Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
Alric J. Knebel
Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
Denver Post
Nov. 5 - Coloradans overwhelmingly favor strict gun-control policies, including a ban
on firearm sales to minors, according to a University of Colorado survey conducted
since the April massacre at Columbine High School.
The survey - released Thursday by Denver Mayor Wellington Webb - found widespread
support for gun control among men and women, Democrats and Republicans, residents of
cities and rural areas.
Webb said the findings debunk assumptions that Colorado is a bastion of Second
Amendment fanaticism and that gun control is merely a liberal, urban mandate.
"Even in a Western state where we've grown up on guns, people are concerned. . . .
They're saying there ought to be more regulations,'' the mayor said.
The Denver city attorney's office commissioned the $32,000 study by CU's Institute
for Public Policy in response to moves in the state Legislature last session to relax
gun laws.
Of 900 registered voters from throughout the state surveyed in August and September,
83 percent favored banning the sale of any gun to anyone under 18 years old. About 85
percent supported increasing criminal penalties for sales of guns to youths; 76
percent supported child-proof features on all guns sold; and 74 percent supported
making parents liable if children use their guns.
Polls taken before the April 20 rampage at Jefferson County's Columbine High showed
the public favored stricter gun control. But support has increased in what Marshall
Kaplan, the policy institute's director, called "a clear indication that Columbine
has shifted public opinion.''
The study also found:
Eighty-seven percent of Coloradans support a mandatory three-day waiting period
before gun purchases.
Eighty percent support a license requirement for gun ownership.
Seventy-eight percent favor background checks before gun purchases.
Seventy-six percent want requirements that guns be registered.
Seventy-three percent want to ban the sale of assault- and semi-automatic weapons.
Fifty-nine percent want to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns.
James Winchester, vice president of the Colorado State Shooting Association, called
the survey "skewed'' and "a cooked deal.''
"This is Colorado, not New York or California,'' he said. "There's no way those
numbers are reflective of public views here.''
But state Rep. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, was buoyed by the survey results, saying they
will help in his plans to introduce a bill next session requiring background checks
on all gun sales.
Eager respondents
"It will help keep guns from felons, children and people with restraining orders,''
he said.
Kaplan and policy institute pollster Peggy Cuciti noted that Coloradans more eagerly
responded to their gun survey than to most other issues - an indication, they said,
that people feel adamant about firearms.
"People want to speak out on this,'' Cuciti said. "They want to be heard.''
State lawmakers nixed a bill to relax gun laws shortly after the Columbine massacre
last spring. Despite what Webb said is a public mandate for stricter gun control, he
noted that he expects legislators to again try to ease restrictions next session as
Columbine's sting fades.
Alric J. Knebel
bluemax1
representative Democracy, we elect (allegedly) responsible lawmakers who then pass laws.
We do not have mob rule, so all the nonsense you grabbers come up with to justify
disarming the citizens is just that, nonsense. He,He. Isn't it grand? You know what the
definition of democracy is? Its three wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Next time think (novel thought) before posting -you'll look sooooo much smarter.
Kevin
If you'll note, the poll was conducted *for* Mayor Wellington Webb.
That alone means it's a hack job and not worthy of attention. Note
too, that he *ignored* the prior poll that showed that people's
positive attitudes about guns didn't change after Columbine. That
result clashed with his grabber agenda,
-Kevin
Bart
Ammendment. As far as the rest of us go, please mind your own business.
By the way...
These are very cute poll results. 900 is not a high enough number for
accurate results, it needs to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1100-1200.
It would also be interesting to see how the demographics were divied up.
Denver is the most populous city in the state and, coincidentally, by far
the most liberal. (OK, there is Boulder but it's kind of like a far
northern suburb.) Hence, the fact that a liberal bonehead like Webb could
be elected mayor. It would be interesting to see what the results would be
if the poll were taken in Colorado Springs where concealed carry permits are
issued in huge
numbers (and gun related crime is, surprise, significantly less). And with
any poll, why aren't we told what the questions were that provide us with
such neat answers. It is reminicent of the saying, "Figures can lie and
liers can figure."
What's a real laugh is that citizens living in Denver can't get a concealed
carry permit, so what do they do? Yep, the high tail it down to Colorado
Springs where the sheriff is more that willing to give them one. So who is
harmed? Poor people living in Denver's worst crime ridden neighborhoods who
can't afford to make the trip. (Typical liberal unintended consequences,
but who cares, at least it makes them feel good about themselves.) The rest
of the state is armed to the teeth. Criminals know this and, surprise, they
prey on the areas where the citizens are ready-made victims.
So, let's see... A liberal mayor contracts with a liberal university for a
poll about gun control. Should anyone be surprised at the outcome?
Certainly no one in Colorado. Try again, nimrod.
"Alric J. Knebel" <al...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:383a6857...@news.jps.net...
The OldTimer
Kevin wrote in message <80309q$p6a$1...@pyrite.mv.net>...
So why don't these vast numbers of people simply pool their money and file a
lawsuit against a handgun owner for owning said handgun and let the stairway
to the supreme court begin and let's all find out what that good old 2nd
amendment means. In other words, put up or shut up, are admit to being just
a "bullshit artist", or a "hotair salesman". In case you don't know it,
Americans have owned handguns for many many years. The supreme court has
done nothing to stop them. Would you not think the doctrine of "implied
consent" would play some part here?
X-No-Archive: Yes
By God, he worked his ass off for it
and I don't care what anybody says,
it belongs to me!
The GIMMIECRAT creed.
The OldTimer
antisdolie
al...@datasync.com ("Alric J. Knebel") wrote:
> November 5, 1999
>
> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
>
> Denver Post
>
> Nov. 5 - Coloradans overwhelmingly favor strict gun-control policies,
> including a ban on firearm sales to minors, according to a University
> of Colorado survey conducted since the April massacre at Columbine
> High School.
Minors ARE barred from purchase of firearms. Poll is meaningless
because its originator and respondents are ignorant of current law.
Jim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
tjwilson
that between 32 million and 50 million gun owners.
tjw
Dave Marciniak
Knebel") wrote:
> November 5, 1999
>
> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
>
> Denver Post
>
> Nov. 5 - Coloradans overwhelmingly favor strict gun-control policies,
including a ban
> on firearm sales to minors, according to a University of Colorado survey
conducted
> since the April massacre at Columbine High School.
>
Polls are made of clay and can be formed into any shape one wishes. In
this case, the mayor - probably a closet Maoist or Trotskyite - simply
commissioned a poll with a predetermined result. In other words, a
fabrication, a lie.
This poll is simply minced chicken entrails for his slobbering Pavlov dogs
that he leads around on chains.
Anyone, with minimal training, may conduct a poll.
Read Ellul"s book "Propaganda" for instructions.
That way, you too can go into town and take a poll showing that 65% of the
good citizens of Denver want to see the mayor tarred and feathered. Or
shipped one way to communist China. Take your pick.
Ted Holden
>> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
constitution. Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
the right to own and keep firearms.
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
Bill Twist
>
> If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
> constitution. Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
> the right to own and keep firearms.
>
>
> Ted Holden
> med...@bearfabrique.org
Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
so how could this poll mean anything?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out this week's firearms commentary at:
http://www.planettimes.com/features/barrel_twist/index.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Isham
>
>If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
>constitution.
No, there is nothing wrong with our Constitution. It allows the regulation of
privately owned guns.
> Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
>the right to own and keep firearms.
>
Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the one
assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT guaranteed by
our Constitution.
Albert Isham
>
>> >> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
>>
>> If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
>> the right to own and keep firearms.
>>
>>
>> med...@bearfabrique.org
>
>Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
>so how could this poll mean anything?
>
says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
antisdolie
ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
> In article <FL3Ay...@freenet.buffalo.edu>, Bill Twist says...
> > Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin
> > with, so how could this poll mean anything?
This is true. After all, considering one must be 18+ to purchase a long
gun and 21+ to purchase a handgun, polls showing that X% of those
respondents believe purchase by teenages should be banned only show that
X% of the respondents don't know dick about current law.
> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
> Constitution says about the ownership of privately owned guns.
> (Nothing)
Apparently Ishy stopped reading the Constitution when he found the part
where his right to post lying bullshit is guarenteed.
Jim
antisdolie
ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
> No, there is nothing wrong with our Constitution. It allows the
> regulation of privately owned guns.
I know you've been asked this a thousand times already, and surely you
must have missed each and every request for further info, because even
you would agree that purposely ignoring such a request would be proof
that you cannot substantiate your (lie) claim, but here it goes:
Exactly where is the Constitution is this stated?
> > Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
> >the right to own and keep firearms.
> >
> Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the
> one assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT
> guaranteed by our Constitution.
Ba ha ha ha ha ha. Alby "thinks" the National Guard, which didn't exist
for over 100 years AFTER the Constitution was written, was the "militia"
of the Constitution mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
Here, Al will posts his often used cut-and-paste article from HCI about
how the founding fathers called the Psychic Hotline and were told about
the as yet to be founded National Guard, causing them to create an
amendment to address these units-to-be.
Andrew Northbrook
>In article <382c3349....@news.raex.com>, Ted Holden says...
>>
>>On 11 Nov 1999 21:04:47 GMT, dmar...@up.net (Dave Marciniak) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
>>constitution.
>
of
>privately owned guns.
>
>>the right to own and keep firearms.
>>
>Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the one
>assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT
guaranteed by
>our Constitution.
Albot, I defy you to prove that. You can't, & you know you can't.
While it is true that the states have the right to regulate weapons
ownership, they CANNOT prevent it entirely. That has been the position of
the USSC for decades. BTW, the USSC has also ruled, for decades, that the
Second Amendment restrictions apply to the Federal government -- which means
that the federal government has no right whatsoever to pass laws regulating
firearms ownership; all such laws must from the states themselves.
Try reading actual USSC decisions on the issue, as well as law, history, &
the English language. I know those things are difficult subjects for Lying
Socialist Weasels to grasp... but, DO please make the attempt.
--
think about it,
Andrew Northbrook
Congress: Putting the FUN back into dysfunctional
Michael Ejercito
> In article <382c3349....@news.raex.com>, Ted Holden says...
> >
> >On 11 Nov 1999 21:04:47 GMT, dmar...@up.net (Dave Marciniak) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
> >
> >If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
> >constitution.
>
> No, there is nothing wrong with our Constitution. It allows the
regulation of
> privately owned guns.
>
> > Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
> >the right to own and keep firearms.
> >
> Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the one
> assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT
guaranteed by
> our Constitution.
Nope,you got that wrong,fascist. Nothing in the second amendment
mentions the National Guard.
Michael
Docky Wocky
Most people overwhelmingly favor breathing air to water, too.
"Most people" polls are about as valuable a tool for America as "My Favorite
Ayatollah" polls.
Anyone who sees infallible certitude in this kind of malarkey needs to first
pass the flashlight-shining-in-one-ear test.
LEX
> No, there is nothing wrong with our Constitution. It allows the regulation of
> privately owned guns.
Where???
> Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the one
> assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT guaranteed by
> our Constitution.
WRONG!
George Washington
"Mercenary armies... have at one time or another subverted the liberties
of almost all the Countries they have been raised to defend."
Pennsylvania Constitution 1776
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves
and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous
to liberty, they ought not be kept up;"
North Carolina Constitution 1776
"That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the
state; and, as standing armies, in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, they ought not be kept up;"
Vermont Constitution 1777
"That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the state"
Virginia Constitution 1776
"That a well regulated malitia, composed of the body of people..."
Massachusetts Constitution 1780
"The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence"
Debates of the Mass Convention 1788
"And that the said Constitution never be construed to authorize Congress
to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience;
or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable
citizens, from keeping their own arms."
New Hampshire Ratification Convention 1788
"Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have
been in actual rebellion."
Virginia Convention 1788
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms"
New York Convention 1788
"That the militia should always be well organized, armed and
disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all
men capable of bearing arms"
Rhode Island Ratification Convention 1790
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated militia, including the body of people capable of bearing arms,
is proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."
Thomas Jefferson
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Patrick Henry
The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security
without it... The great object is, that every man be armed... Everyone
who is capable of haveing a gun."
"Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained
its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse."
John Adams
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...
in private self-defence."
Samual Adams
"...and that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the
just liberty of the press or the right of conscience; or to prevent the
people of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping thier
own arms."
Alexander Hamilton
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at
large than to have them properly armed and equipped"
George Mason
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave
them..."
Want more????? I can keep going!
Don Staples
to keep and bear arms, what it does is prohibit the federal government from
infringing on the right of the states or people to keep and bear arms. The
Founding Fathers knew that the individual was the strength of the nation, and
wanted him armed, and feared a central government that could deny the individual
certain rights, so they prohibited the federal government from doing so.
Way to go Albert, you can be taught. Now we need to work on that National Guard
bullshit.
RCO
> > It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
> > Constitution says about the ownership of privately owned guns.
> > (Nothing)
Professor Eugene Volokh (UCLA Law School) and Professor Laurence Tribe
(Harvard Law School) disagree with you. And how long have YOU been a
renouned constitutional scholar?
antisdolie wrote:
> Apparently Ishy stopped reading the Constitution when he found the part
> where his right to post lying bullshit is guarenteed.
LOL
bluemax1
democracy, we are a republic. We DO NOT run the country by mob rule, by
whatever the masses can be bamboozled into believing. We elect (hopefully)
responsible lawmakers, who then pass laws and regulate. It's never the
majority who need protection, its the minority's......stupid.
"Democracy, three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner".
ghmiller
Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
Then they should take a class on Marksmanship and learn how to make
tighter groups.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Handgunner
> >>
> >> the right to own and keep firearms.
> >>
> >>
> >> med...@bearfabrique.org
> >
> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
> >so how could this poll mean anything?
> >
> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
And Albert knows nothing of fact, history, or emperical rules of
evidence, either. NOTHING.
Handgunner 2
Albert 0
Albert Isham
>
>> >
>> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
>> >so how could this poll mean anything?
>> >
>> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
Constitution
>> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
>
>
>And Albert knows nothing of fact, history, or emperical rules of
>evidence, either. NOTHING.
>
Well, for facts we can start with the fact that, except for the
yet-to-be-completed Emerson case, no gun control law has ever been overturned
in federal court on the basis of the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second
Amendment. And, yes, most Americans polled do support stricter gun control.
The-Trainers
On 12 Nov 1999, Albert Isham wrote:
> Amendment. And, yes, most Americans polled do support stricter gun control.
ONLY those who have been fooled by liars like you and thus don't really
know what the existing laws are.
MT
Handgunner
>
> In article <382C92...@waymark.net>, Handgunner says...
> >
>
> >> >
> >> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
> >> >so how could this poll mean anything?
> >> >
> >> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
> Constitution
> >> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
> >
> >
> >And Albert knows nothing of fact, history, or emperical rules of
> >evidence, either. NOTHING.
> >
> Well, for facts we can start with the fact that, except for the
> yet-to-be-completed Emerson case, no gun control law has ever been overturned
> in federal court on the basis of the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second
Make you a deal, Sparky. You show me an gun poll that shows a favor of
the American people for MORE control and I'll show you (one-for-one)
that is against it. Deal?
Didn't think so.
Regards,
Handgunner
Handgunner 5
Albert 0
Scout
Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in message
news:80hgtv$jod$3...@nw001t.infi.net...
> In article <382c3349....@news.raex.com>, Ted Holden says...
> >
> >On 11 Nov 1999 21:04:47 GMT, dmar...@up.net (Dave Marciniak) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
> >constitution.
>
regulation of
> privately owned guns.
Since the federal government has only those powers granted to it under
Article 1, Albert would you care to point out the specific section of
Article 1 that grants the federal government the power to regulated
privately owned guns?
> > Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
> >the right to own and keep firearms.
> >
> Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the one
> assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT
guaranteed by
> our Constitution.
No it is not......
Surprised you didn't I?
However, for once, you are right. What is guaranteed is that should you
decide to and have the means you will have the legal option to privately own
guns, but that does not mean the government has to supply you with them if
you can't afford them. So while private ownership is not guaranteed, the
OPTION to is.
Scout
> >>
> >> If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
> >> the right to own and keep firearms.
> >>
> >>
> >> med...@bearfabrique.org
> >
> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
> >so how could this poll mean anything?
> >
> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
Constitution
> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
Well once again, Albert is wrong.
I knew he couldn't stay truthful, if misleading.
James F. Mayer
writes:
>In article <FL3Ay...@freenet.buffalo.edu>, Bill Twist says...
>>
>>> >> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control
Policies
>>>
>>> If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
>>> constitution. Until they do, the law guarantees the American
people
>>> the right to own and keep firearms.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ted Holden
>>> med...@bearfabrique.org
>>
>>Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin
with,
>>so how could this poll mean anything?
>>
>It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
Constitution
>says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
>
>
doesn't so that he can gain greater acceptance for the disarming of the
general citizenry for the purpose of instituting a police state.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and
boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description,
andnot such only as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed,
curtailed or broken in upon, in the smallest degree;...any law, State
or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which
contravenes this right..." 1 Ga. 243 (1846)
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defence of
himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State
government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the
citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A
law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is
above the law, and independent of the law-making power." 24 Tex. 394
(1859)
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <382c3349....@news.raex.com>, Ted Holden says...
>>
>>On 11 Nov 1999 21:04:47 GMT, dmar...@up.net (Dave Marciniak) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
>>constitution.
>
>No, there is nothing wrong with our Constitution. It allows the
regulation of
>privately owned guns.
>
No, it does not and your continued repitition of gun control lobby
propaganda won't make any more true.
>> Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
>>the right to own and keep firearms.
>>
>Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the
one
>assigned to them by their unit.
Then why doesn't the Second Amendment say that? Don't you think
that if the founders wanted it to say what you want it to say, they
would have written it that way?
Private ownership of guns is NOT guaranteed by
>our Constitution.
>
Yes it is but you want to keep up the propaganda so that you think
you can convince more of the ignorant that your position is correct. I
am here to counter your propaganda with the truth.
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>In article <382C92...@waymark.net>, Handgunner says...
>>
>
>>> >
>>> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin
with,
>>> >so how could this poll mean anything?
>>> >
>>> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
>Constitution
>>> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
>>
>>
>>evidence, either. NOTHING.
>>
>Well, for facts we can start with the fact that, except for the
>yet-to-be-completed Emerson case, no gun control law has ever been
overturned
>in federal court on the basis of the gun lobby's interpretation of the
Second
>Amendment.
Yes there has but Alkbert refuses to acknowledge that the lower
court in the Miller decision did just that.
And, yes, most Americans polled do support stricter gun control.
>
No they do not.
no one of consequence
Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
]In article <382C92...@waymark.net>, Handgunner says...
]>
]
]>> >
]>> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
]>> >so how could this poll mean anything?
]>> >
]>> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
]Constitution
]>> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
]>
]>
]>And Albert knows nothing of fact, history, or emperical rules of
]>evidence, either. NOTHING.
]>
]Well, for facts we can start with the fact that, except for the
]yet-to-be-completed Emerson case, no gun control law has ever been overturned
]in federal court on the basis of the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second
It must really burn to add that bit about Emerson, doesn't it? One bit of
truth added to a pack of lies.
Saaaaaaay Al? If Emerson wins and the Feds try to appeal it at the Supreme
Court level, and the Court denies cert, will you claim that means the
Supreme Court agrees with the lower court's upholding of the Emerson
verdict and sees no need to waste time with it?
I would really love to hear your answer. Try to avoid cut and paste,
though.
--
|Patrick Chester (Now in Elmhurst, Illinois) wol...@io.com |
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Andy Toole
Dave Marciniak wrote:
> In this case, the mayor - probably a closet Maoist or Trotskyite - simply
> commissioned a poll with a predetermined result. In other words, a
> fabrication, a lie. This poll is simply minced chicken entrails for his
> slobbering Pavlov dogs
> that he leads around on chains.
Well, there's nothing like vilification to make an intelligent argument on a
sensitive issue. But why should I be so unforgiving toward you? Look at any
political ad on TV. Vilification of anyone who deviates in any way from how we
think has become a way of life.
Ernest L. Murphy
Are you talking about a Pollistic Republic or a Free republic.
We live in a free republic. Believe like you want to believe do what you
want to do within the law and don't be trying to take those American's
guns. That was tried back in the 1700's plenty of folks didn't cotton
much to the gun grabbers. you may be wanting to promote what the
talking heads on TV say but AMERICA IS ARMED if you try to take those
guns they will become DANGEROUS. This society was built on freedoms many
of our fathers died to keep for us. If you want to ditch your piece have
at it. but keep your wimpy notions to your own kind.
William T. Stork
For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in
Littleton,Colo. If only the parents had kept their children
away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must
have been the guns. It couldn't have been because of
half our children being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been
because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds
in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we
give our children quality time. It couldn't have been because
we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. It couldn't have
been because we place our children in day care centers
where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the
law of the jungle while employees who have no vested
interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled.
It couldn't have been because we allow our children to
watch, on average, seven hours of television a day filled with the
glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult
consumption. It couldn't have been because we allow (or even encourage)
our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to
win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most
sadistic way possible. It couldn't have been because we
have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small
that the children we do have are so spoiled with material
things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love.
It couldn't have been because our children, who
historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed
as either a mistake created when contraception fails or
inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time. It
couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to
teen-agers who kill their newborns. It couldn't have been because our
school systems teach the children that they are nothing but
glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud
. . . . It couldn't have been because we teach our
children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that
everything is relative and that actions don't have consequences.
What the heck, the president gets away with it. Nah, it must have been
the guns.
Scout wrote:
>
> Albert Isham <ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote in message
> news:80hgtv$jod$3...@nw001t.infi.net...
> > In article <382c3349....@news.raex.com>, Ted Holden says...
> > >
> > >On 11 Nov 1999 21:04:47 GMT, dmar...@up.net (Dave Marciniak) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
> > >
> > >If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
> > >constitution.
> >
> > No, there is nothing wrong with our Constitution. It allows the
> regulation of
> > privately owned guns.
>
> Since the federal government has only those powers granted to it under
> Article 1, Albert would you care to point out the specific section of
> Article 1 that grants the federal government the power to regulated
> privately owned guns?
>
> > > Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
> > >the right to own and keep firearms.
> > >
> > Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the one
> > assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT
> guaranteed by
> > our Constitution.
>
dick...@my-deja.com
very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
in the constitution.
Scout
> In article <382C92...@waymark.net>, Handgunner says...
> >
>
> >> >
> >> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin
with,
> >> >so how could this poll mean anything?
> >> >
> >> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
> Constitution
> >> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
> >
> >
> >And Albert knows nothing of fact, history, or emperical rules of
> >evidence, either. NOTHING.
> >
> Well, for facts we can start with the fact that, except for the
> yet-to-be-completed Emerson case, no gun control law has ever been
overturned
> in federal court on the basis of the gun lobby's interpretation of the
Second
> Amendment.
On the contrary, in US vs. Miller the federal district court did overturn
federal gun control laws because of the gun lobby's interpretation, and
further the Supreme Court did not dispute that, only the level of evidence
which lead to that conclusion.
Further, this type of thought is that which would also state that "because
no slavery law has been overturned in Federal Court, the anti-slavery
advocates interpretation of the 13th Amendment is wrong".
> And, yes, most Americans polled do support stricter gun control.
Not when they know what is already covered under federal law. Further I've
never seen a poll that asked this question. Rather the ones I've research
generally ask something like "Are you in favor of laws to control criminal
access to guns". Which the poll producers then interpret to mean that anyone
who answered "yes", is in favor of MORE and STRICTER control. When in fact
the question asked NEVER addressed or even implied that as a conclusion.
Panzerschiffe
a naive gun-owner into snapping at his bait. Luckily the troll has
overstepped and made his bait too obvious. If we remove a short phrase and
substitute a different one we arrive at the reality of the post. Thusly:
dick...@my-deja.com wrote in message <80knab$4tv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Here's one Democratic Troll who would support
Scott D. Erb
>
>Thus we see the hunting behavior of the Democratic troll attempting to lure
>a naive gun-owner into snapping at his bait. Luckily the troll has
>overstepped and made his bait too obvious. If we remove a short phrase and
>substitute a different one we arrive at the reality of the post. Thusly:
>
>dick...@my-deja.com wrote in message <80knab$4tv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>Here's one Democratic Troll who would support
>>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
Its sad that you can't accept the fact that there are some Republican combat
vets who support strong gun control. In fact, a lot of Republicans I know
support stronger gun control measures than I do!
Sure, say only the "other" side favors them, try to pretend its just
'democratic trolls'...avoid reality....
Oh, and loss the election ;)
Mike
And I doubt you are either!>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
John Johnson
> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> in the constitution.
I see you learned from the masters of deceit:
"The size of a lie is a definitive factor in causing it to be believed, for
the vast masses of a nation are in the depths in their hearts more easily
deceived that they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive
simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than
a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed
to tell big ones."
--Joseph Goebbels: quoting Adolf Hitler from `Mein Kampf'
How about _the_truth_?!?:
----Begin Included Message ----
From: Mark A. Fuller <mfu...@primenet.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: LAW JOURNAL: 1917 Aspects of the Militia
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:44:56 -0700
Message-ID: <JZ0tOLZohg2coE...@4ax.com>
--
A 1917 Yale Law Journal article, Legal and Historical Aspects of the
Militia, is now online at:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/lhamil.html
or
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/pdf/lhamil.pdf (Acrobat)
Being contemporaneous to the 1903 Dick and 1916 National Defense acts,
it is a valuable analysis on what the militia is, and how a select and
federalized body of troops wasn't it.
Many of the author's observations is reminiscent of the Miller Court's
history of the militia. The article may shed light on why the Miller
Court in 1938 devoted half its opinion to a history of the militia but
ignored these then-recent legislative acts which today we are told not
only formalized the militia--but also organized the right to arms out
of existence.
Just as the Miller Court made no mention of what today we are told
were culminating events in militia history, neither does this author
seem to have any idea that the right to arms was suddenly moving to a
limited government-approved group of people. This again may suggest
why the Supreme Court didn't seem to be concerned with Miller's
standing to raise a second amendment defense.
Some highlights from the article:
"the militia from its obscure origin in Saxon times has been
composed of all subjects and citizens capable of bearing arms
"As an institution it expresses the fundamental conception of
the relations of freemen to their State. For fifteen
centuries it has been a fundamental principle of
Anglo-Saxon government--a fact that seems to be quite
generally ignored--that every citizen capable of bearing
arms owes, in return for his liberty and protection, the duty
of personal service to protect and defend his government in
time of need
"As was said in Lodge's Federalist: "Of course, it was
necessary for the legislature to form out of the whole body of
militia a selected corps of moderate extent upon such
principles as will really fit them for service in case of
need."
"The militia is not a federal army even when employed in
federal service
... It is primarily a state and citizen soldiery rather than a
national and professional soldiery. It is primarily a state
institution. The United States has only a limited control over
it for the limited purposes expressed by the Constitution. It
cannot be used, therefore, as a national soldiery for the
general military purposes.
"This *new* force created by the National Defense Act of 1916
must be considered in its relation to (1) the militia, and (2)
the Federal Army. The term National Guard denominating this
*new* force must not be confused with the same term heretofore
commonly adopted by the several states and recognized by the
Dick bill. [emphasis added]
... The militia, as indicated, when defined in the most
general sense and as the term is used in the Constitution, has
reference to the whole body of arms-bearing citizens.
"But 'the National Guard' under the National Defense Act is
something more than was the National Guard, or organized
militia, of the several states under the Dick bill. Under
that bill National Guard, or any other local designation, was
simply alter nomen for organized militia; but the National
Guard under the recent National Defense Act consists of
the organized militia of the several states not in that
single, simple status as such, but with an additional federal
status required of it whereby it assumes new and onerous
obligations to render military service to the Federal
Government, the exact scope and extent of which are not easily
determined from the language of the act; that is, the National
Guard under the Hay bill has the status of the National Guard
under the Dick bill, plus the new status of so-called
federalization created by the new bill. The National Guard,
then, is organized militia placed in a special federal status.
Mark
Second Amendment Law Library, recent legal scholarship at:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/
---- End Included Message ----
Sorry, "Dick": you _lose_! (so go troll elsewhere)
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (17+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Gun Control: the political AIDS of a free society"
--Ian Underwood, 13Sep98
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want
is also big enough to take away everything you have."
--Col. David Crockett; member of the Tennessee legislature
(1821-1822/1823-1824); member U.S. House of Representatives
(1827-1831/1833-1835); and Texas Hero of the Alamo (1836)
"If we accept the view that the American people cannot be trusted with
the material objects necessary to defend their liberty, we will surely
accept as well the view that the American people cannot be trusted with
liberty itself. Why should a man who can't be trusted to refrain from
murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task
of choosing his leaders responsibly?"
--Dr. Alan Keyes
"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and everywhere,
to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their one apparent purpose,
pursued with a relentless and furious diligence, is to convert the assumption
into a fact. They hunt endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking,
for mere suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen,
John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin searching
feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-- H.L. Mencken
"As Professor Lott discovered, gun ownership deters crime. But what will
deter liberals? Certainly not the facts. They have too much invested in
their vision of themselves as the saviors of us all."
-- Thomas Sowell, June 29, 1998
Allen James
> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
What's an 'assault rifle'? Specifics, please....
<balance of inane, vicious crap snipped>
atwood
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
>once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
>playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
>reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>in the constitution.
The way I see it, the Republicans face a problem. A significant part of
their constituency is composed of the droooling idiot gun nuts. They, plus
the religious fanatics and other assorted oddballs, probably make up 40% of
the Republican Party. Still a minority, but if you kick them out or offend
them, you lose the election because they stay home. If you pander to them
you also lose, because normal Americans look at you in shock and disgust.
The only way the Republicans can ever win is to paste a smiley face on their
little petting zoo, a la Reagan and now Shrub. We'll see if it works, but
I'm betting against it because Reagan was elected at a time when the issues
were running in favor of Republicans.
These days, if you ask people what they care about it's all the Democratic
issues including gun control. The Republican hard-core rightwingnutcases
like the lifers here on t.p.g. will hold your party hostage to their
extremism and your side will have a very hard time not losing.
Boo hoo.
Kill Troll With Sword..
when you know he kicked you in the balls.
Panzerschiffe wrote:
>
> Thus we see the hunting behavior of the Democratic troll attempting to lure
> a naive gun-owner into snapping at his bait. Luckily the troll has
> overstepped and made his bait too obvious. If we remove a short phrase and
> substitute a different one we arrive at the reality of the post. Thusly:
>
> dick...@my-deja.com wrote in message <80knab$4tv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Here's one Democratic Troll who would support
> >very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> >assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> >needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
> > Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> >once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> >well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> >bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> >playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> > Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> >unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
> >reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> >Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> >idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> >in the constitution.
> >
> >
Marksman
<dick...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:80knab$4tv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> in the constitution.
>
Ahh another liberal gunloon posing as a conservative. BUSTED.
Marksman
atwood <atw...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:1lmX3.1078$dq4....@ndnws01.ne.mediaone.net...
> >very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> >assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> >needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
> > Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> >once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> >well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> >bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> >playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> > Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> >unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
> >reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> >Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> >idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> >in the constitution.
>
>
>
> their constituency is composed of the droooling idiot gun nuts. They, plus
> the religious fanatics and other assorted oddballs, probably make up 40%
of
> the Republican Party. Still a minority, but if you kick them out or offend
> them, you lose the election because they stay home. If you pander to them
> you also lose, because normal Americans look at you in shock and disgust.
>
> The only way the Republicans can ever win is to paste a smiley face on
their
> little petting zoo, a la Reagan and now Shrub. We'll see if it works, but
> I'm betting against it because Reagan was elected at a time when the
issues
> were running in favor of Republicans.
>
> These days, if you ask people what they care about it's all the Democratic
> issues including gun control. The Republican hard-core rightwingnutcases
> like the lifers here on t.p.g. will hold your party hostage to their
> extremism and your side will have a very hard time not losing.
>
Extremism? Like you are not a fanatic? Please you do not have a chance. Many
people are capable of individual thinking and reject your socialist agenda.
Try again in another country gunloon cultist. Maybe you'll have a chance
there.
> Boo hoo.
>
>
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
If you're supposedly a "combat vet" then you ought to know what
the fuck an "assault rifle" is, you obviously don't, ergo: you're a liar.
>Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
>playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
Does the First Amendment have something to do with comic book
buying, girly magazine reading yahoos who watch Jerry Springer?
>Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
>reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>in the constitution.
How much does being a professional asshole pay?
---------------------------------------
M. W. Eglestone
dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
<<==================================================>>
MWE: Well guy, I'm and E-8, a Democrat and a Vet. I say you're full of shit!
Each man gets one vote.. I cancel out yours.. Isn't a FREE COUNTRY nifty!
Damn near worth putting your life on the line for; not to mention that it's a
great place to live as well!
--
(Mike Eglestone)
----------------------
Revolting against a restriction is NOT an act of fanaticism.
Fanaticism is creating restriction upon restriction and calling those who
revolt fanatics.
- Dwane Kelly 10 Nov. 1999
--------------------------
Rights are best understood not so much as the ability to do a thing, but as
the capacity to prevail against objections to its being done.
- Oracle, 23 Oct. 1999
----------------------
A clear conscience is usually the first sign of a bad memory.
Dave Brickner
Robert Frenchu
>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
I need one. More importantly I want one.
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
>playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
I believe it also says something about "the people."
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>unadulterated crap!!
>Once again (and considering the above possible
>reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>in the constitution.
Why not share your knowledge here with us?
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
RCO
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> well-regulated militia.
Howdy, lying troll. Perhaps you should take a few college level classes
on Constitutional law. Or at least read the text books.
Read Eugene Volokh's work on the issue (start with
<http://www.law.ucla.edu/Faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm> and work
from there). And then read Laurence Tribe's _American Constitutional
Law_ (New York, Foundation Press, 2000). Both agree that the Second
Amemdment DOES apply to individuals. Volokh is a professor of
Constitutional law at the UCLA Law School. Tribe holds the same title
at Harvard Law. Both have published extensively on the subject, and
their works have been cited by the United States Supreme court.
How long have YOU been a renowned Constitutional scholar, Dick?
Scout
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles.
Why? Assault rifles are rarely used in crime, and when they are they are
almost exclusively illegally owned anyway. So why bother?
> There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon.
Excuse me, but what one may own is not limited to demonstrated "need".
> It is blithering insanity.
Oh, is that what this garbage you've been spouting is.
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> once, that is if you can read!
I've read it many times, your problem is you either haven't or can't
comprehend what you read.
> I believe it says something about a
> well-regulated militia.
Yep, and it also states the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the
people. So what exactly is your point?
> That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
Would this include the National Guard and/or offical state militias?
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia".
Ok, then since the right is of the people and not the militia, then you have
a problem to solve, since you are now declaring that they are different.
> Such
> unadulterated crap!!
Yep, that is all your message has been so far.
> Once again (and considering the above possible
> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> in the constitution.
Yep, as a means of quickly raising a fighting force in times of need. Sort
of like happened in the French and Indian Wars or the Revoluationary War.
Gee, that's all. IMO you, sir, are a troll.
Scout
Kill Troll With Sword.. <kt...@troll.net> wrote in message
news:382DEA4A...@troll.net...
> You can ALWAYS resort to that "he's a troll" response,
> when you know he kicked you in the balls.
Well, since he had nothing meaningful to say, and said what little he did in
an insulting manner. I suspect that he is a troll. However, let's make a
bet, care to stake some money on his remaining around to intelligently
debate the counters to the statements he claims in this message?
> Panzerschiffe wrote:
> >
> > Thus we see the hunting behavior of the Democratic troll attempting to
lure
> > a naive gun-owner into snapping at his bait. Luckily the troll has
> > overstepped and made his bait too obvious. If we remove a short phrase
and
> > substitute a different one we arrive at the reality of the post.
Thusly:
> >
> > dick...@my-deja.com wrote in message <80knab$4tv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > >Here's one Democratic Troll who would support
> > >very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> > >assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country
who
> > >needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
> > > Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> > >once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> > >well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> > >bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> > >playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> > > Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> > >unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
> > >reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> > >Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> > >idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> > >in the constitution.
> > >
> > >
Ian Underwood
>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>assault rifles.
Interesting. Can you tell us what differentiates an 'assault rifle'
from a normal rifle? Is it the caliber? The number of projectiles
that are fired with each pull of the trigger? The range of the
projectiles, or the speed at which they leave the rifle? The
materials from which the rifle or the projectiles are composed?
In fact, is there anything that differentiates an 'assault rifle' from
a normal rifle other than that it's appearance is scary to people who
don't understand anything about firearms?
>There is not one private individual in this country who
>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
Korean shopkeepers found them pretty useful during the LA riots. Are
you saying that situations like that won't ever arise again?
Also, can you guarantee that it will never be necessary for private
individuals to band together to fight an oppressive government?
If you can't answer 'yes' to both these questions -- and give us some
solid reasons why we should believe that your answers are correct --
then the only blithering insanity in evidence here is your baseless
assertion.
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>well-regulated militia.
Right. It says that the possibility of forming a well-regulated
militia -- composed of the body of the people, bearing arms of their
own of the type in common use at the time -- is impossible if the
right of individuals to keep and bear arms is infringed.
It notes that the ability to form such a militia is 'necessary to the
security of a free State' -- not just because it could be useful in
fighting against foreign invasion (the government can raise an army
and maintain a navy against that), but because it is essential in
fighting against domestic tyranny -- something that the people can
hardly rely on the government to help them with.
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
>reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>in the constitution.
Gee, read the Federalist Papers and the works of Jefferson and Madison
and their contemporaries, and you'll get a very reasonable idea of why
the people _are_ in fact the militia, and why the Founders insisted
that the government never be given the power to disarm the people.
I have to say, having read your case and theirs, theirs is much more
persuasive.
Actually, you sound more like an anti-gun troll (although not a very
good one) than a Republican or a combat vet.
John A. Stovall
>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
Oh, the slave calls out so loud for his chains.
Let's replace your statist mindset with some Freedom. A concept
unknown to Slaves and Statists.
Your state owned and controlled guns have kill millions more than all
the privately owned guns in all of history.
Let's have the Atlanta Declaration rather than your totalitarian
fantasies.
Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission.
-- L. Neil Smith, The Atlanta Declaration
As for your being a combat vet, you don't know what an assault rifle
is. Get educated, do you know what NFA-34 is?
Didn't think so, what was your MOS, Shit Burner?
Not my provider's views.
John Alex Stovall
XVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVO
"....Long live Freedom and damn the ideologies,"
Said the gamey old back-maned wild boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
XVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVOXVO
William Hughes
wrote:
*sniff* *sniff*
troll
Edward L. Patrick
> >very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> >assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> >needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
"The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least seventeen years of age..."
-- Title 10, Section 311(a), UNITED STATES CODE
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep
and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776
"Assault" weapons or other standard military weapons are EXACTLY those
weapons PROTECTED under the 2nd Amendment (U.S. v. Miller, 1939).
See also Federalist Papers #29 and #46, but especially #84, which
basically says you need no "bills of rights" because the Federal
government has no authority.
Ed
David E. Powell
>>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>>assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
OK - when all the crooks line up and turn in their pieces and stop robbing
people with them, and when they stop all illegal sales and running, then I
might tend to agree. However, none of this is going to happen any time soon.
>If you're supposedly a "combat vet" then you ought to know what
>the fuck an "assault rifle" is, you obviously don't, ergo: you're a liar.
If he is a vet, he may be applying the media designation to semi auto battle
rifle type weapons. (M1A, Galil, AR-14, Mini-14, etc.) The Semi-Auto
civilian versions, that is. If he is a combat vet it is not incomprehensible
that he would object to said arms - some do and some do not. I know of Vets
who own said weapons and approve of them. There are some who do not, Jim
Bohannon being one, IIRC. It is an issue which divides many.
>>Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>>once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>>well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>>bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
>>playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
Interesting stereotype, which is disproved even by many Mainstream Media
articles. Many "Militia" types train well, and feature the women as well as
the men folks training hard with firearms. They are typically fit
individuals who are capable with firearms, tracking, communications,
organization, and many other skills. Many organizations seen profiled on
such Documentaries include combat Veterans.
Also, you apply this definition to all owners of whatever type of weapons
you refer to (I'd figure you mean "Battle Rifles" of the semi auto type, a
la the National Match M1As or AR-15.) This of course discounts national
target champions, arms collectors, museum owners, and Veterans Groups (Some
of whom carry M1A or AR-15 type weapons on parade, or fire salutes for
ceremonies with said arms.) I would ask you to please rethink this broad
stereotype.
Ronald Ladley
OKAY...Let's ban all the guns. combat vet.
Then what happens when a foreign army attempts to invade the United States,
take over my home, and rape my wife. Do you honestly think I'm going to
patiently sit back and wait for the under budgeted-Clinton scorned military
of the United States to save my family? I think it's a damm shame I have to
view a once great military like that. I didn't have to under Ronald Reagan,
but it's true. combat vet.
The answer to the above scenario is to protect my family!!! WITH MY GUNS!!!
combat vet.
I guess you're right. combat vet. I don't need guns, there's a police force
in my hometown. Right?
Then I guess I don't need smoke detectors in my home either, there a fire
department in my hometown. Again, it's amazing how the mind of an idiot
functions.
Man, you had better wake up!!! combat vet. You sound more like a draft
dodger!!! Could I be writing to the current White House Administration, and
don't know it?
mag...@hotmail.com
<shra...@LICEenteract.com> wrote:
>In article <80knab$4tv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <dick...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
>
>What's an 'assault rifle'? Specifics, please....
>
An assault rifle is a rifle capable of full auto or burst fire, like
an M-16 or mil-soec AK-47.
Well, since assault rifles are already illegal to own without a
special liscence, I don't see what the problem is. OTOH, if we go by
the strictest definition of a militia, everyone should have onme in
their closet.
mag...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:05:00 GMT, dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>>assault rifles.
>
>Interesting. Can you tell us what differentiates an 'assault rifle'
>from a normal rifle? Is it the caliber? The number of projectiles
>that are fired with each pull of the trigger? The range of the
>projectiles, or the speed at which they leave the rifle? The
>materials from which the rifle or the projectiles are composed?
>
>In fact, is there anything that differentiates an 'assault rifle' from
>a normal rifle other than that it's appearance is scary to people who
>don't understand anything about firearms?
Yes, an assault rifle is capable of full auto or burst fire. Now,
what you described is what the anti-gunners term "assault weapons".
Kill Troll With Sword..
>
> He's no combat vet. I find it amazing how the mind of an idiot functions.
>
> OKAY...Let's ban all the guns. combat vet.
>
> Then what happens when a foreign army attempts to invade the United States,
> take over my home, and rape my wife. Do you honestly think I'm going to
> patiently sit back and wait for the under budgeted-Clinton scorned military
> of the United States to save my family? I think it's a damm shame I have to
> view a once great military like that. I didn't have to under Ronald Reagan,
> but it's true. combat vet.
>
Typical right wing fantasy. You guys are going to take to the hills and
stop an invading army?
> The answer to the above scenario is to protect my family!!! WITH MY GUNS!!!
> combat vet.
>
> I guess you're right. combat vet. I don't need guns, there's a police force
> in my hometown. Right?
>
Perhaps you need to form up a little vigilante group.
> Then I guess I don't need smoke detectors in my home either, there a fire
> department in my hometown. Again, it's amazing how the mind of an idiot
> functions.
>
It IS amazing how your mind functions! Smoke detectors equated to
handguns.
> Man, you had better wake up!!! combat vet. You sound more like a draft
> dodger!!! Could I be writing to the current White House Administration, and
> don't know it?
He disagrees with your gunny paranoia viewpoint - therefore he CAN'T be
a
combat vet, ergo he MUST be a "draft dodger".
Face it. In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
Kill Troll With Sword..
>
> troll ..............or moron...............take yer pick.............
Disagreer with gunny paranoids..
Michael Richmann
>
> In article <e4J#NZiL$GA.239@cpmsnbbsa02>, panzer...@email.msn.com says...
> >
> >a naive gun-owner into snapping at his bait. Luckily the troll has
> >overstepped and made his bait too obvious. If we remove a short phrase and
> >substitute a different one we arrive at the reality of the post. Thusly:
> >
> >>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>
> vets who support strong gun control. In fact, a lot of Republicans I know
> support stronger gun control measures than I do!
Good for them. I'd be just as sick to my stomach if they stood up on a
soapbox and proclaimed their support for the reinstitution of slavery.
Some things just aren't right no matter how much spin and bullshit you
fling forth.
>
> Sure, say only the "other" side favors them, try to pretend its just
> 'democratic trolls'...avoid reality....
True. There are idiots on both sides of the fences. The demographic
does support the contention that the guy's a likely democrat however,
just on the basis of the congressional voting record alone.
> Oh, and loss[sic] the election ;)
Heheh...
--
Mike
Dalton
you served. Confiscation? That is what is blithering insanity. Why
should it matter whether someone owns a firearm that "looks like" a
military weapon? I assume if you support such a measure, you equally
support confiscating weapons that work exactly the same (semi auto)?
Further I don't think you qualify as having the credentials to call
someone an idiot when you obviously haven't read enough historical
analysis of court rulings and intentions of the founding fathers on
the meaning of a "militia". Fact is Mr Combat Vet, the second
amendment was included in the constitution to guarantee that "the
people" have ultimate authority over a tyrannical government. It is
unfortunate that today the media has managed to succeed in the
portrayal of Americans who support gun rights as the way you have
bought into, but truth is, millions of us are of military backgrounds,
and even college educated, as well as successful businessmen who
cringe at the thought that people like you would be so quick to give
up even one of our protected freedoms. How quickly would you give up
your freedom of speech? or freedom of religion? or freedom of
assembly? Well hotshot, the day is coming when those very things will
be just as threatened as the right to bear arms is today. Problem is,
people like you will have succeeded in stripping America of its true
power to prevent that from happening. By the way, the rights
guaranteed in the Constitution were not "granted" by the Constitution,
to be treated as a priviledge by Government, they were and are,
unalienable rights given by God and sought to be protected FROM
government control. You see Mr Combat Vet, it is "the threat" of a
rebellion or revolution, the power being in the hands of the citizens
to wage such a rebellion, because of the right to keeop and bear arms,
that makes the price tag higher for tyranny minded public officials to
suck the very control of your pathetic life away from you. I suggest
to you that before you help destroy the country for which you fought
that you try to use your limited reasoning ability to understand and
learn more about why the hell the founding fathers thought the second
amendment was important enough to make it number 2.
rda...@bellsouth.net
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:05:00 GMT, dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
>playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
>reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>in the constitution.
>
>
Ken (NY)
results:
Question- Would you rather (check one):
1. Save Social Security [ ]
2. Keep Medicare solvent for citizens [ ]
3. Control guns [ ]
Results- People are not for gun controls.
Doug Smith
>
> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> in the constitution.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Thus leaving the Government and criminals with a monopoly on
the impliments of force. What an outstanding idea. It just
makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
In any case, your explicit bigotry devalues your opinion.
By the way, can you define assault rifle for me and describe
the law as it applies to such weapons?
doug
Scout
> Ronald Ladley wrote:
> >
> > He's no combat vet. I find it amazing how the mind of an idiot
functions.
> >
> > OKAY...Let's ban all the guns. combat vet.
> >
> > Then what happens when a foreign army attempts to invade the United
States,
> > take over my home, and rape my wife. Do you honestly think I'm going to
> > patiently sit back and wait for the under budgeted-Clinton scorned
military
> > of the United States to save my family? I think it's a damm shame I have
to
> > view a once great military like that. I didn't have to under Ronald
Reagan,
> > but it's true. combat vet.
> >
>
> Typical right wing fantasy. You guys are going to take to the hills and
> stop an invading army?
Check your history, it's already been done. Oh, but then you don't let
little details like historical fact get in the way of your rants.
> > The answer to the above scenario is to protect my family!!! WITH MY
GUNS!!!
> > combat vet.
> >
> > I guess you're right. combat vet. I don't need guns, there's a police
force
> > in my hometown. Right?
> >
>
> Perhaps you need to form up a little vigilante group.
Yep, as was done during the LA riots, and after hurrican Hugo in Florida.
Yep, vigilante groups can do wonders if they have the means.
Oh, and before you start spouting off, you better look up the term
"vigilante" in the dictionary, and then consider what it means.
> > Then I guess I don't need smoke detectors in my home either, there a
fire
> > department in my hometown. Again, it's amazing how the mind of an idiot
> > functions.
> >
>
> It IS amazing how your mind functions! Smoke detectors equated to
> handguns.
Yep, both types of insurance against a threat. Though his analogy isn't the
best, a better example would be a fire extingusher. Since that is what you
use against the the direct threat of fire.
> > Man, you had better wake up!!! combat vet. You sound more like a draft
> > dodger!!! Could I be writing to the current White House Administration,
and
> > don't know it?
>
> He disagrees with your gunny paranoia viewpoint - therefore he CAN'T be
> a
> combat vet, ergo he MUST be a "draft dodger".
>
> Face it. In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
From a man who is unarmed.
Ronald Shin
dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
What exactly is your definition of an assault rifle? Civilians have been
forbidden from owning true assault rifles (without a Class III permit) for
quite a while now. If you really believe that confiscation of a virtually
non-existant object will do any good, then I have a certain bridge in
Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. Really cheap!
You are one of those who have sadly fallen for the hype and garbage rhetoric
that the left wing media has tried to cram down your gullet. Certainly, you
cannot believe everything that CNN tells you? After all, the media was the
one who tried to spread that garbage story of commanders hosing down
deserters with sarin gas in 'nam...
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> well-regulated militia.
A well-regulated militia is necessary to a free State. Now, what part of
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do
you fail to understand? Perhaps it is *you* who needs to learn how to
comprehend.
> That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> bellied god
God is not pot-bellied, I would imagine...
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> in the constitution.
Let's see now, they were able bodied men (civilians) who owned their own
firearms, and were called upon to defend the well being of a free state.
These days, since things are more or less, gender blind, that would
certainly mean that all people are part of their state milita.
Now, for the second part, Dick, the independant clause of the Second
Amendment, that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed." has no dependancy on the dependant clause, that states
that the militia is necessary to a free State. Thus, you trying to state
that the people are not the milita has no bearing on their inalienable right
to keep and bear arms.
Check your grammar school notes (seriously). That is, and always will be,
how the English language works.
Ronald Shin
William Hughes wrote:
Nah. I think that Dick1218 merely lost sphincter control...
Ronald Shin
Dave Brickner wrote:
> troll ..............or moron...............take yer pick.............
If Dick really was a combat veteran (judging by his ignorance of
weaponry, he probably isn't), it may just be an after-effect of being
shell-shocked...
Ronald Shin
"Kill Troll With Sword.." wrote:
> > Man, you had better wake up!!! combat vet. You sound more like a draft
> > dodger!!! Could I be writing to the current White House Administration, and
> > don't know it?
>
> He disagrees with your gunny paranoia viewpoint - therefore he CAN'T be
> a
> combat vet, ergo he MUST be a "draft dodger".
>
No, you Zork fanatic (that was meant as a compliment)...
This Dick1218 character has displayed a high level of ignorance on a subject that
he claims to know something about, since he is allegedly a two-time combat
veteran. Dick1218 has been screaming for the confiscation of assault rifles, yet
does not realize that such weapons have been banned from civilian ownership
without a class III permit. Confiscation of assault rifles from those very few
who have such permits first of all would have no effect on criminals, since they
don't have class III licenses, and secondly, are nothing but feel-good tactics
that politicians the likes of Stalin would use.
Unfortunately for Dick, he has no valid argument.
Kill Troll With Sword..
>
> Kill Troll With Sword.. <kt...@troll.net> wrote in message
> news:382ED5E8...@troll.net...
> > Ronald Ladley wrote:
> > >
> > > He's no combat vet. I find it amazing how the mind of an idiot
> functions.
> > >
> > > OKAY...Let's ban all the guns. combat vet.
> > >
> > > Then what happens when a foreign army attempts to invade the United
> States,
> > > take over my home, and rape my wife. Do you honestly think I'm going to
> > > patiently sit back and wait for the under budgeted-Clinton scorned
> military
> > > of the United States to save my family? I think it's a damm shame I have
> to
> > > view a once great military like that. I didn't have to under Ronald
> Reagan,
> > > but it's true. combat vet.
> > >
> >
> > Typical right wing fantasy. You guys are going to take to the hills and
> > stop an invading army?
>
> Check your history, it's already been done. Oh, but then you don't let
> little details like historical fact get in the way of your rants.
>
I'm not the one who needs to own a fucking bazooka to feel secure.
> > > The answer to the above scenario is to protect my family!!! WITH MY
> GUNS!!!
> > > combat vet.
> > >
> > > I guess you're right. combat vet. I don't need guns, there's a police
> force
> > > in my hometown. Right?
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps you need to form up a little vigilante group.
>
> Yep, as was done during the LA riots, and after hurrican Hugo in Florida.
> Yep, vigilante groups can do wonders if they have the means.
>
> Oh, and before you start spouting off, you better look up the term
> "vigilante" in the dictionary, and then consider what it means.
>
I *know* what it means. For your benefit, however: "vigilante - a member
of a
vigilance committee. Vigilance committee: a group of persons organized
without
legal authorization, professedly to keep order and punish crime when
ordinary
law enforcement agencies apparently fail to do so." [Note the part about
"without
legal authorization" and "professedly".]
I also know that most of the gunny paranoids with their "sheriff's
auxiliary"
mentality feel that they themselves are above the law, and somehow
ordaned
to take the law into their own hands. It's a damn good excuse to get the
hardware out and show it off..
It's hardly a neighborhood crime watch group you are advocating.
> > > Then I guess I don't need smoke detectors in my home either, there a
> fire
> > > department in my hometown. Again, it's amazing how the mind of an idiot
> > > functions.
> > >
> >
> > It IS amazing how your mind functions! Smoke detectors equated to
> > handguns.
>
> Yep, both types of insurance against a threat. Though his analogy isn't the
> best, a better example would be a fire extingusher. Since that is what you
> use against the the direct threat of fire.
>
You don't kill people with fire extingushers [sic].
> > > Man, you had better wake up!!! combat vet. You sound more like a draft
> > > dodger!!! Could I be writing to the current White House Administration,
> and
> > > don't know it?
> >
> > He disagrees with your gunny paranoia viewpoint - therefore he CAN'T be
> > a
> > combat vet, ergo he MUST be a "draft dodger".
> >
> > Face it. In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
>
> From a man who is unarmed.
Well? What did you want to continue to say?
If you gunny paranoids would show a little common sense, people wouldn't
think you're nuts.
J.A. James
> Ronald Ladley wrote:
> >
> > He's no combat vet. I find it amazing how the mind of an idiot functions.
> >
> > OKAY...Let's ban all the guns. combat vet.
> >
> > Then what happens when a foreign army attempts to invade the United States,
> > take over my home, and rape my wife. Do you honestly think I'm going to
> > patiently sit back and wait for the under budgeted-Clinton scorned military
> > of the United States to save my family? I think it's a damm shame I have to
> > view a once great military like that. I didn't have to under Ronald Reagan,
> > but it's true. combat vet.
> >
>
> Typical right wing fantasy. You guys are going to take to the hills and
> stop an invading army?
Those pesky Chechnyans seem to be doing pretty well at it. Then
you have to try to remember the Viet Cong, Viet Minh, miscellaneous
Angolan nationalist groups, etc.
One person isn't going to stop an invading army. Ten or twelve
million of them are a completely different matter.
> > The answer to the above scenario is to protect my family!!! WITH MY GUNS!!!
> > combat vet.
> >
> > I guess you're right. combat vet. I don't need guns, there's a police force
> > in my hometown. Right?
> >
>
> Perhaps you need to form up a little vigilante group.
Surely you're not confusing vigilantism with the functions of
the Militia or with an individual's right to self defense?
> > Then I guess I don't need smoke detectors in my home either, there a fire
> > department in my hometown. Again, it's amazing how the mind of an idiot
> > functions.
> >
>
> It IS amazing how your mind functions! Smoke detectors equated to
> handguns.
Actually a handgun is a more accurate analog to a fire
extinguisher. The human mind is the tool that actually detects the
risk and manifestation of violent criminal attack.
> > Man, you had better wake up!!! combat vet. You sound more like a draft
> > dodger!!! Could I be writing to the current White House Administration, and
> > don't know it?
>
> He disagrees with your gunny paranoia viewpoint - therefore he CAN'T be
> a
> combat vet, ergo he MUST be a "draft dodger".
The person to whom you're responding stated a personal opinion.
In this particular paragraph there isn't even an implication that a
statement of fact is being made. You're certainly not trying to
denigrate him for voicing his opinion as to how something appears, are
you?
> Face it. In a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
Oh boy... An insult to beat all insults. Childish and banal.
What a delight to read.
Bill Bonde
dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
>
What is the difference fundamentally between a Remington 1100
autoloading shotgun and an assault shotgun? What's the fundamental
difference between an autoloading hunting rifle and an assault rifle?
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
> bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> unadulterated crap!!
>
Consider breaking out any good dictionary. Look up 'militia'.
Christopher Morton
>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
What is truly blithering insanity is the pretense that you have any
love for the constitution and this nation while advocating the
policies of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.
Just be a man and admit you want a police state where the cops can
drag you out of bed in the middle of the night with no danger to
themselves.
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Justin Volpe has a gun.
Check out:
no one of consequence
Kill Troll With Sword.. <kt...@troll.net> wrote:
]Dave Brickner wrote:
]>
]> troll ..............or moron...............take yer pick.............
]Disagreer with gunny paranoids..
..and using that as an excuse to troll.
There is a difference.
--
|Patrick Chester (Now in Elmhurst, Illinois) wol...@io.com |
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
The OldTimer
Bill Bonde wrote in message <382F2DEB...@mail.com>...
>
>
>dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
>>
>autoloading shotgun and an assault shotgun? What's the fundamental
>difference between an autoloading hunting rifle and an assault rifle?
>
>
>
>> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>> well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>> bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
>> playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
>> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>> unadulterated crap!!
So tell us this, are you for outlawing alcohol? More people die because of
that than do guns. How about prescription drugs? Automobiles?
And if the second amendment does not allow individuals to own guns, why has
not the supreme court done something about it in the past 200 years? And
you're calling other people idiots?
X-No-Archive: Yes
By God, he worked his ass off for it
and I don't care what anybody says,
it belongs to me!
The GIMMIECRAT creed.
The OldTimer
tjwilson
Albert Isham wrote:
>
> In article <FL3Ay...@freenet.buffalo.edu>, Bill Twist says...
> >
> >> >> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
> >>
> >> If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
> >> constitution. Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
> >> the right to own and keep firearms.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ted Holden
> >> med...@bearfabrique.org
> >
> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
> >so how could this poll mean anything?
> >
> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the Constitution
> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
The 2nd Amend recognizes the right for the individual to keep and bare
arms.
Read it and weep.
tjw
tjwilson
Albert Isham wrote:
>
> In article <382c3349....@news.raex.com>, Ted Holden says...
> >
> >On 11 Nov 1999 21:04:47 GMT, dmar...@up.net (Dave Marciniak) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> Poll: Most People Overwhelmingly Favor Strict Gun-Control Policies
> >
> >If that's the case, then "most people" need to change the U.S.
> >constitution.
>
> No, there is nothing wrong with our Constitution. It allows the regulation of
> privately owned guns.
>
> > Until they do, the law guarantees the American people
> >the right to own and keep firearms.
> >
> Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the one
> assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT guaranteed by
> our Constitution.
The National Guard did not exist when the 2nd Amend was written.
tjw
tjwilson
Albert Isham wrote:
>
> In article <382C92...@waymark.net>, Handgunner says...
> >
>
> >> >
> >> >Most people don't even know what the current gun laws are to begin with,
> >> >so how could this poll mean anything?
> >> >
> >> It should be an even battle. Most gunowners don't know what the
> Constitution
> >> says about the ownership of privately owned guns. (Nothing)
> >
> >
> >And Albert knows nothing of fact, history, or emperical rules of
> >evidence, either. NOTHING.
> >
> Well, for facts we can start with the fact that, except for the
> yet-to-be-completed Emerson case, no gun control law has ever been overturned
> in federal court on the basis of the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second
> Amendment. And, yes, most Americans polled do support stricter gun control.
Define ' strict gun control '.
tjw
antisdolie
ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
> > Until they do, the law guarantees the American people the right to
> > own and keep firearms.
> Not unless they are members of the National Guard and the gun is the
> one assigned to them by their unit. Private ownership of guns is NOT
> guaranteed by our Constitution.
Yeah, okay Ishy. Let's examine Ishy's hypothesis:
Assertion: The law guarentees the people the right to own and keep
(keep and bear) firearms.
Ishy Response: Only if they are guardsmen and you are referring to
their issued gun.
Meaning: A guardsman has the uninfringable right to keep and
bear any issued firearm.
I can see it now, at the National Guard Armoury, after target practice
concludes and Guardsman Ishy is told to return his gun. He
replies: "No, I am a member of the National Guard, and this M-16 was
issued to me, therefore I have the right to keep and bear it, so I WILL
NOT return it, I shall KEEP it, and I shall BEAR it while I walk
downtown."
Go Ishy go.!
Jim
Michael Ejercito
Isham) wrote:
Most of them woulkd also support a police state of the type that you
would love to live in.
Michael
Christopher Morton
<kt...@troll.net> wrote:
>Ronald Ladley wrote:
>>
>> He's no combat vet. I find it amazing how the mind of an idiot functions.
>>
>> OKAY...Let's ban all the guns. combat vet.
>>
>> Then what happens when a foreign army attempts to invade the United States,
>> take over my home, and rape my wife. Do you honestly think I'm going to
>> patiently sit back and wait for the under budgeted-Clinton scorned military
>> of the United States to save my family? I think it's a damm shame I have to
>> view a once great military like that. I didn't have to under Ronald Reagan,
>> but it's true. combat vet.
>>
>
>Typical right wing fantasy. You guys are going to take to the hills and
>stop an invading army?
I imagine your plan is to become a collaborator.
Have you printed out your chart on what a Jew supposedly looks like,
or will you wait for the government to give you one?
Will you initiate your own pogrom or wait for government instructions?
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>In article <e4J#NZiL$GA.239@cpmsnbbsa02>, panzer...@email.msn.com says...
>>
>>Thus we see the hunting behavior of the Democratic troll attempting to lure
>>a naive gun-owner into snapping at his bait. Luckily the troll has
>>overstepped and made his bait too obvious. If we remove a short phrase and
>>substitute a different one we arrive at the reality of the post. Thusly:
>>
>>dick...@my-deja.com wrote in message <80knab$4tv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>>Here's one Democratic Troll who would support
>>>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>
>Its sad that you can't accept the fact that there are some Republican combat
>vets who support strong gun control. In fact, a lot of Republicans I know
>support stronger gun control measures than I do!
There are also Republican combat vets who support gaybashing, racial
discrimination and a ban on abortion.
I suppose you support those positions too....
Christopher Morton
<kt...@troll.net> wrote:
>> Check your history, it's already been done. Oh, but then you don't let
>> little details like historical fact get in the way of your rants.
>>
>
>I'm not the one who needs to own a fucking bazooka to feel secure.
No, you're the one who needs to lick a jackboot in order to feel
secure.
But I'd expect somebody who wants to be a tyrant's "bitch" to look
down on those who value liberty.
You're a serf and punk, and that's all you'll ever be.
>I also know that most of the gunny paranoids with their "sheriff's
>auxiliary"
>mentality feel that they themselves are above the law, and somehow
>ordaned
>to take the law into their own hands. It's a damn good excuse to get the
>hardware out and show it off..
What "vigilante" group did Justin Volpe belong to?
>It's hardly a neighborhood crime watch group you are advocating.
You're advocating a police state.
The answer is "no".
Larry L. Taylor
> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> assault rifles.
You're certainly welcome to support anything you want in this country.
That's what is great about this country. But how do you react when you
don't get your way? Stangle your opponents with your pink leotards or
bash them over the head with your purse?
> There is not one private individual in this country who
> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
I'm a private individual and I need a weapon that looks like an assault
weapon. Ever tried to sluice a coyote with a bolt action rifle when
they're on the run? Ever tried to stop a mob intent on raiding,
pillaging, and burning your business? Ever tried to stop gummiment thugs
intent on raiding a Christian sanctuary?
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
> once, that is if you can read!
I know the problem. We've all read it more than once and we're obviously
confused as to the fact that it refers to 'the people' (and I don't think
they were talking about the Village People) and their right to own
firearms. We must be taking it too literally. We should be reading
something else into the your interpretation?
> I believe it says something about a well-regulated militia.
Indeed it does, but not as an exclusive condition to privately own
firearms, but as a justification for all able bodied citizens that can
qualify for the militia to possess their own firearms so that a militia
may be easily formed as needed.
> That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-bellied god old boys getting
away from the wife for the
> weekend and playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
I'm truly sorry if they left you out of their games because you made fun
of them with the stereotypical image you've created in your own mind.
Maybe if you apologized, they'd let you play too.
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
> unadulterated crap!!
We all know your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with
the facts, so I won't tell you "the people are the militia". Must be made
up of all those 'beer-guzzling, pot-bellied god old boys', and you've
evidently figured out they're not 'people'. Scary proposition ain't it?
> Once again (and considering the above possible
> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
> in the constitution.
>
I'd much rather settle for a half-assed idea based on the US Constitution
before accepting a half-baked proposition of yours.
--
Fear out of experience is . . .to be conquered;
Fear out of ignorance is . . . . to be stupid!
Larry L. Taylor
RD Thompson
>Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>assault rifles.
If you are (as you claim) a combat veteran then why do't you
understand what an assault rifle is? Do you know that *real* assault
rifles have been regulated since 1934? Do you know that the recent
rem "assault rifle" is a euphemism for ugly gun and is based solely on
cosmetics?
> There is not one private individual in this country who
>needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
Which version are you referring to and what does need have to do with
it? Do you need a V8?
> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>well-regulated militia.
Then you ought to read it before you spout off if you are not sure
what it says.
> That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
>playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
Who is claiming that it does?
> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
>reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>in the constitution.
And if would read 10 USC 311, you would understand just what comprises
the militia and you would not be so illiterate about them.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
NRA Life Member http://www.nra.org
SAF Life Member http://www.saf.org
Brassroots, Inc. http://www.brassroots.org
My Web Site - http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
Everything that should be illegal.....already is.
Guns did not create our criminals, society did. We created all the criminals
we have and blaming the tools that they use will not solve the problem.
Frank Hurst - October, 1999
Ken (NY)
<dsm...@tacnet.missouri.org> had the unmitigated audacity to write:
>dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
>> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>> well-regulated militia. That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>> bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
>> playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
>> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>> unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
>> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>> in the constitution.
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>
>Thus leaving the Government and criminals with a monopoly on
>the impliments of force. What an outstanding idea. It just
>makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
>
>In any case, your explicit bigotry devalues your opinion.
>
>By the way, can you define assault rifle for me and describe
>the law as it applies to such weapons?
>
>doug
I saw a proposal similar in nature to this before: the
citizens were to give up their burglar alarms and the burglars would
promise not to enter our premises. Didn't work.
Ken (NY)
>dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
are approximately 20,000 "gun control" laws presently in effect. How
many more will do the trick and make you feel nice and safe? Will two
more do it? How about ten more? Give us some figures, please, not a
warmed-over liberal measure clothed in phoney GOP clothing.
Michael Richmann
> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:05:00 GMT, dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> >very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> >assault rifles.
>
> If you are (as you claim) a combat veteran then why do't you
> understand what an assault rifle is? Do you know that *real* assault
> rifles have been regulated since 1934? Do you know that the recent
> rem "assault rifle" is a euphemism for ugly gun and is based solely on
^^^^^^^^^
assault weapon
Assault rifle still means what it was intended to mean.
>
> cosmetics?
>
[snip]
--
Mike
My opinions, not Argonne's...
John Payson
Larry L. Taylor <lar...@srv.net> wrote:
>Indeed it does, but not as an exclusive condition to privately own
>firearms, but as a justification for all able bodied citizens that can
>qualify for the militia to possess their own firearms so that a militia
>may be easily formed as needed.
Emphasis on the latter part. The point is that there's no need to keep a
standing army (or much of a police force for that matter) IF the citizenry
can form together as a militia on short notice. When not needed for such
duties, citizens can work as farmers, factory laborers, store clerks, or
other productive workers.
During the LA riots, many people with the good fortune to be armed were
able to protect their businesses and/or neighborhoods from the rioting
mobs. These people were much more effective at protecting their neighbor-
hoods and businesses than the police who fled or the National Guard who
took hours to arrive. *THAT* is what the Second Amendment's "militia" is
all about.
IT ISN'T ABOUT "HUNTING" OR "SPORTING PURPOSES".
wood...@nospam.com
wrote:
>
>
>"Kill Troll With Sword.." wrote:
>
>> > Man, you had better wake up!!! combat vet. You sound more like a draft
>> > dodger!!! Could I be writing to the current White House Administration, and
>> > don't know it?
>>
>> He disagrees with your gunny paranoia viewpoint - therefore he CAN'T be
>> a
>> combat vet, ergo he MUST be a "draft dodger".
>>
>
>No, you Zork fanatic (that was meant as a compliment)...
>
>This Dick1218 character has displayed a high level of ignorance on a subject that
>he claims to know something about, since he is allegedly a two-time combat
>veteran. Dick1218 has been screaming for the confiscation of assault rifles, yet
>does not realize that such weapons have been banned from civilian ownership
>without a class III permit. Confiscation of assault rifles from those very few
>who have such permits first of all would have no effect on criminals, since they
>don't have class III licenses, and secondly, are nothing but feel-good tactics
>that politicians the likes of Stalin would use.
>
>Unfortunately for Dick, he has no valid argument.
>
>
>
moo goo gai pan
wood...@nospam.com
wrote:
>
>
>Dave Brickner wrote:
>
>> troll ..............or moron...............take yer pick.............
>
>If Dick really was a combat veteran (judging by his ignorance of
>weaponry, he probably isn't), it may just be an after-effect of being
>shell-shocked...
>
>
general tso's chicken
wood...@nospam.com
wrote:
>
>
>dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
>
>What exactly is your definition of an assault rifle? Civilians have been
>forbidden from owning true assault rifles (without a Class III permit) for
>quite a while now. If you really believe that confiscation of a virtually
>non-existant object will do any good, then I have a certain bridge in
>Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. Really cheap!
>
>You are one of those who have sadly fallen for the hype and garbage rhetoric
>that the left wing media has tried to cram down your gullet. Certainly, you
>cannot believe everything that CNN tells you? After all, the media was the
>one who tried to spread that garbage story of commanders hosing down
>deserters with sarin gas in 'nam...
>
>
>> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>> well-regulated militia.
>
>A well-regulated militia is necessary to a free State. Now, what part of
>"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do
>you fail to understand? Perhaps it is *you* who needs to learn how to
>comprehend.
>
>
>> That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>> bellied god
>
>God is not pot-bellied, I would imagine...
>
>
>
>> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>> unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
>> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>> in the constitution.
>
>Let's see now, they were able bodied men (civilians) who owned their own
>firearms, and were called upon to defend the well being of a free state.
>These days, since things are more or less, gender blind, that would
>certainly mean that all people are part of their state milita.
>
>Now, for the second part, Dick, the independant clause of the Second
>Amendment, that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
>not be infringed." has no dependancy on the dependant clause, that states
>that the militia is necessary to a free State. Thus, you trying to state
>that the people are not the milita has no bearing on their inalienable right
>to keep and bear arms.
>
>Check your grammar school notes (seriously). That is, and always will be,
>how the English language works.
>
>
moo shu pork
9 mm full metal jacket
wood...@nospam.com wrote:
What point are you trying to prove, woodenhead? Is this the best level of
debate you are capable of?
Robin Sayer
The OldTimer <t...@told.net> wrote in message
news:KpVX3.77768$YB4.2...@typ12.nn.bcandid.com...
> >>
> >> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
> >> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
> >> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country
who
> >> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
> >>
> >autoloading shotgun and an assault shotgun? What's the fundamental
> >difference between an autoloading hunting rifle and an assault rifle?
> >
> >
> >
> >> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
> >> bellied god old boys getting away from the wife for the weekend and
> >> playing cowboy and indian in the woods.
> >> unadulterated crap!!
>
>
> that than do guns. How about prescription drugs? Automobiles?
>
> And if the second amendment does not allow individuals to own guns, why
has
> not the supreme court done something about it in the past 200 years? And
> you're calling other people idiots?
You are an idiot.
Leaping from guns to alcohol as an argument is utter nonsense.
Anti-gunners may as well introduce cheese, alien life forms or cable
television as an argument if you're going to make quite such bizzare links
in your assertions.
Perhaps you're not well.
wood...@nospam.com
<una...@usit.net> wrote:
>
>
>wood...@nospam.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 13:44:35 -0500, Ronald Shin <sh...@psc.sc.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>> >> very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>> >> assault rifles. There is not one private individual in this country who
>> >> needs such a weapon. It is blithering insanity.
>> >
>> >What exactly is your definition of an assault rifle? Civilians have been
>> >forbidden from owning true assault rifles (without a Class III permit) for
>> >quite a while now. If you really believe that confiscation of a virtually
>> >non-existant object will do any good, then I have a certain bridge in
>> >Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. Really cheap!
>> >
>> >You are one of those who have sadly fallen for the hype and garbage rhetoric
>> >that the left wing media has tried to cram down your gullet. Certainly, you
>> >cannot believe everything that CNN tells you? After all, the media was the
>> >one who tried to spread that garbage story of commanders hosing down
>> >deserters with sarin gas in 'nam...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Also, you second amendment idiots ought to read the damned thing
>> >> once, that is if you can read! I believe it says something about a
>> >> well-regulated militia.
>> >
>> >A well-regulated militia is necessary to a free State. Now, what part of
>> >"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do
>> >you fail to understand? Perhaps it is *you* who needs to learn how to
>> >comprehend.
>> >
>> >
>> >> That does not include beer-guzzling, pot-
>> >> bellied god
>> >
>> >God is not pot-bellied, I would imagine...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Please don't tell me "the people are the militia". Such
>> >> unadulterated crap!! Once again (and considering the above possible
>> >> reading limitation) read any half decent history of the French and
>> >> Indian Wars or about the Revoluationary War and you'll get a half-assed
>> >> idea of what milities in this country were, and why they are mentioned
>> >> in the constitution.
>> >
>> >Let's see now, they were able bodied men (civilians) who owned their own
>> >firearms, and were called upon to defend the well being of a free state.
>> >These days, since things are more or less, gender blind, that would
>> >certainly mean that all people are part of their state milita.
>> >
>> >Now, for the second part, Dick, the independant clause of the Second
>> >Amendment, that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
>> >not be infringed." has no dependancy on the dependant clause, that states
>> >that the militia is necessary to a free State. Thus, you trying to state
>> >that the people are not the milita has no bearing on their inalienable right
>> >to keep and bear arms.
>> >
>> >Check your grammar school notes (seriously). That is, and always will be,
>> >how the English language works.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> moo shu pork
>
>
> What point are you trying to prove, woodenhead? Is this the best level of
>debate you are capable of?
lol, it is obviously equivalent to your level of debating intellec as
you're trying fervently in responding to a post naming an asian
cuisine.
lol, this is funny shit
RD Thompson
<rich...@cmt.anl.gov> wrote:
>RD Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:05:00 GMT, dick...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >Here's one Republican, combat vet (twice) gun owner who would support
>> >very strict gun control measures, up to and including confiscation of
>> >assault rifles.
>>
>> If you are (as you claim) a combat veteran then why do't you
>> understand what an assault rifle is? Do you know that *real* assault
>> rifles have been regulated since 1934? Do you know that the recent
>> rem "assault rifle" is a euphemism for ugly gun and is based solely on
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
> assault weapon
>
>Assault rifle still means what it was intended to mean.
Are you dick1218? There are two definitions running around of assault
rifles. There is the real one and there is the one that Schumer and
the media use. I am asking dick1218 which definition he is using.
BTW, which one are you using? :^)