> Because it's OK when he does it. See, he's better than all
>> of us and
>> deserves to post in peace.
>
>cross-posted back only to find your clueless ass.
So you're not worried about cross-posting, you just like to watch
yourself post. That's kinda what I figured.
Idiot.
Gray Ghost
@mid.individual.net:
Would that be like the vacuous shitbags here that equate gun ownership with
small penises?
Frank
--
Title 18 > Chapter 115 > § 2381 Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or
adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United
States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be
imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less
than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United
States
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
It is part of those terms and conditions, mon ami. It is part of the
sentence. However, one can petition the court for restoration of those
rights. Sometimes it even works.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
Never complain about old age......many others never had that opportunity.
RSweeney
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in message
> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
> RTKBA ?
So you once argued that honest citizens had no rights, now you are arguing
that criminals do?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> Susan Atkins, the Manson follower who stabbed Sharon Tate to death then
> licked the blade, now has a brain tumor. Miss Atkins was originally
> sentenced to death, then the Rose Bird court changed it to life without
> parole, and (of course) now that she's sick, the move is on to get her out
> under "compassionate release."
>
> Amazingly, the parole board said no, and it looks like she will die in
> prison, one of the few times I can recall where there actually is such a
> thing as "life without parole."
Yup and laura "the rammer" bush murdered a guy with her car and
nothing was ever done to her and you say "cool".
_ Prof. Jonez _
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was
involved with the 11 September attacks,"
-- G aWol Bush told reporters as he met
members of Congress on 9.17.03
"If you're asking if there's a direct link between 9/11
and Iraq, the answer is no."
--Donald Rumsfeld: 9.05
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in message
>
>> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it exclude ex-felons, or any of
>> those groups/individuals currently excluded by the Gov't from the
>> RTKBA ?
>
> So you once argued that honest citizens had no rights,
You're lying again.
> now you are arguing that criminals do?
Are you claiming that "criminals" don't ?