Americans for Gun Safety
N9NWO
<Dese...@mojave.net> wrote ...
: A new anti-gun organization surfaces
<http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/>
: *******************************************************************
: In The News
:
: Americans For Gun Safety Is A True Anti-Gun Group
: Recently a new anti-gun group has surfaced as a threat
: to gun ownership. Americans For Gun Safety bills itself
: as a "common sense" organization, but is really just as
: extreme as any other anti-gun group. Below is the text
: of a letter from ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker
: to members of Congress explaining this fact.
:
: February 13, 2001
:
: Dear Member of Congress:
:
: In the next few days you may see advertising from a new
: gun control activist group called "Americans for Gun
: Safety" (AGS). We would like to offer a little
: background information to keep their efforts in
: perspective.
:
: Despite the moderate rhetoric and flashy ads, as a
: "rose by any other name," AGS smells a lot like
: longtime gun ban lobby Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI).
: AGS is the brainchild of its principal funder, Andrew
: McKelvey, a former HCI board member who became
: disillusioned with his old organization's continued
: ineffectiveness. His strategy for building AGS is an
: old-fashioned hostile takeover: offer local anti-gun
: groups sorely needed funding for their operations, in
: return for their affiliation. So far, about 26 state
: groups-mostly longtime HCI affiliates-have joined.
Who is Andrew McKelvey? What are his goals?
Where does he get his money from?
: AGS is staffed, in turn, by its president Jonathan
: Cowan, former chief of staff to former HUD Secretary
: Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo, of course, was the Clinton
: Administration's leading proponent of blackmailing the
: firearms industry into ill-advised "settlements" by
: threatening prolonged and expensive litigation against
: gunmakers, to force them to agree to gun control
: schemes the Congress would not pass. Additionally,
: Cuomo hatched the plan to waste millions of taxpayer
: dollars on gun turn-in schemes, that had been found by
: the Administration's own Department of Justice to be
: ineffective in reducing crime. This ill-advised plan
: was also so clearly unauthorized by law that it drew a
: sharp rebuke from HUD's Inspector General.
So what you have is a back door group of democrats.
What this really looks like is a means to get money to
democratic candidates plus a means to attack republican
supporters. For this group, gun control is really a means
to defunding republicans.
: Personnel aside, AGS's claim to champion a "third way"
: in the gun debate rings hollow upon analysis of
: materials distributed to their state affiliates. I have
: enclosed a few pages from the materials distributed at
: a recent AGS meeting that indicate their real "top
: national priority": "passage of licensing and/or
: registration in the next Congress."
:
: I hope this information is helpful to you in evaluating
: AGS and its proposals. Needless to say, the National
: Rifle Association remains committed to the same
: principles as always, promoting the safe and
: responsible use of firearms by law-abiding Americans
: and the swift and sure punishment of violent criminals.
:
: Sincerely,
:
: James Jay Baker
: Executive Director
: *******************************************************************
:
:
: LIBERAL LAW #1:
: If you tell a lie often enough
: eventually it will be perceived
: as the truth...
Johann von Tebbes
--
Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
honest people.
Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
religious and other
freedoms per the US constitution. Gun-grabbers want to make you vulnerable.
NRA Membership:
1-800-672-2000
Hearing impaired:
1-800-672-8331
N9NWO <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:qwuj6.642$Mu5....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
Dana Phillips
"Johann von Tebbes" <jvte...@tcainternet.com> wrote in message
news:t8tf41k...@corp.supernews.com...
Panhead
>
> As an outsider, what do you think of the human race?
Speaking as a human, I do believe that the overwhelming majority
of us are just splendid.
Why do you ask, Dana?
(snip)
Johann von Tebbes
ja...@mindspring.com
> : LIBERAL LAW #1:
> : If you tell a lie often enough
> : eventually it will be perceived
> : as the truth...
So true. This was one of the main weapons of the Nazi Regime if not THE
main weapon.
Looks like the liberal didn't just import their gun control laws from them.
Jaxi
Dana Phillips
"Panhead" <panmy...@intac.com> wrote in message
news:3A8ECA14...@intac.com...
Why ask why Pan?
> (snip)
ALE
<n9...@amsat.org> wrote:
> So what you have is a back door group of democrats.
> What this really looks like is a means to get money to
> democratic candidates plus a means to attack republican
> supporters. For this group, gun control is really a means
> to defunding republicans.
WHAT?!?!? A LIBERAL GROUP ONLY INTERESTED IN MONEY AND POLITICS?!?!?
I have to tell you... I"m shocked... SHOCKED!! To hear that they
really don't care about safty as much as money and power through
politics!! Simply shocking...
ALE
<libera...@email.com> wrote:
> As an outsider, what do you think of the human race?
Please, if you could, from now on have a point when posting.
Dana Phillips
"ALE" <n...@known.com> wrote in message
news:180220011432562954%n...@known.com...
> In article <96mfds$9if$0...@pita.alt.net>, Dana Phillips
> <libera...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > As an outsider, what do you think of the human race?
>
> Please, if you could, from now on have a point when posting.
Point when posting from now on if you could have to please.
The Lone Haranguer
Me too! I can't believe even Democrats are so crass and
unfeeling. Oh the horror of all those children they are
exposing to danger to pursue the campaign dollar. Pass the
smelling salts, I feel faint.
LZ
Johann von Tebbes
--
Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
honest people.
Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
religious and other
freedoms per the US constitution. Gun-grabbers want to make you vulnerable.
NRA Membership:
1-800-672-2000
Hearing impaired:
1-800-672-8331
N9NWO <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:qwuj6.642$Mu5....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
>
harrison numbugger
Johann von Tebbes wrote:
>
> --
> Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> honest people.
> Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> religious and other
> freedoms per the US constitution.
if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
constitution then support the ACLU.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
MrFreeze
> > honest people.
> > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > religious and other
> > freedoms per the US constitution.
>
> if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> constitution then support the ACLU.
If ACLU would support the even numbered amendments too, maybe they
would get my support....
The Lone Haranguer
harrison numbugger wrote:
>
> Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > honest people.
> > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > religious and other
> > freedoms per the US constitution.
>
> if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> constitution then support the ACLU.
I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
children. Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
pedophilia legalized.
You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
LZ
Steve Hix
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
> if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> constitution then support the ACLU.
Well, the parts that they like, at least.
You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
Chicken Little
<esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> said
>
>
>harrison numbugger wrote:
>>
>> Johann von Tebbes wrote:
>> >
>> > --
>> > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
>> > honest people.
>> > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
>> > religious and other
>> > freedoms per the US constitution.
>>
>> if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>> constitution then support the ACLU.
>
>I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
>children. Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
>pedophilia legalized.
>
>You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
Why would anybody want to join something that has you as a founding
member?
( `''--. .-.
`'-. `\| | _
`\ /` )
_.'- ._ (_
;-.-. '. `\
/ / \ '.(`
__\o_\o_/ ,`)
.-'`` `""-. \
`''--.___, `\ }
/ / .-` ; }
/_/.'`-....-'| } _ _
`"` / / .' \.' \
/ / | / / _
__..--/` (__ _..----.._/ L.-' )
.--...--'' /` ` .--. _ `-.
(_ __. /` -. ' `\`""--.,_)
(_'__. { ) |
'._ - _{ .' ,_/
'--'` { .' ,_/
\ (_, ._.'
'. / |
'-. _ | /
`-||.--;\__/
jgs __ __||_ ||_
(_.``` "` `)(`" `-.__ _
(_.-' .-""` '-. -.`_)
'.__.' \ ) )
'--'`"`
The sky really is falling. Please believe me as I saw it just this morning
and am only concerned for you safety. I took time out of my busy day to
tell you this and if you are only going to laugh I will shit on your head,
Ever try to get chicken shit out of your hair? It is not easy.
BD (Dave) Thompson
"harrison numbugger" <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote in message
news:3A9155F3...@alltimes.now...
>
>
> Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > honest people.
> > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > religious and other
> > freedoms per the US constitution.
>
> if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> constitution then support the ACLU.
>
Don't DO THAT!!! Your humor made me spew coffee all over the screen and
keyboard. It was a joke, right?
Dave
Strider
"harrison numbugger" <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote in message
news:3A9155F3...@alltimes.now...
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > honest people.
> > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > religious and other
> > freedoms per the US constitution.
>
> if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> constitution then support the ACLU.
The ACLU is far too selective about what parts of the Constitution it
defends.
Strider
The Lone Haranguer
Chicken Little wrote:
>
> In alt.law-enforcement, The Lone Haranguer
> <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> said
>
> >
> >
> >harrison numbugger wrote:
> >>
> >> Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> >> > honest people.
> >> > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> >> > religious and other
> >> > freedoms per the US constitution.
> >>
> >> if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> >> constitution then support the ACLU.
> >
> >I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
> >children. Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
> >pedophilia legalized.
> >
> >You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
>
> Why would anybody want to join something that has you as a founding
> member?
>
U R kunfused. That was ur Pa.
LZ
harrison numbugger
The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> harrison numbugger wrote:
> >
> > Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> > >
> > > --
> > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > > honest people.
> > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > > religious and other
> > > freedoms per the US constitution.
> >
> > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > constitution then support the ACLU.
>
> I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
> children.
see what happens when you try to think? Wrong again.
> Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
> pedophilia legalized.
please show any evidence at all the the ACLU is in favor of legalizing
pedophilia. You can't? I didnt think so.
>
> You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
No, I'm not.
harrison numbugger
they do support 'the even numbered amendments' , I have to assume that
you are referring to the 2nd. They do support it, just not the
bastardized interpretation perpetrated by the gun nuts and the NRA. The
ACLU has done more to protect your rights and my rights then another
organization in the country.
harrison numbugger
they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
interpretation of the 2nd.
Chicken Little
<esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> said
>
>
>Chicken Little wrote:
>>
>> In alt.law-enforcement, The Lone Haranguer
>> <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> said
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >harrison numbugger wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Johann von Tebbes wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
>> >> > honest people.
>> >> > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
>> >> > religious and other
>> >> > freedoms per the US constitution.
>> >>
>> >> if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>> >> constitution then support the ACLU.
>> >
>> >I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
>> >children. Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
>> >pedophilia legalized.
>> >
>> >You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
>>
>> Why would anybody want to join something that has you as a founding
>> member?
>>
>U R kunfused. That was ur Pa.
>LZ
I know my pa and your own pa fucked you up the ass till you could no
longer think but it was you who was the founding member of Nambla.
You and your crack addicted mother that is.
The Lone Haranguer
harrison numbugger wrote:
>
> The Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > harrison numbugger wrote:
> > >
> > > Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > > > honest people.
> > > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > > > religious and other
> > > > freedoms per the US constitution.
> > >
> > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> >
> > I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
> > children.
>
> see what happens when you try to think? Wrong again.
The ACLU is defending NAMBLA in the case of the parents who
are suing them for advocating sex with children. The
"person" who murdered their child was a NAMBLA member.
>
> > Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
> > pedophilia legalized.
>
> please show any evidence at all the the ACLU is in favor of legalizing
> pedophilia. You can't? I didnt think so.
>
Since they are defending NAMBLA against the parents of a
murdered child I guess that is sufficient proof. The
murderer was a NAMBLA member. Are you defending the
murderer too or just NAMBLA?
>
> > You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
>
> No, I'm not.
>
If you are an ACLU supporter you should be questioning WHY
the ACLU is in court defending NAMBLA then. If you are an
ACLU member then you ARE involved with supporting NAMBLA in
the court case. THAT is where your money is being used.
Imagine how the parents of the murdered child feel to see
YOUR group supporting the guy who killed their child? You
should be more selective of which groups you join, scumbag.
LZ
The Lone Haranguer
harrison numbugger wrote:
>
> MrFreeze wrote:
> >
> > > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > > > honest people.
> > > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > > > religious and other
> > > > freedoms per the US constitution.
> > >
> > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> >
> > If ACLU would support the even numbered amendments too, maybe they
> > would get my support....
>
> they do support 'the even numbered amendments' , I have to assume that
> you are referring to the 2nd. They do support it, just not the
> bastardized interpretation perpetrated by the gun nuts and the NRA. The
> ACLU has done more to protect your rights and my rights then another
> organization in the country.
>
Including the rights of NAMBLA members to bugger young
children. Personally I would not be supporting groups with
such an agenda.
LZ
The Lone Haranguer
harrison numbugger wrote:
>
> Steve Hix wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
> > <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> >
> > Well, the parts that they like, at least.
> >
> > You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
> > the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
>
> they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
> interpretation of the 2nd.
>
Then they don't support it numbnuts. The 2nd, as with all
the other original amendments (except #5) were written ONLY
to limit the powers of a central government. They were NOT
written to authorize a militia, which is dealt with in the
parent document. Weird interpretations put on it by
gun-grabbing zealots DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
LZ
harrison numbugger
The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> harrison numbugger wrote:
> >
> > MrFreeze wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > > > > honest people.
> > > > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > > > > religious and other
> > > > > freedoms per the US constitution.
> > > >
> > > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> > >
> > > If ACLU would support the even numbered amendments too, maybe they
> > > would get my support....
> >
> > they do support 'the even numbered amendments' , I have to assume that
> > you are referring to the 2nd. They do support it, just not the
> > bastardized interpretation perpetrated by the gun nuts and the NRA. The
> > ACLU has done more to protect your rights and my rights then another
> > organization in the country.
> >
> Including the rights of NAMBLA members to bugger young
> children. Personally I would not be supporting groups with
> such an agenda.
I asked you before to post some evidence of this but of course you cant.
If you can't prove your allegations then why don't you just stop making
them. You are making yourself look like a complete ass.
The Lone Haranguer
So you admit your pa was a founding member. You sound like
a NAMBLA member all right, you've got the technique down
pretty well.
Too bad for dear old dad, that I was speedy and couldn't be
had.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nitwit.
LZ
The Lone Haranguer
harrison numbugger wrote:
>
> The Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > harrison numbugger wrote:
> > >
> > > MrFreeze wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > > > > > honest people.
> > > > > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > > > > > religious and other
> > > > > > freedoms per the US constitution.
> > > > >
> > > > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> > > >
> > > > If ACLU would support the even numbered amendments too, maybe they
> > > > would get my support....
> > >
> > > they do support 'the even numbered amendments' , I have to assume that
> > > you are referring to the 2nd. They do support it, just not the
> > > bastardized interpretation perpetrated by the gun nuts and the NRA. The
> > > ACLU has done more to protect your rights and my rights then another
> > > organization in the country.
> > >
> > Including the rights of NAMBLA members to bugger young
> > children. Personally I would not be supporting groups with
> > such an agenda.
>
> I asked you before to post some evidence of this but of course you cant.
> If you can't prove your allegations then why don't you just stop making
> them. You are making yourself look like a complete ass.
>
While you are appearing as a complete doofus because the
case has received VERY wide publicity. It involves the case
of a young boy murdered by a NAMBLA member in the pursuit of
child sex. Police found NAMBLA material in his home and he
was a member. The parents then sued NAMBLA for supporting
pedophiles and even instructing them on how to lure
children.
The ACLU is in court defending NAMBLA against the parents of
the murdered child.
If you don't know this, you must be a rube whose TV has been
on the fritz for a year. Climb back on the turnip truck you
nitwit. If you sincerely believe this is false info, visit
the ACLU website. I'm sure they are soliciting cash to help
defend NAMBLA.
LZ
TrollBeOne
<3A91861B...@tabletoptelephone.com>:
What I heard was that he would pull his old shit crusted dick out of your
crack whore moms ass and make you suck him the rest of the way off as he
could not stand the thought of creating another useless shit like you. I
bet you can still taste that mix of shit and cum to this day.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nitwit.
>LZ
>> >
>> >
>> >> >LZ
>> >> >> >Gun-grabbers want to make you vulnerable.
>> >> >> > NRA Membership:
>> >> >> > 1-800-672-2000
>> >> >> > Hearing impaired:
>> >> >> > 1-800-672-8331
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > N9NWO <n9...@amsat.org> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:qwuj6.642$Mu5....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > <Dese...@mojave.net> wrote ...
>> >> >> > > : A new anti-gun organization surfaces
>> >> >> > > <http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > : ***********************************************************
>> >> >> > > : ******** In The News
>> >> >> > > : ********
>> >> >> > > :
>> >> >> > > :
>> >> >> > > : LIBERAL LAW #1:
>> >> >> > > : If you tell a lie often enough
>> >> >> > > : eventually it will be perceived
>> >> >> > > : as the truth...
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _________________________________________________________________
>> >> >> _____ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -
--
__ __| | | __ ) _ \
| __| _ \ | | __ \ _ \ | | __ \ _ \
| | ( | | | | | __/ | | | | __/
_|_| \___/ _|_|____/ \___|\___/ _| _|\___|
____| _) | __ ) | __ )
__| __ `__ \ _` | | | __ \ _ \ __ `__ \ __ \ __ \ _ \
| | | | ( | | | | | ( | | | | | | | | __/
_____|_| _| _|\__,_|_|_|____/ \___/ _| _| _|_.__/ ____/ \___|
harrison numbugger
The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> harrison numbugger wrote:
> >
> > The Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > >
> > > harrison numbugger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > > > > honest people.
> > > > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > > > > religious and other
> > > > > freedoms per the US constitution.
> > > >
> > > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> > >
> > > I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
> > > children.
> >
> > see what happens when you try to think? Wrong again.
>
> The ACLU is defending NAMBLA in the case of the parents who
> are suing them for advocating sex with children. The
> "person" who murdered their child was a NAMBLA member.
They are defending NAMBLAs right to free speech, they are not defending
anyone's right to prey on anyone.
The first amendment allows those with unpopular opinions and view points
to express them, but people like you , who believe that the constitution
protects only the wacko right are unable to comprehend freedom or the
constitution. If you ban this speech , what next? Would you advocate the
banning of publications critical of the government? Critical of
religion? Speech that promotes liberalism? The 'speech' that NAMBLA is
fighting to protect is repulsive and disgusting to most of us. A lot of
speech out there is.
Once again. The ACLU is NOT defending anyone's 'right to prey on
children'. They are defending the first amendment.
> >
> > > Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
> > > pedophilia legalized.
> >
> > please show any evidence at all the the ACLU is in favor of legalizing
> > pedophilia. You can't? I didnt think so.
> >
> Since they are defending NAMBLA against the parents of a
> murdered child I guess that is sufficient proof. The
> murderer was a NAMBLA member. Are you defending the
> murderer too or just NAMBLA?
The ACLU is defending free speech and the constitution.
> >
> > > You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
> >
> > No, I'm not.
> >
> If you are an ACLU supporter you should be questioning WHY
> the ACLU is in court defending NAMBLA then. If you are an
> ACLU member then you ARE involved with supporting NAMBLA in
> the court case. THAT is where your money is being used.
> Imagine how the parents of the murdered child feel to see
> YOUR group supporting the guy who killed their child? You
> should be more selective of which groups you join, scumbag.
> LZ
>
Of course I feel compassion for the child and his parents but I am not
willing to give up freedom to express this compassion.
I am a supporter of the ACLU and always will be. I regularly disagree
with many of the defendants being supported by the ACLU but I do not
disagree with their right to have and express opinions that differ then
mine. If you believe in freedom and the first amendment then it has to
apply to everyone not just those who think like you. I disagree
vehemently with about 98% of everything you say, but I would support
your right to express yourself to the end.
The Lone Haranguer
You sound like you are whipping up a batch even as you speak
and are drooling on the keyboard. You perverts from NAMBLA
have the strangest appetites. For a real "around the world"
thrill, shove a 12 gauge up your ass and pull the trigger.
harrison numbugger
The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> harrison numbugger wrote:
> >
> > Steve Hix wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
> > > <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> > >
> > > Well, the parts that they like, at least.
> > >
> > > You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
> > > the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
> >
> > they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
> > interpretation of the 2nd.
> >
> Then they don't support it numbnuts. The 2nd, as with all
> the other original amendments (except #5) were written ONLY
> to limit the powers of a central government. They were NOT
> written to authorize a militia, which is dealt with in the
> parent document. Weird interpretations put on it by
> gun-grabbing zealots DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
the fact is that gun nuts don't care about facts......regulation of fire
arms is NOT unconstitutional.
The Lone Haranguer
harrison numbugger wrote:
>
> The Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > harrison numbugger wrote:
> > >
> > > The Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > harrison numbugger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
> > > > > > honest people.
> > > > > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > > > > > religious and other
> > > > > > freedoms per the US constitution.
> > > > >
> > > > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> > > >
> > > > I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
> > > > children.
> > >
> > > see what happens when you try to think? Wrong again.
> >
> > The ACLU is defending NAMBLA in the case of the parents who
> > are suing them for advocating sex with children. The
> > "person" who murdered their child was a NAMBLA member.
>
> They are defending NAMBLAs right to free speech, they are not defending
> anyone's right to prey on anyone.
Oh yes they are. Free speech DOES NOT include the right to
advocate harming anyone and NAMBLA had sent out instructions
on how to lure young children into sex. The police found
the evidence in the murderer's home and THAT is why the
parents are suing NAMBLA.
Get your shit straight before you dribble it from your
mouth.
> The first amendment allows those with unpopular opinions and view points
> to express them, but people like you , who believe that the constitution
> protects only the wacko right are unable to comprehend freedom or the
> constitution. If you ban this speech , what next? Would you advocate the
> banning of publications critical of the government? Critical of
> religion? Speech that promotes liberalism? The 'speech' that NAMBLA is
> fighting to protect is repulsive and disgusting to most of us. A lot of
> speech out there is.
There are limits, even to free speech. You cannot yell
"fire" in a crowded theater because of the potential harm it
can cause. NAMBLA cannot give instructions on how to lure
children for illegal sex. It's against the law. In fact
they should be in jail for aiding and abetting.
>
> Once again. The ACLU is NOT defending anyone's 'right to prey on
> children'. They are defending the first amendment.
They are defending NAMBLA's aiding and abetting of luring
children for illegal sexual contact. If I help bank robbers
by drawing a floor plan of a bank and they rob it, I am an
accomplice.
Stop bullshitting us.
>
> > >
> > > > Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
> > > > pedophilia legalized.
> > >
> > > please show any evidence at all the the ACLU is in favor of legalizing
> > > pedophilia. You can't? I didnt think so.
> > >
> > Since they are defending NAMBLA against the parents of a
> > murdered child I guess that is sufficient proof. The
> > murderer was a NAMBLA member. Are you defending the
> > murderer too or just NAMBLA?
>
> The ACLU is defending free speech and the constitution.
>
Horse frockey. They are defending accomplices to
pedophiles.
> > >
> > > > You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
> > >
> > > No, I'm not.
> > >
> > If you are an ACLU supporter you should be questioning WHY
> > the ACLU is in court defending NAMBLA then. If you are an
> > ACLU member then you ARE involved with supporting NAMBLA in
> > the court case. THAT is where your money is being used.
> > Imagine how the parents of the murdered child feel to see
> > YOUR group supporting the guy who killed their child? You
> > should be more selective of which groups you join, scumbag.
> > LZ
> >
>
> Of course I feel compassion for the child and his parents but I am not
> willing to give up freedom to express this compassion.
>
You send money to the ACLU but I bet you didn't send any to
the child's parents to fight their court case. That tells
us clearly which side you are on.
> I am a supporter of the ACLU and always will be. I regularly disagree
> with many of the defendants being supported by the ACLU but I do not
> disagree with their right to have and express opinions that differ then
> mine. If you believe in freedom and the first amendment then it has to
> apply to everyone not just those who think like you. I disagree
> vehemently with about 98% of everything you say, but I would support
> your right to express yourself to the end.
If I drew the building plans for Tim McVeigh you would be
screaming for my head. You liberals are soooooooooo
selective in those who have free speech rights and those who
don't. If NAMBLA gives instructions on how to commit a
crime, how does that qualify as free speech?
LZ
MrFreeze
> you are referring to the 2nd. They do support it, just not the
> bastardized interpretation perpetrated by the gun nuts and the NRA.
What interpretation would that be? It is written in plain English.
They do not support it as written.
What is their position on asset forfeiture laws?
> The ACLU has done more to protect your rights and my rights then another
> organization in the country.
They supported the neo-nazi march through Skokie, IL.
RD Thompson
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
>
>Johann von Tebbes wrote:
>>
>> --
>> Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
>> honest people.
>> Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
>> religious and other
>> freedoms per the US constitution.
>
>if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>constitution then support the ACLU.
They do not support much beyond the First Amendment.
Sleep well tonight.....
The Sandman
RD Thompson
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
>
>MrFreeze wrote:
>>
>> > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
>> > > honest people.
>> > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
>> > > religious and other
>> > > freedoms per the US constitution.
>> >
>> > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>> > constitution then support the ACLU.
>>
>> If ACLU would support the even numbered amendments too, maybe they
>> would get my support....
>
>they do support 'the even numbered amendments' , I have to assume that
>you are referring to the 2nd. They do support it, just not the
>bastardized interpretation perpetrated by the gun nuts and the NRA. The
>ACLU has done more to protect your rights and my rights then another
>organization in the country.
ROFLMAO!!!!
VRWC
wrote:
Is this really an intelligent argument or the rantings of a six year
high school student?
VRWC
The ACLU is pretty quiet when liberals try to push "hate speech"
legislation and appear to be tongue-tied when it comes to "politically
correct" language.
Wm (Wild Bill) Stone
> harrison numbugger wrote:
>
> the fact is that gun nuts don't care about facts......regulation of fire
> arms is NOT unconstitutional.
--------------------------------------------------------
Ok, let's take a look at that assertion and see how it flies in the face of
reality and truth!
The 2nd Amendment does NOT SAY: A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the STATE to
Arm and Maintain a Militia, shall not be infringed.
---------------------------------------------
The 2nd Amendment DOES SAY: 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 2nd Amendment clearly states that a well regulated Militia is
necessary "TO" the security of a free State. This means that a Militia
is considered to be "One Of" the necessary elements in State Security.
However, no place in the 2nd Amendment does it state that being a
MEMBER of a Militia is necessary "TO" the right to keep and bear Arms.
The 2nd Amendment DOES clearly state that the right to keep and
bear Arms "shall NOT be infringed." This, to normal people, means
that "No Legal Strings May Be Attached" by ANY level of Government.
My friends, I put to you that there is no difference between the
statement in the 1st Amendment; "Congress shall make no law........."
and the equivalent statement in Amendment II; "Shall NOT be infringed."
They are "Legally" one and the same statement!
Does a Constitutional Protected RIGHT come and go at the whims of
Congress, or is Congress bound by law to protect and respect the rights
that the "PEOPLE" have reserved for themselves in the Constitution?
Just as the old Christian song states "Praise God from whom all
blessing flow," the powers of Government flow (FROM) the People (TO) the
Government. The "Rights" that are written in the Constitution, and the
first ten Amendments to the Constitution, are the words of the "PEOPLE"
who are telling "Government" that (We Reserve These Rights To Ourselves)
and that Government must not only recognize these rights, but respect
them as well.
Highly respected Constitutional scholar Stephen P. Halbrook had
this to say about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as it relates to
Amendment II:
"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second
Amendment protects the 'collective' right of states to
maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of
"the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained
this notion in the period during which the Constitution and
Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of
the most closely guarded secrets of the 18th century, for no
known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791
states such a thesis."
Face facts my friends, there has never been anything in the U.S.
Constitution, or the Amendments to the Constitution, that REQUIRES a
State in the Union to keep or maintain a Militia of any kind!
Question: Does the RIGHT go away if the Militia doesn't exist?
Answer: Of course not, the RIGHT is also a LAW!
------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 or 16 which
REQUIRES Congress to "Establish or Arm" a Militia. That law simply
empowers Congress to take such action if they so desire!
Question: Does the RIGHT go away if the Militia doesn't exist?
Answer: Of course not, the RIGHT is also a LAW!
------------------------------------------------
Bottom Line: There simply aren't any legal grounds for the notion
that the right to keep and bear Arms is predicated upon "Membership" in a
State or Federal Militia, or that the right is anything OTHER than the
individual right of each eligible member of the class called "The
People!"
---
Always remember - Diet Doctor Pepper tastes more like regular Doctor Pepper
than Whale Piss! But not much more...
- Wm. (Wild Bill) Stone -
Retired Military - Democrat - Member of the NRA and GOA
The Lone Haranguer
harrison numbugger wrote:
>
> The Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > harrison numbugger wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve Hix wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
> > > > <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > > > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the parts that they like, at least.
> > > >
> > > > You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
> > > > the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
> > >
> > > they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
> > > interpretation of the 2nd.
> > >
> > Then they don't support it numbnuts. The 2nd, as with all
> > the other original amendments (except #5) were written ONLY
> > to limit the powers of a central government. They were NOT
> > written to authorize a militia, which is dealt with in the
> > parent document. Weird interpretations put on it by
> > gun-grabbing zealots DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
>
> the fact is that gun nuts don't care about facts......regulation of fire
> arms is NOT unconstitutional.
>
The BOR limits the FEDERAL government. It says that the
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just
because the Congress passes bills doesn't mean they are
Constitutional as the part of the Brady Bill that was
challenged proved. Even the USSC is prone to error on their
interpretations since MOST are based strictly on personal
ideologies. If the USSC in their knowledge and power were
divinely inspired all rulings would be 9-0. We know they
seldom are.
When the judges who are gun owners are in place, they will
make what THEY feel is the correct ruling. I can tell you
won't like it.
LZ
harrison numbugger
thats for the court to decide and NAMBLA has a right competent
representation and the ACLU regularly defends first amendment cases.
>and NAMBLA had sent out instructions
> on how to lure young children into sex. The police found
> the evidence in the murderer's home and THAT is why the
> parents are suing NAMBLA.
>
> Get your shit straight before you dribble it from your
> mouth.
>
of course when you cant support your argument with facts you resort to
profanity...how typical
> > The first amendment allows those with unpopular opinions and view points
> > to express them, but people like you , who believe that the constitution
> > protects only the wacko right are unable to comprehend freedom or the
> > constitution. If you ban this speech , what next? Would you advocate the
> > banning of publications critical of the government? Critical of
> > religion? Speech that promotes liberalism? The 'speech' that NAMBLA is
> > fighting to protect is repulsive and disgusting to most of us. A lot of
> > speech out there is.
>
> There are limits, even to free speech. You cannot yell
> "fire" in a crowded theater because of the potential harm it
> can cause. NAMBLA cannot give instructions on how to lure
> children for illegal sex. It's against the law. In fact
> they should be in jail for aiding and abetting.
What law? They claim they didnt post illeagel information. It seems to
me that if they had, they would have been prosecuted, but its for the
courts to decide. Do you believe that everyone is entitled to competent
representation?
> >
> > Once again. The ACLU is NOT defending anyone's 'right to prey on
> > children'. They are defending the first amendment.
>
> They are defending NAMBLA's aiding and abetting of luring
> children for illegal sexual contact. If I help bank robbers
> by drawing a floor plan of a bank and they rob it, I am an
> accomplice.
>
they are defending the first amendment , the fact that you are to blind
or to ignorant to see this doesn't change fact.
> Stop bullshitting us.
the fact that you are not able to comprehend that constitution and the
implications of freedom doesnt mean that im bullshitting you. freedom
comes with a price that price is that you sometimes have to tolerate
that with which you disagree.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
> > > > > pedophilia legalized.
> > > >
> > > > please show any evidence at all the the ACLU is in favor of legalizing
> > > > pedophilia. You can't? I didnt think so.
> > > >
> > > Since they are defending NAMBLA against the parents of a
> > > murdered child I guess that is sufficient proof. The
> > > murderer was a NAMBLA member. Are you defending the
> > > murderer too or just NAMBLA?
> >
> > The ACLU is defending free speech and the constitution.
> >
> Horse frockey. They are defending accomplices to
> pedophiles.
they are defending free speech.
> > > >
> > > > > You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
> > > >
> > > > No, I'm not.
> > > >
> > > If you are an ACLU supporter you should be questioning WHY
> > > the ACLU is in court defending NAMBLA then. If you are an
> > > ACLU member then you ARE involved with supporting NAMBLA in
> > > the court case. THAT is where your money is being used.
> > > Imagine how the parents of the murdered child feel to see
> > > YOUR group supporting the guy who killed their child? You
> > > should be more selective of which groups you join, scumbag.
> > > LZ
> > >
> >
> > Of course I feel compassion for the child and his parents but I am not
> > willing to give up freedom to express this compassion.
> >
> You send money to the ACLU but I bet you didn't send any to
> the child's parents to fight their court case. That tells
> us clearly which side you are on.
>
no, I didn't. did you? I'm not on a 'side' I think that NAMBLA is a
disgusting organization and I hope that they lose, but that doesn't
change the fact that the ACLU is an organization that will fight for the
rights of EVERYONE and anyone, including nazis, the klan, jews,
Christians, gays etc etc. If the group committed a crime by inciting the
act then they will be punished as they should be, but again they have a
right to competent representation and the ACLU feels as if the speech in
question is within the law, if its not then they will lose.
> > I am a supporter of the ACLU and always will be. I regularly disagree
> > with many of the defendants being supported by the ACLU but I do not
> > disagree with their right to have and express opinions that differ then
> > mine. If you believe in freedom and the first amendment then it has to
> > apply to everyone not just those who think like you. I disagree
> > vehemently with about 98% of everything you say, but I would support
> > your right to express yourself to the end.
>
> If I drew the building plans for Tim McVeigh you would be
> screaming for my head.
absolutely , if you KNEW that in doing so you would be helping to commit
a crime, but you would still be entitled to competent representation
just as McVeigh was.
>You liberals are soooooooooo
> selective in those who have free speech rights and those who
> don't.
no, we are not, its you conservatives who believe that the constitution
only applies to you.
> If NAMBLA gives instructions on how to commit a
> crime, how does that qualify as free speech?
giving instructions on how to commit a crime is in itself necessarily a
crime. Its a crime only if there is reasonable probability that the
information will INCITE a crime. If thats the case, they will lose. It
doesnt change the fact that the ACLU does more to protect your
constitutional rights then any other organization in the country.
Gunner
<theskyi...@anAlarmingrate.now> wrote:
>
>I know my pa and your own pa fucked you up the ass till you could no
>longer think but it was you who was the founding member of Nambla.
>You and your crack addicted mother that is.
>
More intellectual bits of rational discourse from CL. God Id be so
proud if I was your Dad.
Not
Gunner
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
Gunner
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>> >
>> Including the rights of NAMBLA members to bugger young
>> children. Personally I would not be supporting groups with
>> such an agenda.
>
>
>I asked you before to post some evidence of this but of course you cant.
>If you can't prove your allegations then why don't you just stop making
>them. You are making yourself look like a complete ass.
>
Pee Harrison again... sigh... ok pee.. want to start the Bastardized
Version of the Second Amendment By the NRA thread again? It lasted
what.. 2 weeks before you disappeared the last time. Damned shame you
didnt die in the mean time. Looks like you never made it up to Oregon
to the Christmas tree plantation. Better luck next time.
Gunner
wrote:
>The Lone Haranguer <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote in
Another reason children should not be let out of school during the
week and left unattended with the home computer
The Lone Haranguer
In the war of ideas, liberal trolls are always out of ammo.
LZ
harrison numbugger
Gunner wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:44:55 -0500, harrison numbugger
> <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> Including the rights of NAMBLA members to bugger young
> >> children. Personally I would not be supporting groups with
> >> such an agenda.
> >
> >
> >I asked you before to post some evidence of this but of course you cant.
> >If you can't prove your allegations then why don't you just stop making
> >them. You are making yourself look like a complete ass.
> >
> Pee Harrison again... sigh... ok pee.. want to start the Bastardized
> Version of the Second Amendment By the NRA thread again? It lasted
> what.. 2 weeks before you disappeared the last time. Damned shame you
> didnt die in the mean time. Looks like you never made it up to Oregon
> to the Christmas tree plantation. Better luck next time.
>
what in the hell are you rambling on about?
Steve Hix
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> Steve Hix wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
> > <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect
> > > the
> > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> >
> > Well, the parts that they like, at least.
> >
> > You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
> > the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
>
> they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
> interpretation of the 2nd.
They adopted an interpretation that is no longer supported by
serious constitutional law scholars, including people like Tribe,
Van Alstyne and others. There is good reason that the position
you dislike is called the standard model.
Heck, even the ACLU can't agree on their 2nd amendment stance; the
ICLU (Indiana chapter of the ACLU) some years back took a long look
at the 2nd and concluded that the national body's position was
just untenable.
Steve Hix
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> The Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > harrison numbugger wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve Hix wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
> > > > <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to
> > > > > protect the
> > > > > constitution then support the ACLU.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the parts that they like, at least.
> > > >
> > > > You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
> > > > the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
> > >
> > > they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
> > > interpretation of the 2nd.
> > >
> > Then they don't support it numbnuts. The 2nd, as with all
> > the other original amendments (except #5) were written ONLY
> > to limit the powers of a central government. They were NOT
> > written to authorize a militia, which is dealt with in the
> > parent document. Weird interpretations put on it by
> > gun-grabbing zealots DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
>
> the fact is that gun nuts don't care about facts......regulation of fire
> arms is NOT unconstitutional.
Regulation is one thing.
Prohibitions are something different.
And Ex Post Facto laws *used* to be considered a Bad Thing.
The Lone Haranguer
In this case they are defending the right of a group that
preys on children to send out "how-to" books to their
members. I would call it aiding and abetting criminal
activity.
> >and NAMBLA had sent out instructions
> > on how to lure young children into sex. The police found
> > the evidence in the murderer's home and THAT is why the
> > parents are suing NAMBLA.
> >
> > Get your shit straight before you dribble it from your
> > mouth.
> >
>
> of course when you cant support your argument with facts you resort to
> profanity...how typical
If you don't know about the case, take time out to research
it. Don't sit here and spew about how ignorant you are. We
already came to that conclusion.
>
> > > The first amendment allows those with unpopular opinions and view points
> > > to express them, but people like you , who believe that the constitution
> > > protects only the wacko right are unable to comprehend freedom or the
> > > constitution. If you ban this speech , what next? Would you advocate the
> > > banning of publications critical of the government? Critical of
> > > religion? Speech that promotes liberalism? The 'speech' that NAMBLA is
> > > fighting to protect is repulsive and disgusting to most of us. A lot of
> > > speech out there is.
> >
> > There are limits, even to free speech. You cannot yell
> > "fire" in a crowded theater because of the potential harm it
> > can cause. NAMBLA cannot give instructions on how to lure
> > children for illegal sex. It's against the law. In fact
> > they should be in jail for aiding and abetting.
>
> What law? They claim they didnt post illeagel information. It seems to
> me that if they had, they would have been prosecuted, but its for the
> courts to decide. Do you believe that everyone is entitled to competent
> representation?
>
Scumbags can use their own cash or the public defender. I
can see you know nothing about the case.
>
> > >
> > > Once again. The ACLU is NOT defending anyone's 'right to prey on
> > > children'. They are defending the first amendment.
> >
> > They are defending NAMBLA's aiding and abetting of luring
> > children for illegal sexual contact. If I help bank robbers
> > by drawing a floor plan of a bank and they rob it, I am an
> > accomplice.
> >
>
> they are defending the first amendment , the fact that you are to blind
> or to ignorant to see this doesn't change fact.
>
In other words you would sooner delude yourself than have to
look at the true situation. Fine. You're probably still
believing that Bubber Clinton is the straightest arrow on
the planet.
\
Some people are really gullible. You must own 40 bridges by
now.
> > Stop bullshitting us.
>
> the fact that you are not able to comprehend that constitution and the
> implications of freedom doesnt mean that im bullshitting you. freedom
> comes with a price that price is that you sometimes have to tolerate
> that with which you disagree.
Wrong. We don't have to protect child molesters or child
murderers. Those that do are as bad as the perpetrators.
Trying to wrap yourself in the first amendment is just
sleazy doublespeak to ease your conscience.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
> > > > > > pedophilia legalized.
> > > > >
> > > > > please show any evidence at all the the ACLU is in favor of legalizing
> > > > > pedophilia. You can't? I didnt think so.
> > > > >
> > > > Since they are defending NAMBLA against the parents of a
> > > > murdered child I guess that is sufficient proof. The
> > > > murderer was a NAMBLA member. Are you defending the
> > > > murderer too or just NAMBLA?
> > >
> > > The ACLU is defending free speech and the constitution.
> > >
> > Horse frockey. They are defending accomplices to
> > pedophiles.
>
> they are defending free speech.
>
Baloney, Salami and Pepperoni. That is just a dodge so you
don't have to admit you are supporting a bunch of pedophile
protectors.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I'm not.
> > > > >
> > > > If you are an ACLU supporter you should be questioning WHY
> > > > the ACLU is in court defending NAMBLA then. If you are an
> > > > ACLU member then you ARE involved with supporting NAMBLA in
> > > > the court case. THAT is where your money is being used.
> > > > Imagine how the parents of the murdered child feel to see
> > > > YOUR group supporting the guy who killed their child? You
> > > > should be more selective of which groups you join, scumbag.
> > > > LZ
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course I feel compassion for the child and his parents but I am not
> > > willing to give up freedom to express this compassion.
> > >
> > You send money to the ACLU but I bet you didn't send any to
> > the child's parents to fight their court case. That tells
> > us clearly which side you are on.
> >
>
> no, I didn't. did you? I'm not on a 'side' I think that NAMBLA is a
> disgusting organization and I hope that they lose, but that doesn't
> change the fact that the ACLU is an organization that will fight for the
> rights of EVERYONE and anyone, including nazis, the klan, jews,
> Christians, gays etc etc. If the group committed a crime by inciting the
> act then they will be punished as they should be, but again they have a
> right to competent representation and the ACLU feels as if the speech in
> question is within the law, if its not then they will lose.
>
You are an idiot. It's just a fund-raiser for the ACLU.
Gullible morons such as you believe this free-speech jingo
and send money. The FACT is they are supporting an
organization that not only promotes sex with children but
even educates its members on how to lure and seduce them.
Every NAMBLA member they suspect should be tracked down and
prosecuted under the RICO statutes and their sleazy ACLU
lawyers with them.
> > > I am a supporter of the ACLU and always will be. I regularly disagree
> > > with many of the defendants being supported by the ACLU but I do not
> > > disagree with their right to have and express opinions that differ then
> > > mine. If you believe in freedom and the first amendment then it has to
> > > apply to everyone not just those who think like you. I disagree
> > > vehemently with about 98% of everything you say, but I would support
> > > your right to express yourself to the end.
> >
> > If I drew the building plans for Tim McVeigh you would be
> > screaming for my head.
>
> absolutely , if you KNEW that in doing so you would be helping to commit
> a crime, but you would still be entitled to competent representation
> just as McVeigh was.
The ACLU did NOT represent Tim McVeigh although the argument
COULD be made that he was merely exercising his free speech
rights the same way flag burners do but he misjudged the
amount of explosives it would require.
I consider your argument to be in the same vein.
>
> >You liberals are soooooooooo
> > selective in those who have free speech rights and those who
> > don't.
>
> no, we are not, its you conservatives who believe that the constitution
> only applies to you.
This is not a Constitutional issue, that is simply a red
herring.
>
> > If NAMBLA gives instructions on how to commit a
> > crime, how does that qualify as free speech?
>
> giving instructions on how to commit a crime is in itself necessarily a
> crime. Its a crime only if there is reasonable probability that the
> information will INCITE a crime. If thats the case, they will lose. It
> doesnt change the fact that the ACLU does more to protect your
> constitutional rights then any other organization in the country.
>
It's like having Eichmann for your lawyer. Who wants them?
Not me.
They are as scuzzy as their clients. Or their supporters.
LZ
Johann von Tebbes
RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:br7u8t0g2cneiluob...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:20:51 -0500, harrison numbugger
> <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> >>
> >> --
> >> Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out
of
> >> honest people.
> >> Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> >> religious and other
> >> freedoms per the US constitution.
> >
> >if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> >constitution then support the ACLU.
I think that stands for "Assholes Claiming Life's Unnatural"
harrison numbugger
Johann von Tebbes wrote:
>
> RD Thompson <san...@azstarnet.com> wrote in message
> news:br7u8t0g2cneiluob...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:20:51 -0500, harrison numbugger
> > <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out
> of
> > >> honest people.
> > >> Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
> > >> religious and other
> > >> freedoms per the US constitution.
> > >
> > >if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
> > >constitution then support the ACLU.
>
> I think that stands for "Assholes Claiming Life's Unnatural"
youre pretty witty for an idiot
> >
> > They do not support much beyond the First Amendment.
> >
> >
> > Sleep well tonight.....
> >
> > The Sandman
> >
> > http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
______________________________________________________________________
Mitchell Holman
}In article <3A917D16...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
}<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
}
}>
}> they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
}> interpretation of the 2nd.
}
}They adopted an interpretation that is no longer supported by
}serious constitutional law scholars, including people like Tribe,
}Van Alstyne and others.
Is Robert Bork one of those serious constitutional
law scholars?
Mitchell Holman
"The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no
individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was
designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible
tyrannical national government."
Robert Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p.166
Gunner
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>> > >constitution then support the ACLU.
>>
>> I think that stands for "Assholes Claiming Life's Unnatural"
>
>
>youre pretty witty for an idiot
>
Which is to his credit. At least he is witty. You on the other hand..
as simply an idiot.
James F. Mayer
> }In article <3A917D16...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
> }<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> }
> }>
> }> they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
> }> interpretation of the 2nd.
> }
> }They adopted an interpretation that is no longer supported by
> }serious constitutional law scholars, including people like Tribe,
> }Van Alstyne and others.
>
>
> Is Robert Bork one of those serious constitutional
> law scholars?
>
>
> Mitchell Holman
>
> "The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no
> individual right to own a firearm.
No they haven't and he is wrong. The only case is the Miller case
and it says no such thing.
"...this [Supreme] Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial [to
hear a case] carries with it no implication whatever regarding the
Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to
review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the
admonition has to be repeated."
(Justice Frankfurter, Maryland v. Broadcast Radio Show, Inc. 338 US
912, 1950)
The Second Amendment was
> designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible
> tyrannical national government."
> Robert Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p.166
>
Then why doesn't it say that? Why does it say that it is a "right
of the people" and not a power of the states?
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
>
>The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>
>> harrison numbugger wrote:
>> >
>> > Johann von Tebbes wrote:
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
>> > > honest people.
>> > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
>> > > religious and other
>> > > freedoms per the US constitution.
>> >
>> > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>> > constitution then support the ACLU.
>>
>> I think the ACLU is supporting NAMBLA's right to prey on
>> children.
>
>
>see what happens when you try to think? Wrong again.
>
>> Most people do not subscribe to groups that want
>> pedophilia legalized.
>
>please show any evidence at all the the ACLU is in favor of legalizing
>pedophilia. You can't? I didnt think so.
The ACLU doesn't "legalize" anything. They support causes incidentally by
defending groups and individuals. In this case NAMBLA. You a member?
>
>>
>> You aren't a NAMBLA member are you?
>
>No, I'm not.
Not even in "spirit"?
d'geezer ®
>> > ______________________________________________________________________
>> > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
>> > With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>> >
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government,
there is found state education. It has been discovered
that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to
commence tyranny in the nursery." -- Benjamin Disraeli
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
>
>MrFreeze wrote:
>>
>> > > Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
>> > > honest people.
>> > > Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
>> > > religious and other
>> > > freedoms per the US constitution.
>> >
>> > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>> > constitution then support the ACLU.
>>
>> If ACLU would support the even numbered amendments too, maybe they
>> would get my support....
>
>they do support 'the even numbered amendments' , I have to assume that
>you are referring to the 2nd. They do support it, just not the
>bastardized interpretation perpetrated by the gun nuts and the NRA. The
>ACLU has done more to protect your rights and my rights then another
>organization in the country.
Oh, another grammar deprived doofi. Go get any good little book on English usage
and look up dependent clauses then look at the 2nd again. If the content were
different (not referring to arms) by referring to something that you favored you'd
scream you little head off at someone attempting to try to show a limit of the
second part by the first, wouldn't you, you idiot?
Any grammarian can tell you easily that the right to keep and bear arms is
necessary, in that statement, for manning a militia, but does not in any way
proscribe having arms for other purposes. The ownership of arms is covered in
another amendment, but we won't confuse you by going in to that...just trust us
that for the purposes of being able to quickly form a militia the founders saw
universal gun ownership as a need, just as they no doubt felt cavalry officers
would do the state a service by owning their own mounts and bringing them to war.
d'geezer ®
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
>
>Steve Hix wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
>> <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>> > constitution then support the ACLU.
>>
>> Well, the parts that they like, at least.
>>
>> You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
>> the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
>
>they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
>interpretation of the 2nd.
And that clearly demonstrates their bias. I notice they exercise no such bias in
taking the NAMBLA case.
If I were to be charged with a crime and my interpretation of the 2nd amendment
was my defense how would the ACLU refusing to take my case on that basis not be a
political bias? Do I know enjoy the right to free speach, including how I
interpret the USC and the BOR?
If they are going to defend civil rights then they must defend all, whether they
believe in them or not. Fools who send them money support and ANTI civil rights
organization that is an insult to the US.
You one of those fools are you?
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>
>
>The Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>
>> harrison numbugger wrote:
>> >
>> > Steve Hix wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
>> > > <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>> > > > constitution then support the ACLU.
>> > >
>> > > Well, the parts that they like, at least.
>> > >
>> > > You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
>> > > the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
>> >
>> > they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
>> > interpretation of the 2nd.
>> >
>> Then they don't support it numbnuts. The 2nd, as with all
>> the other original amendments (except #5) were written ONLY
>> to limit the powers of a central government. They were NOT
>> written to authorize a militia, which is dealt with in the
>> parent document. Weird interpretations put on it by
>> gun-grabbing zealots DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
>
>the fact is that gun nuts don't care about facts......regulation of fire
>arms is NOT unconstitutional.
I don't care. It's immoral and that is good enough for law abiding men and women
to fight any limits on THEM.
Go buy a rope and piss up it for a time. It'll do you good.
d'geezer ®
>
>> LZ
>> > ______________________________________________________________________
>> > Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
>> > With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>> >
>
>______________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With Servers In California, Texas And Virginia - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
"Wherever is found what is called a paternal government,
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
<esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>
>harrison numbugger wrote:
>>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
>> > <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
>> > > constitution then support the ACLU.
>> >
>> > Well, the parts that they like, at least.
>> >
>> > You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
>> > the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
>>
>> they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
>> interpretation of the 2nd.
>>
>Then they don't support it numbnuts. The 2nd, as with all
>the other original amendments (except #5) were written ONLY
>to limit the powers of a central government. They were NOT
>written to authorize a militia, which is dealt with in the
>parent document. Weird interpretations put on it by
>gun-grabbing zealots DO NOT CHANGE THAT FACT.
>LZ
And the ACLU has no business picking and choosing cases on interpretation of the
US Constitution anyway. All civil rights, or go away. The ACLU is corrupt.
d'geezer ®
Mitchell Holman
}On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:37:54 -0700, The Lone Haranguer
}
} the US Constitution anyway. All civil rights, or go away. The ACLU is corrupt.
}
And the NRA is any different?
Or are you here to tell private groups what rights they
can and cannot champion?
Steve Hix
<3583DB2DE112F518.49002A48...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
The NRA doesn't claim to broadly consider the entire Bill of Rights,
the ACLU does.
Steve Hix
<9546599E8C1A2093.D2CA6E8D...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> In article <sehix-4AD2E9....@news.dsldesigns.com>, Steve Hix
> <se...@mac.com> wrote:
> }In article <3A917D16...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
> }<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
> }
> }>
> }> they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
> }> interpretation of the 2nd.
> }
> }They adopted an interpretation that is no longer supported by
> }serious constitutional law scholars, including people like Tribe,
> }Van Alstyne and others.
>
>
> Is Robert Bork one of those serious constitutional
> law scholars?
As far as I know, he hasn't written on the topic except perhaps
in passing.
Strider
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:3583DB2DE112F518.49002A48...@lp.airnews.net...
No, but one can certainly bitch about them.
One can also urge his fellow citizens to cease support of an organization
that does not conform to his views. This ahs nothing to do with censorship
as one most certainly has the right to oppose such groups.
Strider
Mitchell Holman
Really? The facts show differently.
"To effectively convey the Fund's mission of protecting the civil
liberties of Americans under the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of
Rights, the NRA Board of Directors unanimously approved a new
official title for its legal champion: the NRA CIVIL RIGHTS
DEFENSE FUND.
Now, with its highly visible and clearly identified link to the
National Rifle Association of America, its Board of Trustees
envision increased support for the Fund's efforts to influence
legal challenges brought on behalf of innocent citizens whose
rights and freedoms have been abused.
Precedent-setting cases, selected for support by Fund Trustees,
promise to have long-ranging and far-sighted impact on the lives
of all Americans facing oppression in the exercise of their
Constitutionally guaranteed rights in communities across the
nation.
The NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND welcomes your
financial support and personal commitment in the cause of freedom
as we make history into the new Millennium."
http://www.legal-defense-fund.org/docs/newlook.html
Mitchell Holman
}<laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
}
}>
}>
}>Steve Hix wrote:
}>>
}>> In article <3A9155F3...@alltimes.now>, harrison numbugger
}>> <laughing...@alltimes.now> wrote:
}>>
}>> >
}>> > if you really want to support an orginization that fights to protect the
}>> > constitution then support the ACLU.
}>>
}>> Well, the parts that they like, at least.
}>>
}>> You have to find some other organization(s) that support the bits
}>> the ACLU *doesn't* like. The 2nd, in particular.
}>
}>they do support it, they don't support the the NRA and gun nuts
}>interpretation of the 2nd.
}
}And that clearly demonstrates their bias. I notice they exercise no such bias
} in
}taking the NAMBLA case.
Or when they took the Oliver North case.
}
}If they are going to defend civil rights then they must defend all, whether
} they
}believe in them or not. Fools who send them money support and ANTI civil rights
}organization that is an insult to the US.
}
Rather like the NRA, who has never defended
anyone accused of violating one the "infringing"
gun laws they used to complain about. Oh, they
talk a big line about "defending your gun rights
in court", but what gun owner accused of a gun
crime have they actually defended?
The Lone Haranguer
Please send tons of money and leave your estate to this new
bastion of freedom. Forsake that liberal gadfly group known
as the ACLU.
Thank you.
LZ
The Lone Haranguer
They don't defend criminals. They HAVE however furnished
lawyers to people who were unfairly arrested by the ATF.
They also assisted the Sheriffs of Montana and Arizona who
fought the Justice Dept on the Constitutionality of the
Brady Bill background check. (They won too.)
Note that in most cases, when the ATF was sued they settled
out of court since they were in the wrong.
LZ
Randy Sweeney
Steve Hix wrote in message ...
>
>The NRA doesn't claim to broadly consider the entire Bill of Rights,
>the ACLU does.
Except the second, which the ACLU ignores.
Between the NRA and the ACLU, all is covered.
Steve Hix
<852A677EF0921E74.FA792AB5...@lp.airnews.net>,
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> In article <sehix-A5A349....@news.dsldesigns.com>, Steve Hix
> <se...@mac.com> wrote:
> }In article
> }<3583DB2DE112F518.49002A48...@lp.airnews.net>,
> }ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> }
> }> In article <3a92d369...@news.saw.net>, d'geezer@d'geezer.net
> }> wrote:
> }> }On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:37:54 -0700, The Lone Haranguer
> }> }
> }> }And the ACLU has no business picking and choosing cases on
> }> }interpretation of
> }> } the US Constitution anyway. All civil rights, or go away. The ACLU
> }> } is
> }> } corrupt.
> }> }
> }>
> }> And the NRA is any different?
> }>
> }> Or are you here to tell private groups what rights they
> }> can and cannot champion?
> }
> }The NRA doesn't claim to broadly consider the entire Bill of Rights,
>
>
> Really? The facts show differently.
Not even your quoted bit below argues for your point.
Unless you think that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments are the
entire Bill of Rights.
Scout
"Mitchell Holman" <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:3583DB2DE112F518.49002A48...@lp.airnews.net...
The NRA does not claim to be the champion of civil liberties as the ACLU
does.
Back-sassed a Free Man..
party can't stop our public bitching about politics..
Back-sassed a Free Man..
propaganda..
David L. Moffitt
Anthony Ray Krantz
A south Nashville woman was justified in shooting a gun-toting man who invaded her home Monday night, police said yesterday.
Anthony Ray Krantz, 22, of the 2500 block of Edge O Lake Drive, was fatally shot by the resident, Rhonda Darlene Hand, 45, Metro
police spokesman Don Aaron said in a news release.
Hand was in the kitchen of her home in the 500 block of Leeanne Drive when Krantz came through an unlocked door to Hand's den, which
adjoins the kitchen, Aaron said.
Hand's weapon was nearby, and she fired five rounds, Aaron said. Krantz may have fired once, Aaron said, although the analysis on
his gun is not complete.
Police consider the shooting justified because Krantz was armed when he entered Hand's home, Aaron said. Robbery is believed to have
been the motive for the home invasion, but specific details remain under investigation.
%%%% A very good example of gun control in action! She shot him 5 times before he could shoot more than one time. If she had her
handgun locked up in a safe or with a trigger lock she would be dead meat now.
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS,TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn proud of it!
If Jesus had had an Uzi in the garden of Gethsemene, things would have
been a lot different, let me tell you!
- Zepp, a weasel in talk.politics.guns, May 2000
ALE
<852A677EF0921E74.FA792AB5...@lp.airnews.net>,
Mitchell Holman <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote:
> In article <sehix-A5A349....@news.dsldesigns.com>, Steve Hix
> <se...@mac.com> wrote:
> }In article
> }<3583DB2DE112F518.49002A48...@lp.airnews.net>,
> }ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> }
> }> In article <3a92d369...@news.saw.net>, d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
> }> }On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:37:54 -0700, The Lone Haranguer
> }> }
> }> }And the ACLU has no business picking and choosing cases on
> }> }interpretation of
> }> } the US Constitution anyway. All civil rights, or go away. The ACLU is
> }> } corrupt.
> }> }
> }>
> }> And the NRA is any different?
> }>
> }> Or are you here to tell private groups what rights they
> }> can and cannot champion?
> }
> }The NRA doesn't claim to broadly consider the entire Bill of Rights,
>
>
> Really? The facts show differently.
Since when do Liberals use facts?
ALE
<CBFD62CD120A7879.B9B749F3...@lp.airnews.net>,
Mitchell Holman <ta2...@airmail.net> wrote:
> Rather like the NRA, who has never defended
> anyone accused of violating one the "infringing"
> gun laws they used to complain about. Oh, they
> talk a big line about "defending your gun rights
> in court", but what gun owner accused of a gun
> crime have they actually defended?
Ah... but this is the whole point. Unlike Liberals who when they don't
like a law, they ignore it... Others are diffrent. If we don't like a
law, we still follow it, but we try and change it. This is why the
NRA doesn't defend people who break gun laws, they instead try and
change or rid us of the stupid law. But the NRA does not support
breaking the law simply because you don't like it.
ALE
Haranguer <esco...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
> > The NRA CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE FUND welcomes your
> > financial support and personal commitment in the cause of freedom
> > as we make history into the new Millennium."
> > http://www.legal-defense-fund.org/docs/newlook.html
>
> Please send tons of money and leave your estate to this new
> bastion of freedom. Forsake that liberal gadfly group known
> as the ACLU.
>
> Thank you.
> LZ
How about a small donation every year... and my registration fee. On
the other hand, if the liberals had their way, I would not be able to
"leave my estate to any bastion of freedom" because they would have
stolen it from me already.
Liberals: "Don't be greedy... GIVE IT ALL TO ME NOW!"
ALE
Sweeney <rswe...@Home.com> wrote:
In fact, with the ACLU, it covers MORE than the Bill of Rights... With
the ACLU, they write in their OWN rights as well... Like the right to
murder children and such.
Robert Sturgeon
Man.." <cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>Thanks to the ACLU, those gestapo types in the Noble Republican
>party can't stop our public bitching about politics..
Would you please post instances in which those Evil
Republicans tried to silence the "public" in its bitching
about politics? Most of the bitching during the past 10
years or so has been done by those Evil Republicans. But if
you have evidence that they have tried to stop free speech,
I'd sure like to hear it.
>Randy Sweeney wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >The NRA doesn't claim to broadly consider the entire Bill of Rights,
>> >the ACLU does.
>>
>> Except the second, which the ACLU ignores.
>>
>> Between the NRA and the ACLU, all is covered.
--
Robert Sturgeon-
Proud member of The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
ALE
<se...@mac.com> wrote:
> > }The NRA doesn't claim to broadly consider the entire Bill of Rights,
> >
> >
> > Really? The facts show differently.
>
> Not even your quoted bit below argues for your point.
>
> Unless you think that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments are the
> entire Bill of Rights.
Well, given that it seemed to me he supported his point well...
Let me give you a chance... please tell us which "right" or amendment
the NRA simply does not support? And further, a little bit of proof
would go a long way.
Xena
<moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Hand was in the kitchen of her home in the 500 block of Leeanne Drive when Krantz came through an unlocked door to Hand's den, which
>adjoins the kitchen, Aaron said.
>%%%% A very good example of gun control in action! She shot him 5 times before he could shoot more than one time. If she had her
>handgun locked up in a safe or with a trigger lock she would be dead meat now.
Unfortunately, if the perp has any relatives, they are going to sue
the gun owner for murder because the man obviously made a mistake in
entering the wrong home because, after all, her door was unlocked!
"It's a mistake anyone can make," they'll argue.
As for the perp, glad he's worm food! HOpe the woman doesn't get too
much crap for having the means and the courage to defend herself.
Xena
Steve Hix
Back-sassed a Free Man..
on anyone's "gun rights" who is "obeying the law"?
The ACLU defends people whose basic civil rights have been violated.
Apparently the NRA never needs to defend people whose basic civil rights
(2nd Amendment ones) have been violated?
Back-sassed a Free Man..
well.
Back-sassed a Free Man..
Ed Meese left off - deciding what adults can read, all in the
name of "decency"..
And all applauded by the goddam "Christian Right", who are more
than happy with censorship and violation of 1st Amendment rights.
Back-sassed a Free Man..
Where have the ACLU ever advocated a "right to murder children"?
Or are you just lumping your own political stupidities? Again?
Back-sassed a Free Man..
for the 2nd Amendment. That's OK, but when some dufus like ALE
insists otherwise, I'll call him on it.
Strabo
Haven't seen any detail. It is _possible_ that it was
mistaken entry though not likely. In any event the relatives
can't bring such charges. And, since she wasn't charged, and
thus tried, I believe a civil case is not likely. Usually
civil law trials are on the coattails of a failed
criminal case where investigations have provided evidence
or motive and used to get around double jeopardy. She'll be
OK as long as there was no prior relationship.
Strabo
BlackWater wrote:
> If the Republicans want to do something useful, they
> should push through legislation which forbids convicted
> criminals or their families from suing for injuries
> incurred during the commission of the crime. That would
> be very pro-2nd, without being overtly "anti-gun-control".
> Call it "victim empowerment" and even the Dems will have
> to support it.
> Having a right to keep and bear arms is USELESS if it
> isn't backed-up by the right to USE those arms as
> necessary in a lawful cause without undue harrassment
> from police or criminals.
> BW
You need to learn your state and federal Constitution and
understand what they mean.
You already have the inherent right to use what you have but
you give the reason for your doubts as you mince the words -
"without undue harrassment".
It is law passed by Republicans and Democrats that limit
your usage of the 2nd A and you promote and defend this
unconstitutional practice with "without undue harrassment".
It is OK to use law to "harass...somewhat...but not
unduly"! In other words, "As long as I agree with the
laws and what cops do, even if it is unconstitutional,
it's alright".
If the Republicans want to do something useful, they can
begin by removing some of the hundreds of thousands of laws.
Most states have strong self-defense/home protection laws
that are in their Constitutions. In other words the default
is self-defense, the default is the acknowledgment that guns
are necessary for a free and safe citizen. No law was needed
for it and no other laws are necessary.
This protection also goes with the person in their cars
and elsewhere but laws have been passed to limit and
remove Constitutional guarantees and common sense.
Gun registration and permits are a good example of Republican
and Democrat attempts to remove inherent rights. If this
shooting had happened in Hawaii or New York, she may well have
been charged under some BS law.
The situations you refer to are the result of judges
accepting cases they should not and juries who did
not do their job.
The answer is personal education and personal responsibility,
not more law.
Robert Sturgeon
Man.." <cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>Get ready, Herr Ashcroft is getting ready to take off where
>Ed Meese left off - deciding what adults can read, all in the
>name of "decency"..
You previously wrote-
Thanks to the ACLU, those gestapo types in the Noble
Republican party can't stop our public bitching about
politics..
I wrote in reponse-
Would you please post instances in which those Evil
Republicans tried to silence the "public" in its bitching
about politics? Most of the bitching during the past 10
years or so has been done by those Evil Republicans. But if
you have evidence that they have tried to stop free speech,
I'd sure like to hear it.
And then you wrote the paragraph quoted at the top of this
message.
So, would you please respond, instead of veering off in a
different direction?
>And all applauded by the goddam "Christian Right", who are more
>than happy with censorship and violation of 1st Amendment rights.
That may very well be the case. But you DO understand, don't
you, that the Republican Party and the "Christian Right" are
not identical?
(rest snipped)
Got My MInd Right, Boss..
Republican AG - remembered for his crusade against 1st
Amendment rights.
Johann von Tebbes
--
Take away our freedom to protect ourselves and you make criminals out of
honest people.
Help stop the gun-grabbers by supporting the NRA. The NRA fights for
religious and other
freedoms per the US constitution. Gun-grabbers want to make you vulnerable.
NRA Membership:
1-800-672-2000
Hearing impaired:
1-800-672-8331 townhall.com
Ann Coulter (back to story)
February 22, 2001
How to talk to a liberal
When I began swooning for George W. Bush during the Republican primaries, my
friends warned me that I was going to have to eat my words. It's now a month
into his presidency, and I'm even more doe-eyed about Bush than ever. Among
other feats, Bush has figured out how to talk to liberals. This has solved
one of life's eternal mysteries, like "How high is up?"
The liberal's highly complex and intellectual argument against principled
conservatism is this: Republicans are mean. Republicans always figured that
since they weren't mean, that should be enough. But the facts were
irrelevant. These were devil words muttered by a political cult, not
reasoned arguments.
One of the most arresting examples of the sophisticated Republicans Are Mean
argument occurred in reference to Pat Buchanan. If you ever actually tuned
in to CNN's "Crossfire" when Buchanan was on, he'd be smiling, laughing,
telling jokes -- generally while sitting next to a scowling, bitter Bill
Press. (In the interest of not only honesty but also irony, I should rush to
add that off-air, Bill Press is one of the nicest people on TV.)
But for reasons that only the faithful can understand, it simply became a
part of the liberal orthodoxy that Buchanan was an "angry white man." In
case any of the cult members missed the memo on Pat being angry, William
Schneider used the word "angry" four times to describe either Pat or his
supporters in one single short column in the National Journal.
So we knew liberals would not believe their own eyes if what they saw
conflicted with their political orthodoxy. Since actual evidence wouldn't
suffice, and arguments citing facts and evidence were even more useless, it
was difficult for Republicans to know where to begin with these liberals.
This put conservatives at a distinct disadvantage. For the last couple of
decades now, name-calling has been the principal argument liberals have
deployed against conservative arguments.
If Republicans opposed the National Endowment for the Arts, they were said
to hate art. If Republicans opposed the Department of Education, they were
said to hate teachers. If Republicans opposed the Environmental Protection
Agency, they were said to hate the environment. Opposition to the government
spending money on anything was invariably attacked as hatred for the thing
money was to be spent on.
What it took George Bush to figure out was that to counter the left's
intricate Republicans Are Mean argument, all you had to do was to go around
calling yourself nice.
I could have thought about that for 50 years and still have been stumped.
Not only does George Bush's strategy have the virtue of simplicity, but it
is also a distinct improvement over the typical Republican method of wooing
Democrats, which is to give away the store.
To the contrary, President Bush has been like a runaway train pushing
through his campaign promises to support tax cuts, a missile defense system
and faith-based social service programs. When one of his conservative
Cabinet nominees came under attack and was forced to withdraw, Bush found
yet another minority female for the post -- even more conservative than the
last.
As a New York Times reporter described Bush's approach to political
opponents: "Mr. Bush is a bipartisan love machine." At the same time, his
tax cut proposal "does not bow even a millimeter to many Democrats'
concerns," and it is not clear "whether all his smooth, sweet talk truly
signals any inclination toward ideological flexibility" -- a.k.a., giving
away the store.
Admittedly, when Bush first began with the "compassionate conservatism"
theme, many of us took umbrage. In a typical soliloquy on "compassionate
conservatism," Bush said: "I know this approach has been criticized. But
why? Is compassion beneath us? Is mercy below us? Should our party be led by
someone who boasts of a hard heart?"
If you didn't happen to be a Democrat, you were likely to sit back
scratching your head wondering what the heck Bush was talking about. Who
criticizes compassion? Who exactly boasts of having a hard heart? Which
Republican candidate maintains compassion is beneath us? Of whom, pray tell,
was he speaking?
The answer, of course, was: no one. No real corporeal being, that is. He was
referring to Republican ghosts haunting liberal imaginations. Bush treats
liberals like small children having their first nightmare: Don't worry,
honey, I'll just wave a magic wand and make all the ghosts go away. I'm a
compassionate conservative.
And darn if it didn't work. As evidence that it did work, observe that
liberals still use their second favorite principled epithet against
Republicans: They call Bush dumb -- just like Dwight Eisenhower and that old
bumbling guy who won the Cold War. But they don't call Bush mean.
It was always so simple. The mistake Republicans have been making was to
treat liberals like adults. It took George Bush to treat them in an
age-appropriate manner and start arguing with liberals at their own level.
©2001 Universal Press Syndicate
Robert Sturgeon
Boss.." <cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>Ed Meese?
>
>Republican AG - remembered for his crusade against 1st
>Amendment rights.
Is there a current plan by the current administration to
limit the people's right to engage in political discussion?
The previous poster suggested that there was, or soon would
be. If so, please provide some substantiation for the
claim.
And besides, I don't remember Ed Meese's crusade against 1st
Amendment rights. Would you mind reminding me? What did he
do?
KB
<rsturg...@calwest.net> wrote:
It's really hard for Back-Slapped to give a intelligent response to
your questions. But don't blame him, he's just a natural idiot that
has yet to find his village.
Christopher Morton
<rsturg...@calwest.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:07:59 -0600, "Got My MInd Right,
>Boss.." <cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>
>>Ed Meese?
>>
>>Republican AG - remembered for his crusade against 1st
>>Amendment rights.
>
>Is there a current plan by the current administration to
>limit the people's right to engage in political discussion?
>The previous poster suggested that there was, or soon would
>be. If so, please provide some substantiation for the
>claim.
>
>And besides, I don't remember Ed Meese's crusade against 1st
>Amendment rights. Would you mind reminding me? What did he
>do?
Meese was on an inane anti-porn crusade, but what that twit you quote
above doesn't mention is that the Clinton administration continued
those same anti-1st amendment policies, engaging in a prolonged bout
of venue shopping to bring obscenity cases in the most backward,
benighted communities. Recall the BBS operators in California
prosecuted for obscenity by the Clinton Justice Department in some
bible belt district.
--
If the election was fraudulent, and Black voters were disenfranchised,
how come not a SINGLE Senate Democrat seconded the Congressional Black
Caucus's challenge of the Electoral College vote certification...?
Johann von Tebbes
I thought this was interesting. A lot of truth here I think.
Yes, according to the mainstream media I am a bad American, a good ol' boy
and a red neck. Proud of it too.
I like big cars, big boats, big houses.
I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some
midlevel governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it
away to crack addicts squirting out babies.
I don't care about appearing compassionate. I know the ones who do are
likely faking it.
I think playing with toy guns doesn't make you a killer.
I believe it's called the Boy Scouts for a reason.
I think I'm doing better than the homeless via my own efforts.
I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized.
I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are
different, weird or piss me off. I know they are not tolerant of me.
I believe that if you are selling me a Dairy Queen shake, pack of
cigarettes, or hotel room you do it in English.
As of matter of fact, if you are an American citizen you should speak
English. My father and grandfather shouldn't have to die in vain so
you can leave the countries you were born in to come disrespect ours.
I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you're
running from them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the
word freeze or stop in English, see the previous line.
I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for
unpopular opinions or actions.
I know what the definition of lying is.
I know what the definition of "IS" is.
I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you
qualify for any special loan programs, gov't sponsored bank loans, etc., so
you can you can open a hotel, c-store, trinket shop, or anything else.
I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet.
I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny.
I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or
Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that
crap from someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light.
But I respect your right to.
I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment
than working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box.
I did not go to some foreign country and risk my life in vain and
defend our constitution so that just a decade or two later you can tell me
it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation.
I don't hate the rich.
I don't pity the poor.
I know wrestling is fake.
I was never a slave nor have I ever owned one, and a large percentage of our
forefathers weren't wealthy enough to own one either.
I think you can respect and admire women while mentally undressing them.
I own a gun, you can own a gun, and any red blooded American should be
allowed to own a gun, but if you use it in a crime then you will serve
the time. A rubber band and a paper clip is a dangerous weapon in the
hands of someone with malicious intent.
I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and
continue to make more. If it pisses you off, invent the next operating
system
that's better and put your name on the building.
I like the convenience of buying oranges from a sidewalk vendor, or while
I'm waiting at a stoplight, and I'm pretty sure the Latin midget selling
them to me is glad she no longer lives in a refrigerator box in East Dallas
or is not sleeping in the streets of her home country.
We don't need more laws! Let's enforce the ones we already have.
I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks.
I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a
parent with the balls to stand up to the village and the kid and spank
his butt and say "NO."
I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please
don't pretend they are a political statement.
I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller.
I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid.
I will not be frowned upon or be looked down upon or be made to keep
silent because I have these beliefs and opinions. I think this country
allows me that right. I will not conform or compromise just to keep from
hurting some liberal darling's feelings.
I'm neither angry nor disenfranchised, no matter how desperately the
mainstream media would like the world to believe otherwise.
By that definition, I'm a bad American.
Mitchell Holman
}Subject: I MAY BE A BAD AMERICAN
}
}
}I thought this was interesting. A lot of truth here I think.
}
}Yes, according to the mainstream media I am a bad American, a good ol' boy
}and a red neck. Proud of it too.
}
}I like big cars, big boats, big houses.
And subservient immigrants to maintaini them, no doubt.
}I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some
}midlevel governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it
}away to crack addicts squirting out babies.
}
}
}
}I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet.
You mean the internet that was invented by the
midlevel government functionaries you referred to?
}
}I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny.
}
No accounting for taste, I guess
}
}I like the convenience of buying oranges from a sidewalk vendor, or while
}I'm waiting at a stoplight, and I'm pretty sure the Latin midget selling
}them to me is glad she no longer lives in a refrigerator box in East Dallas
}or is not sleeping in the streets of her home country.
If you get food poisoning from that street vender,
try not to complain about the lack of safety inspections
and the "mid-level government functionaries" that conduct
them.
Mitchell Holman
"The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe"
Rush Limbaugh, displaying his status as a world traveler, Spring '93
Mathew
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, Johann von Tebbes wrote:
> Subject: I MAY BE A BAD AMERICAN
>
>
> I thought this was interesting. A lot of truth here I think.
>
> Yes, according to the mainstream media I am a bad American, a good ol' boy
> and a red neck. Proud of it too.
>
> I like big cars, big boats, big houses.
>
> I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some
> midlevel governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it
> away to crack addicts squirting out babies.
>
> I don't care about appearing compassionate. I know the ones who do are
> likely faking it.
> I think playing with toy guns doesn't make you a killer.
>
> I believe it's called the Boy Scouts for a reason.
>
> I think I'm doing better than the homeless via my own efforts.
>
> I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized.
>
> I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are
> different, weird or piss me off. I know they are not tolerant of me.
>
> I believe that if you are selling me a Dairy Queen shake, pack of
> cigarettes, or hotel room you do it in English.
Thats up to the employers who hire these employees.
Must be cheap labour.
>
> As of matter of fact, if you are an American citizen you should speak
> English. My father and grandfather shouldn't have to die in vain so
> you can leave the countries you were born in to come disrespect ours.
What about Green card holders?
> I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you're
> running from them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the
> word freeze or stop in English, see the previous line.
> I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for
> unpopular opinions or actions.
> I know what the definition of lying is.
?
>
> I know what the definition of "IS" is.
Ok
> I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you
> qualify for any special loan programs, gov't sponsored bank loans, etc., so
> you can you can open a hotel, c-store, trinket shop, or anything else.
I don't think this is the case.
> I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet.
Ok.What did you invent?
> I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny.
Is he a U.S. citizen?
> I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or
> Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that
> crap from someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light.
> But I respect your right to.
Noise pollution is a problem.
> I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment
> than working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box.
But a college degree will help get a better job.
> I did not go to some foreign country and risk my life in vain and
> defend our constitution so that just a decade or two later you can tell me
> it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation.
Why are you defending the U.S constitution in a foreign country?
> I don't hate the rich.
Do you want to be rich?
> I don't pity the poor.
Could you drink some beers a with them?
> I know wrestling is fake.
60 million Americans believe it is real.
There is the problem there.
> I was never a slave nor have I ever owned one, and a large percentage of our
> forefathers weren't wealthy enough to own one either.
Ok
> I think you can respect and admire women while mentally undressing them.
Do you do mentally take off all of these women's clothes?
>
> I own a gun, you can own a gun, and any red blooded American should be
> allowed to own a gun, but if you use it in a crime then you will serve
> the time. A rubber band and a paper clip is a dangerous weapon in the
> hands of someone with malicious intent.
>
> I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and
> continue to make more. If it pisses you off, invent the next operating
> system
> that's better and put your name on the building.
Aaron will disagree with you on this.
> I like the convenience of buying oranges from a sidewalk vendor, or while
> I'm waiting at a stoplight, and I'm pretty sure the Latin midget selling
> them to me is glad she no longer lives in a refrigerator box in East Dallas
> or is not sleeping in the streets of her home country.
Why it Texas or Dallas she didn't like?
> We don't need more laws! Let's enforce the ones we already have.
Amen!
> I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks.
But real turkey is so good.
> I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a
> parent with the balls to stand up to the village and the kid and spank
> his butt and say "NO."
>
> I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please
> don't pretend they are a political statement.
The Wild and the Free
> I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller.
Sob sob. It made me cry too!
> I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid.
I thought Dr. Seuus took pyschedelics drugs.
Johann von Tebbes
Mathew <m...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSD/.3.91.1010225231008.29889C-100000@saba.kuentos.guam.net...
> Ok
>
> > I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you
> > qualify for any special loan programs, gov't sponsored bank loans, etc.,
so
> > you can you can open a hotel, c-store, trinket shop, or anything else.
>
> I don't think
>
> Ok.What did you invent?
As much as Al Gore did!
>
> > I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny.
>
> Is he a U.S. citizen?
>
> > I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or
> > Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that
> > crap from someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light.
> > But I respect your right to.
>
> Noise pollution is a problem.
>
> > I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment
> > than working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box.
>
> But a college degree will help get a better job.
>
> > I did not go to some foreign country and risk my life in vain and
> > defend our constitution so that just a decade or two later you can tell
me
> > it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation.
> Why are you defending the U.S constitution in a foreign country?
>
>
> > I don't hate the rich.
> Do you want to be rich?
Yep!
>
> > I don't pity the poor.
> Could you drink some beers a with them?
Yep!
>
>
> > I know wrestling is fake.
> 60 million Americans believe it is real.
> There is the problem there.
They're redneck democrats.
>
> > I was never a slave nor have I ever owned one, and a large percentage of
our
> > forefathers weren't wealthy enough to own one either.
> Ok
> > I think you can respect and admire women while mentally undressing them.
> Do you do mentally take off all of these women's clothes?
Not the ugly ones.
>
> >
> > I own a gun, you can own a gun, and any red blooded American should be
> > allowed to own a gun, but if you use it in a crime then you will serve
> > the time. A rubber band and a paper clip is a dangerous weapon in the
> > hands of someone with malicious intent.
> >
> > I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and
> > continue to make more. If it pisses you off, invent the next operating
> > system
> > that's better and put your name on the building.
> Aaron will disagree with you on this.
Who's Aaron?
>
> > I like the convenience of buying oranges from a sidewalk vendor, or
while
> > I'm waiting at a stoplight, and I'm pretty sure the Latin midget selling
> > them to me is glad she no longer lives in a refrigerator box in East
Dallas
> > or is not sleeping in the streets of her home country.
>
> Why it Texas or Dallas she didn't like?
Dunno. I like them.
>
> > We don't need more laws! Let's enforce the ones we already have.
> Amen!
>
> > I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks.
> But real turkey is so good.
I like the dressing!
>
>
> > I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a
> > parent with the balls to stand up to the village and the kid and spank
> > his butt and say "NO."
> >
> > I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please
> > don't pretend they are a political statement.
> The Wild and the Free
>
>
> > I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller.
>
> Sob sob. It made me cry too!
> > I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid.
> I thought Dr. Seuus took pyschedelics drugs.
That was O'leary, I think.