info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: "The New York Post’s ‘Assault Weapons’ Editorial Is Nonsensical "
0 views
Skip to first unread message
BeamMeUpScotty
Aug 11, 2019, 10:40:02 AM8/11/19
to
On 8/11/19 10:07 AM, ed...@post.com wrote:
> "One of the big reasons that crime has fallen so far in New York City is a crackdown on guns.
Guns are a small part of "crime"
You'd have more impact if you had a crack down on *hammers* because
they're used to kill people more often than assault rifles.
Proof that Democrats are driven by emotions and hyperbole.
Which is why California and Chicago are Democrat shitholes.
--
That's Karma
Judgment day is coming.
The Liberal-Democrats will build an army of algorithms and drones to
suppress the uprising against their censorship and corruption. And then
all non conforming humans will be hunted and terminated by the Internet.
> "One of the big reasons that crime has fallen so far in New York City is a crackdown on guns.
Guns are a small part of "crime"
You'd have more impact if you had a crack down on *hammers* because
they're used to kill people more often than assault rifles.
Proof that Democrats are driven by emotions and hyperbole.
Which is why California and Chicago are Democrat shitholes.
--
That's Karma
Judgment day is coming.
The Liberal-Democrats will build an army of algorithms and drones to
suppress the uprising against their censorship and corruption. And then
all non conforming humans will be hunted and terminated by the Internet.
BeamMeUpScotty
Aug 11, 2019, 11:05:38 AM8/11/19
to
On 8/11/19 8:48 AM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
>> Just tell us what game one "hunts"
>> that requires so many bullets.
>
> Varmints, i.e., coyote, feral hogs.
>
> There are more, but now you been provided two...
> MORE evidence than you asked be provided.
>
> ...and you've been provided an answer to,
> "What "sporting" use is there for this gun..."
> (AR-15)
>
> 'target shooting and in competitions'
> https://www.nssf.org/msr/
>
> ..and wrt my comment that "Nearly every weapon ever
> designed was initally designed for the military."
>
> Your response? <crickets>
>
The Military is NOT evil, they're called *PEACE KEEPERS* at times....
And they deliver AID at times when it's dangerous and logistically
impossible for the average person.
Which is why we the people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, we are
just like the citizen fire brigade or the PEACE KEEPERS that put out
fires and doesn't get paid to do it.
Having a gun enables you to become a citizen protector who is like the
citizen fire fighter, a first responder of last resort, so that when all
else fails your neighbor can help protect you because you haven't got
balls to do that for yourself. Remember Obama *SAVED JOBS* well these
guns *SAVED LIVES* and just because a few are corrupted, doesn't mean
that all are used for evil.
Using Liberal logic we'd have to ban the Military and doctors and
politicians and lawyers.... anything that can be corrupted for evil...
And that would mean we ban the Democrats Party because Obama and Hillary
and HILLARY/FBI and Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton and Comey and Mueller
are all corrupt. If we use the *DEMOCRATS OWN LOGIC* .
Sort of like having a pick up truck, you Liberals don't want people to
own one but when you move to a new home you're happy that your friend
drives a PICK-UP TRUCK and is helping you move the shit that's too big
to fit into that GM-VOLT electric car that you own.
Then the day after you've moved you're back trying to get fossil fuels
banned.... ;)
More Liberal logic.
>> Just tell us what game one "hunts"
>> that requires so many bullets.
>
> Varmints, i.e., coyote, feral hogs.
>
> There are more, but now you been provided two...
> MORE evidence than you asked be provided.
>
> ...and you've been provided an answer to,
> "What "sporting" use is there for this gun..."
> (AR-15)
>
> 'target shooting and in competitions'
> https://www.nssf.org/msr/
>
> ..and wrt my comment that "Nearly every weapon ever
> designed was initally designed for the military."
>
> Your response? <crickets>
>
The Military is NOT evil, they're called *PEACE KEEPERS* at times....
And they deliver AID at times when it's dangerous and logistically
impossible for the average person.
Which is why we the people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, we are
just like the citizen fire brigade or the PEACE KEEPERS that put out
fires and doesn't get paid to do it.
Having a gun enables you to become a citizen protector who is like the
citizen fire fighter, a first responder of last resort, so that when all
else fails your neighbor can help protect you because you haven't got
balls to do that for yourself. Remember Obama *SAVED JOBS* well these
guns *SAVED LIVES* and just because a few are corrupted, doesn't mean
that all are used for evil.
Using Liberal logic we'd have to ban the Military and doctors and
politicians and lawyers.... anything that can be corrupted for evil...
And that would mean we ban the Democrats Party because Obama and Hillary
and HILLARY/FBI and Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton and Comey and Mueller
are all corrupt. If we use the *DEMOCRATS OWN LOGIC* .
Sort of like having a pick up truck, you Liberals don't want people to
own one but when you move to a new home you're happy that your friend
drives a PICK-UP TRUCK and is helping you move the shit that's too big
to fit into that GM-VOLT electric car that you own.
Then the day after you've moved you're back trying to get fossil fuels
banned.... ;)
More Liberal logic.
BeamMeUpScotty
Aug 11, 2019, 11:26:52 AM8/11/19
to
On 8/11/19 8:21 AM, ed...@post.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 5:27:28 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 8/10/19 10:03 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:se2dnbjeBuc03tLA...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 8/10/19 4:05 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/2019 1:25 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/19 1:18 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:25281ebd-7c3e-4a17-90c5-e3f7018dcba3 @googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 11:33:44 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:Wv2dnTR3vKneVdPA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 8:12 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:E6qdnXWniNodqNPA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/19 9:12 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nPidnUBaA4ZZeNDA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But this isn’t
>>>>>>>> Â true. Not only is the AR-15 a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard sporting rifle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Sporting? What sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Deer hunters don't use it. Bird hunters don't use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Just answer the question. What "sporting"
>>>>>>>>>>> use is there for this gun designed for the
>>>>>>>>>>> MILITARY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ask the thousands of hunters who hunt with them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Who hunts what with an AR-15?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who cares. The second isn’t about hunting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Take that up with Hartungs "needed
>>>>>>> for hunting" defense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where in my posts, did I say that the AR15 is *needed* for hunting?
>>>>>> What I said is that it is a weapon commonly used for hunting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no way of supporting that last statement. In fact, you
>>>>> pulled it out of your ass. If you search around the web, mostly
>>>>> you'll find sites talking about how *little* the AR-15 is used for
>>>>> hunting. At best, it's useful for small game and varmints. No
>>>>> thinking person is going to use it for deer or other larger mammals.
>>>>
>>>> According to whom?
>>>>
>>>> From the National review article:
>>>> [...]
>>>> But this isn’t true. Not only is the AR-15 a standard sporting
>>>> rifle,
>>>
>>>
>>> You keep repeating that without proof.
>>>
>>> What "sporting" use does it have?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Due to all this popularity, it is becoming more and more popular as a
>>>> hunting weapon.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hunting WHAT?
>>
>> Read the citation.
>
> You mean this?:
>
> "One of the big reasons that crime has fallen so far in New York City is a crackdown on guns. Their ownership is restricted, and the NYPD is focused on getting illegal ones off the street. Gun control works."
Cars and light bulbs are used in crimes to get to the crime scene and to
allow the criminals to see what they are doing with a light bulb...
Using Liberal logic we could ban cars and cut crime and then ban light
bulbs and cut crime even more....
Didn't *STOP and FRISK* lower crime, and it was no more of a violation
of the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE than banning guns will be.
Why NOT leave guns alone and *STOP AND FRISK* people so that the RIGHTS
being deprived to the PEOPLE is equally distributed rather than
targeting the rights of the gun owners or people who fear for their
lives through no fault of their own, which is discrimination.
Yes discrimination since the police are protecting the wealthy people
and teh politicians and they have fences and money for armed guards
while the poor have no way to be safe if you ban their guns. And
according to Democrats who tell us over and over, the majority of poor
are NON Whites. Why do you HATE the brown people so much.... whited have
guns and the WHITE suburbs and WHITE CITY DWELLERS SECURITY BUILDINGS
AND HEAVY POLICE PRESENCE are generally more safe than are the poor
sections where minorities live and can't get a gun or afford all the
"extra" protections and the cost of paying people to guard them.
Forcing them to have a PHOTO ID for voting is discrimination then
obviously depriving them of the equal security of the wealthy people is
also discrimination. Which would mean that the government should give
all poor people a VOUCHER FOR A GUN to make them equal and to ensure
their RIGHT to their own safety is NOT oppressed by wealthy Liberals who
would allow the poor to be killed by terrorists and criminals because
they can't pay for the "extra" protection.
How very Liberal of you....
--
That's Karma
*Rumination*
187 - People need the RIGHT to keep and bear arms for the same reasons
they need a RIGHT to vote.
> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 5:27:28 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 8/10/19 10:03 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:se2dnbjeBuc03tLA...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 8/10/19 4:05 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/2019 1:25 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/19 1:18 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:25281ebd-7c3e-4a17-90c5-e3f7018dcba3 @googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 11:33:44 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:Wv2dnTR3vKneVdPA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 8:12 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:E6qdnXWniNodqNPA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/19 9:12 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nPidnUBaA4ZZeNDA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But this isn’t
>>>>>>>> Â true. Not only is the AR-15 a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard sporting rifle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Sporting? What sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Deer hunters don't use it. Bird hunters don't use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Just answer the question. What "sporting"
>>>>>>>>>>> use is there for this gun designed for the
>>>>>>>>>>> MILITARY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ask the thousands of hunters who hunt with them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â Who hunts what with an AR-15?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who cares. The second isn’t about hunting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Take that up with Hartungs "needed
>>>>>>> for hunting" defense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where in my posts, did I say that the AR15 is *needed* for hunting?
>>>>>> What I said is that it is a weapon commonly used for hunting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no way of supporting that last statement. In fact, you
>>>>> pulled it out of your ass. If you search around the web, mostly
>>>>> you'll find sites talking about how *little* the AR-15 is used for
>>>>> hunting. At best, it's useful for small game and varmints. No
>>>>> thinking person is going to use it for deer or other larger mammals.
>>>>
>>>> According to whom?
>>>>
>>>> From the National review article:
>>>> [...]
>>>> But this isn’t true. Not only is the AR-15 a standard sporting
>>>> rifle,
>>>
>>>
>>> You keep repeating that without proof.
>>>
>>> What "sporting" use does it have?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Due to all this popularity, it is becoming more and more popular as a
>>>> hunting weapon.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hunting WHAT?
>>
>> Read the citation.
>
> You mean this?:
>
> "One of the big reasons that crime has fallen so far in New York City is a crackdown on guns. Their ownership is restricted, and the NYPD is focused on getting illegal ones off the street. Gun control works."
Cars and light bulbs are used in crimes to get to the crime scene and to
allow the criminals to see what they are doing with a light bulb...
Using Liberal logic we could ban cars and cut crime and then ban light
bulbs and cut crime even more....
Didn't *STOP and FRISK* lower crime, and it was no more of a violation
of the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE than banning guns will be.
Why NOT leave guns alone and *STOP AND FRISK* people so that the RIGHTS
being deprived to the PEOPLE is equally distributed rather than
targeting the rights of the gun owners or people who fear for their
lives through no fault of their own, which is discrimination.
Yes discrimination since the police are protecting the wealthy people
and teh politicians and they have fences and money for armed guards
while the poor have no way to be safe if you ban their guns. And
according to Democrats who tell us over and over, the majority of poor
are NON Whites. Why do you HATE the brown people so much.... whited have
guns and the WHITE suburbs and WHITE CITY DWELLERS SECURITY BUILDINGS
AND HEAVY POLICE PRESENCE are generally more safe than are the poor
sections where minorities live and can't get a gun or afford all the
"extra" protections and the cost of paying people to guard them.
Forcing them to have a PHOTO ID for voting is discrimination then
obviously depriving them of the equal security of the wealthy people is
also discrimination. Which would mean that the government should give
all poor people a VOUCHER FOR A GUN to make them equal and to ensure
their RIGHT to their own safety is NOT oppressed by wealthy Liberals who
would allow the poor to be killed by terrorists and criminals because
they can't pay for the "extra" protection.
How very Liberal of you....
--
That's Karma
*Rumination*
187 - People need the RIGHT to keep and bear arms for the same reasons
they need a RIGHT to vote.
BeamMeUpScotty
Aug 13, 2019, 12:51:41 PM8/13/19
to
> news:8b6dnUB_uJ8feczA...@giganews.com:
>>> news:H_GdnXIJWZj_Ss3A...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 8/11/19 9:34 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>>> news:uXZ3F.344717$5i.3...@fx46.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/11/2019 12:19 PM, ed...@post.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:29:10 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2019 11:13 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:L9Y3F.49777$2b3....@fx22.fr7:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/19 12:53 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢ÃƒÆ’†â€ÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ÃƒÆ’¢â‚¬
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ââ⠂¬Å¾Ã‚¢Ãƒ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’ÃÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒâ€šÃ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã…Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒâ€šÃ‚¡ÃƒÆ’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒâ€šÃÆâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ÃƒÆÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢â‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’â€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’Ãâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’ÃÃâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’‚Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚¢ÃÆââ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’†â€™Ãƒââ‚
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’…¡
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ÂÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬ÃƒÆ’â€Ãâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €šÃ‚¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’Æâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™Ãƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã…¡Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’Æâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬ÃÆâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™Ãƒâ€ ’Æ’Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> †â€â„ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢ÃƒÆ’ĮՉہÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚¡ÃƒÆ’Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ÃƒÆâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™Ãƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢ÃÆâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™Ãƒâ€ ’¢â
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> âââ‚
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã…¡Ãâââ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’ÃÆ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’¢â‚ ¬Â¦Ãƒâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> šÃ‚¾ÃƒÃâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> € Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’¢âÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ã‚
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬Ã…¡ÃƒÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒâ€šÃ‚ ¢t true. Not only is the AR-15 a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard sporting rifle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚ Ã‚ Â Ãâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €šÃ‚ Sporting? What sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚ Ã‚ Â Ãâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €šÃ‚ Deer hunters don't use it. Bird hunters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ã‚ Ãâ€Å
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Just answer the question. What "sporting" use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was that citizens be as well armed as were the soldiers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÂÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ã‚ ÂÃâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €šÃ‚ Are you advocating that everything in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> military arsenal should be sold on the public market?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, how else is a citizen supposed to beable to be as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well rmed as a soldier?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÂÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  So you think Islamic radicals with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bags of hand grenades should be able to walk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a crowded football stadium unhindered?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If those radicals wish to do that, a law making them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal will not stop them. The limitation n the second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment is simple and common sense. The citizen may not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use his weapons to violate the rights of other citizens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’‚ Where does the Second Amendment say
>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The second amendment doesn't say it, but it's a true
>>>>>>>>>>> statement all the same.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually where it is expressed as a RIGHT, and that means it's
>>>>>>>>>> subject to NOT violating other RIGHTS.... which is how the
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your right to property is NOT saying that you have a RIGHT to
>>>>>>>>>> *MY* property because that would be interfering with MY RIGHT
>>>>>>>>>> to PROPERTY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read the 5th Amendment again and
>>>>>>>>> get back to us about the sanctity of
>>>>>>>>> "your right" to "your" property.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <chuckle> You outstupided yourself again, Bitch Holeman. The
>>>>>>>> last clause of the fifth amendment, you dumb fucking queer, is
>>>>>>>> *all about* the sanctity of private property:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...nor shall private property be taken for public use,
>>>>>>>> without *just
>>>>>>>> compensation*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fuck, you're stupid, Bitch Holeman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, if the government really needs that property
>>>>>>> they'll force the owner to sell it against his will,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not without compensation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Big deal. "Here's your check, you have 30 days
>>>>> to leave your family farm". THAT is the sanctity
>>>>> of your private property.
>>>>
>>>> Read and learn:
>>>> https://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html
>>>> [...]
>>>> How Does Eminent Domain Work
>>>>
>>>> Eminent domain law and legal procedures vary, sometimes
>>>> significantly, between jurisdictions. Usually, when a unit of
>>>> government wants to acquire privately held land, the following steps
>>>> (or a similar procedure) are followed:
>>>>
>>>> The government attempts to negotiate the purchase of the
>>>> property
>>>> for fair value.
>>>>
>>>> If the owner does not want to sell, the government files a
>>>> court
>>>> action to exercise eminent domain, and serves or publishes notice of
>>>> the hearing as required by law.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is just what I said. The government
>>> has an unquestioned right to seize your property,
>>> your only "right" is to argue over it's value.
>>
>> That is not what you said.
>
>
> That is EXACTLY what I said.
>
> My quote, from the above:
>
>
> "In other words, if the government really
> needs that property they'll force the owner
> to sell it against his will"
>
> And that remains true, as you
> have admitted.
>
Actually the courts make a judgment as to the validity of the
government's claims and the price.... if teh government is just
stealing for some other use NOT the one they are telling the courts,
then the owner *can* try to prove that it's a scam and a lie. And the
courts might deny the GOVERNMENT on the grounds that it's NOT for PUBLIC
USE.....
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
That (PUBLIC USE) seems to be a QUALIFIER in that clause that the
GOVERNMENT has to meet. PROOF that it's for public use.
So NO they can't just force the owner to sell, but they can get a court
to *make that owner sell when it's for PUBLIC USE* and the courts will
decide the price. But then they do that already when they tax you....
the courts tell us if it's legal and what amounts will be used for
busing or for schools to use to make them equal....
>>> news:H_GdnXIJWZj_Ss3A...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 8/11/19 9:34 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>>>> news:uXZ3F.344717$5i.3...@fx46.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/11/2019 12:19 PM, ed...@post.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:29:10 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2019 11:13 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:L9Y3F.49777$2b3....@fx22.fr7:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/19 12:53 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2019 8:00 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:rYCdnXzNnPvTt9LA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 1:15 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:y8qdnaUzn7wEddPA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 1:15 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 10:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:Wv2dnTd3vKkPVdPA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 10:34 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 8:12 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E6qdnXWniNodqNPA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/19 9:12 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nPidnUBaA4ZZeNDA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isnÃÆâ€â„
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/19 8:12 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:E6qdnXWniNodqNPA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/19 9:12 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:nPidnUBaA4ZZeNDA...@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢ÃƒÆ’†â€ÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ãâ€ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  ÃƒÆ’¢â‚¬
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ââ⠂¬Å¾Ã‚¢Ãƒ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’ÃÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒâ€šÃ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã…Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒâ€šÃ‚¡ÃƒÆ’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒâ€šÃÆâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ÃƒÆÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢â‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’â€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’Ãâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’ÃÃâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’‚Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚¢ÃÆââ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’†â€™Ãƒââ‚
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’…¡
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ÂÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬ÃƒÆ’â€Ãâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €šÃ‚¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’Æâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™Ãƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã…¡Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’Æâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬ÃÆâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™Ãƒâ€ ’Æ’Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> †â€â„ÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢ÃƒÆ’ĮՉہÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚¡ÃƒÆ’Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ÃƒÆâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™Ãƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢ÃÆâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ™Ãƒâ€ ’¢â
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> âââ‚
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã…¡Ãâââ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’ÃÆ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ’¢â‚ ¬Â¦Ãƒâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> šÃ‚¾ÃƒÃâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> € Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’¢âÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ã‚
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¬Ã…¡ÃƒÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒâ€šÃ‚ ¢t true. Not only is the AR-15 a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> standard sporting rifle,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚ Ã‚ Â Ãâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €šÃ‚ Sporting? What sport?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚ Ã‚ Â Ãâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €šÃ‚ Deer hunters don't use it. Bird hunters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't use it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÃâ€
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> šÃ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ã‚ Ãâ€Å
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Just answer the question. What "sporting" use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is there for this gun designed for the MILITARY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that the idea of the second Amendment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was that citizens be as well armed as were the soldiers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÂÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‚ Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ Ã‚ ÂÃâ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> €šÃ‚ Are you advocating that everything in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> military arsenal should be sold on the public market?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, how else is a citizen supposed to beable to be as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well rmed as a soldier?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ÂÂÂÂ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  So you think Islamic radicals with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bags of hand grenades should be able to walk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a crowded football stadium unhindered?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If those radicals wish to do that, a law making them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegal will not stop them. The limitation n the second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment is simple and common sense. The citizen may not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use his weapons to violate the rights of other citizens.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>> ƒÆ’‚ Where does the Second Amendment say
>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The second amendment doesn't say it, but it's a true
>>>>>>>>>>> statement all the same.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually where it is expressed as a RIGHT, and that means it's
>>>>>>>>>> subject to NOT violating other RIGHTS.... which is how the
>>>>>>>>>> Constitution works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your right to property is NOT saying that you have a RIGHT to
>>>>>>>>>> *MY* property because that would be interfering with MY RIGHT
>>>>>>>>>> to PROPERTY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read the 5th Amendment again and
>>>>>>>>> get back to us about the sanctity of
>>>>>>>>> "your right" to "your" property.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <chuckle> You outstupided yourself again, Bitch Holeman. The
>>>>>>>> last clause of the fifth amendment, you dumb fucking queer, is
>>>>>>>> *all about* the sanctity of private property:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...nor shall private property be taken for public use,
>>>>>>>> without *just
>>>>>>>> compensation*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fuck, you're stupid, Bitch Holeman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, if the government really needs that property
>>>>>>> they'll force the owner to sell it against his will,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But not without compensation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Big deal. "Here's your check, you have 30 days
>>>>> to leave your family farm". THAT is the sanctity
>>>>> of your private property.
>>>>
>>>> Read and learn:
>>>> https://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html
>>>> [...]
>>>> How Does Eminent Domain Work
>>>>
>>>> Eminent domain law and legal procedures vary, sometimes
>>>> significantly, between jurisdictions. Usually, when a unit of
>>>> government wants to acquire privately held land, the following steps
>>>> (or a similar procedure) are followed:
>>>>
>>>> The government attempts to negotiate the purchase of the
>>>> property
>>>> for fair value.
>>>>
>>>> If the owner does not want to sell, the government files a
>>>> court
>>>> action to exercise eminent domain, and serves or publishes notice of
>>>> the hearing as required by law.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is just what I said. The government
>>> has an unquestioned right to seize your property,
>>> your only "right" is to argue over it's value.
>>
>> That is not what you said.
>
>
> That is EXACTLY what I said.
>
> My quote, from the above:
>
>
> "In other words, if the government really
> needs that property they'll force the owner
> to sell it against his will"
>
> And that remains true, as you
> have admitted.
>
Actually the courts make a judgment as to the validity of the
government's claims and the price.... if teh government is just
stealing for some other use NOT the one they are telling the courts,
then the owner *can* try to prove that it's a scam and a lie. And the
courts might deny the GOVERNMENT on the grounds that it's NOT for PUBLIC
USE.....
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
That (PUBLIC USE) seems to be a QUALIFIER in that clause that the
GOVERNMENT has to meet. PROOF that it's for public use.
So NO they can't just force the owner to sell, but they can get a court
to *make that owner sell when it's for PUBLIC USE* and the courts will
decide the price. But then they do that already when they tax you....
the courts tell us if it's legal and what amounts will be used for
busing or for schools to use to make them equal....
0 new messages