Stalinboy and Psycho Testing
lorad
> Considering the ongoing bloodshed from psychos owning guns, it is
> inevitable that tighter regulation for gun ownership is coming
> including the psych testing of potential and current owners.
>
> Responsible usage of a gun is the responsibility we accept when we
> exercise our right to bear arms.
>
> Irresponsible usage is subject to penalties and denial of ownership.
>
> Why do some fear the psych testing for gun ownership?
>
> TMT
You get more stupid by the day, stalinboy.
Go have some tea and crumpets and calm your stupid self, and leave us
to govern ourselves.
Mark Gerard Miller
news:5ecc2ea7-3044-4320...@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I have never had an orgasm, but if I did, the entire universe and all of the
realms of the extra-universe would know it. Barack Obama is a good man.
Mark
Gunner Asch
So you are saying that Obama would be the only person to give you an
orgasm?
blink blink.....blink......
Oooookay.
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:og3285hltmeroskgu...@4ax.com...
> 'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here
> in good faith
> becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on
> an exact
> equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against
> any such man
> because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon
> the
> person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an
> American...
> There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an
> American,
> but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but
> one flag,
> the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is
> the
> English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
> loyalty to the American people.'
Is it any wonder this gummer ash cunt posts such a grossly insular, racist
and bigoted quote as his sieg(sic) file?
Demon Buddha
> Is it any wonder this gummer ash cunt posts such a grossly insular, racist
> and bigoted quote as his sieg(sic) file?
Mind your own business.
>
>
>
>
Poetic Justice
> On Aug 10, 1:42 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Considering the ongoing bloodshed from psychos owning guns, it is
>> inevitable that tighter regulation for gun ownership is coming
>> including the psych testing of potential and current owners.
>>
>> Responsible usage of a gun is the responsibility we accept when we
>> exercise our right to bear arms.
>>
>> Irresponsible usage is subject to penalties and denial of ownership.
>>
>> Why do some fear the psych testing for gun ownership?
>>
>> TMT
You forget the crazies driving and killing kids every day, why do you
continue to allow it? Stop the Killing fields.
Drunks like you could be stopped from getting a license if they psych
test you.
Poetic Justice
> On Aug 10, 1:42 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Considering the ongoing bloodshed from psychos owning guns, it is
>> inevitable that tighter regulation for gun ownership is coming
>> including the psych testing of potential and current owners.
>>
>> Responsible usage of a gun is the responsibility we accept when we
>> exercise our right to bear arms.
>>
>> Irresponsible usage is subject to penalties and denial of ownership.
>>
>> Why do some fear the psych testing for gun ownership?
>>
>> TMT
You forget the crazies driving and killing kids every day, why do you
continue to allow it? Stop the Killing fields.
Drunks like you could be stopped from getting a license if they psych
test you.
Have you noticed that you can get drunk and kill people and the
Government will give you a license again, if you get drunk and shoot
someone the government won't give you another gun.
Gray Ghost
news:31o0n4....@news.alt.net:
So you're caliming that Teddy Roosevelt was a facist?
--
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too,
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.
Too_Many_Tools
I strongly suspect that Gummer would fail a psych test.
And then all those guns of his would go bye bye.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
LOL...I don't drink.
No competitive shooter should.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Uh?
So you are saying that both irresponsible alcohol usage and gun
ownership to mentally unstable users should be controlled more
rigorously.
Good for you for backing the upcoming psych testing.
TMT
Poetic Justice
> <.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .> wrote in
> news:31o0n4....@news.alt.net:
>
>> "Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> news:og3285hltmeroskgu...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> 'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
>>> here in good faith
>>> becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated
>>> on an exact
>>> equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate
>>> against any such man
>>> because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon
>>> the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an
>>> American...
>>> There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an
>>> American,
>>> but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but
>>> one flag,
>>> the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is
>>> the English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and
>>> that is a loyalty to the American people.'
>> Is it any wonder this gummer ash cunt posts such a grossly insular,
>> racist and bigoted quote as his sieg(sic) file?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So you're caliming that Teddy Roosevelt was a facist?
Teddy was a Progressive, "that is a fascist" in any clothing that will
get them elected.
Progressives weasel their way into any party they think they can get
elected in.
Poetic Justice
Well... as usual you got it wrong.
Everyone getting a drivers license should be psych tested, but guns are
a right, and rights aren't handed out by our Government. If they are not
given they can't be taken away.
Poetic Justice
Must be the drugs that make you so incoherent.
If that's not it, then you need to fear the psych testing you claim will
end nuts getting guns. Your Competitive career will be over.
HH&C
> "lorad" <lorad...@cs.com> wrote in message
Are you 12? Not even a tingle run up your leg?
HH&C
> Demon Buddha wrote:
> >> Is it any wonder this gummer ash cunt posts such a grossly insular,
> >> racist and bigoted quote as his sieg(sic) file?
>
> it's best to just ignore it.
Off topic??? That would be Mark Miller. Gunner just followed up on
it.
Gunner Asch
Poor dumb retarded asshole got his feelings hurt...didnt he....snicker
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith
becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact
equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man
because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the
person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American,
but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag,
the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Ro osevelt 1907
Fiftycal
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I have never had an orgasm, but if I did, the entire universe and all of the
>> realms of the extra-universe would know it. Barack Obama is a good man.
>>
>> Mark
>
>Are you 12? Not even a tingle run up your leg?
He's saving himself for his "true love", but he hasn't found him yet.
HH&C
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:00:47 -0700 (PDT), "HH&C"
>
> >On Aug 11, 12:23 pm, sittingduck <d...@spamherelots.com> wrote:
> >> Demon Buddha wrote:
> >> >> Is it any wonder this gummer ash cunt posts such a grossly insular,
> >> >> racist and bigoted quote as his sieg(sic) file?
>
> >> He's a full blown wackjob. He gets off on posting petty insults all day long,
> >> it's best to just ignore it.
>
> >Off topic??? That would be Mark Miller. Gunner just followed up on
> >it.
>
> Poor dumb retarded asshole got his feelings hurt...didnt he....snicker
I'd rather not comment on his Downs, but under Obama-Care, he would
have been aborted.
HH&C
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT), "HH&C"
>
> >> I have never had an orgasm, but if I did, the entire universe and all of the
> >> realms of the extra-universe would know it. Barack Obama is a good man.
>
> >> Mark
>
> >Are you 12? Not even a tingle run up your leg?
>
> He's saving himself for his "true love", but he hasn't found him yet.
Wait til he finds TMT. Misc.surv will get all sticky.
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Demon Buddha" <os...@netlabs.net> wrote in message
news:SO-dnX52K42V4hzX...@giganews.com...
> .... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! . wrote:
>
>> Is it any wonder this gummer ash cunt posts such a grossly insular,
>> racist and bigoted quote as his sieg(sic) file?
>
Shutup, idiot.
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"sittingduck" <du...@spamherelots.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C645F7F33247du...@nomail.afraid.org...
> Demon Buddha wrote:
>
>>> Is it any wonder this gummer ash cunt posts such a grossly insular,
>>> racist and bigoted quote as his sieg(sic) file?
>
I agree.
Gummer needs help.
Lots of it.
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C648448A897CWe...@216.196.97.142...
> <.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .> wrote
> in
> news:31o0n4....@news.alt.net:
>
>>
>> "Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> news:og3285hltmeroskgu...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> 'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
>>> here in good faith
>>> becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated
>>> on an exact
>>> equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate
>>> against any such man
>>> because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon
>>> the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an
>>> American...
>>> There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an
>>> American,
>>> but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but
>>> one flag,
>>> the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is
>>> the English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and
>>> that is a loyalty to the American people.'
>>
>> Is it any wonder this gummer ash cunt posts such a grossly insular,
>> racist and bigoted quote as his sieg(sic) file?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So you're caliming that Teddy Roosevelt was a facist?
Did I say that, shitforbrains?
I simply pointed out the inherent racism and outright bigotry in the quote.
Still, owning a few "niggers" was okay back in the old days, wasn't it?
Too_Many_Tools
Guns are not a right.
Otherwise all would have them...they don't...ask any felon.
The right to bear arms is subject to regulation...just like any other
privilege.
You can stomp your little winger feet all you want...it won't change
reality.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
:<)...why do I get the feeling that you might lose your guns when
psych testing finally comes?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>
> >And then all those guns of his would go bye bye.
>
>
> __
>
> The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
LOL...another winger wetting himself when the thought of being tested
crosses his two brain cells. ;<)
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Too late...Cheezy just did his Larry Craig impersonation...twice.
Somebody get the mop.
TMT
Poetic Justice
Actually once a person has served their sentence they are free and
without any crimes so they can't be discriminated against. The
Government is trying to make them a *NON* person as they are doing with
babies, infants and the elderly who are ill. If these *HUMANS* are no
longer considered people(Like slaves were) then killing them is easy
like prisoners on death row and babies being aborted, soon the elderly
will be helped by government to their eternal dirt nap.
> You can stomp your little winger feet all you want...it won't change
> reality.
Reality changes every day.... the only thing that doesn't change, is
that everything changes.
Looks like you are wrong again.
Jeff George
$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
> Everyone getting a drivers license should be psych tested, but guns are
> a right, and rights aren't handed out by our Government.
Where do they come from?
--
JG, former Quarterback and Lt. General SWIFT (Socialist Workers
Infiltrating Federal Targets)
Soy el Diablo Gringo Supremo
Curly Surmudgeon
Gummer already received lots of help. Help in excess of $400,000.00 from
his county health services after squandering his $75/hour income on toys,
tobacco and alcohol instead of buying health insurance.
How much more "help" do you want to give him? Are you prepared to "help"
Gummer with his 25 years of unpaid taxes?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133 C Street SE, Washington, DC 20003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poetic Justice
> Poetic Justice <Blac...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:4a81b0df$0$26187
> $ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>
>> Everyone getting a drivers license should be psych tested, but guns are
>> a right, and rights aren't handed out by our Government.
>
> Where do they come from?
>
[" Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights)
are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes
by some form of legislature, and as such are contingent upon local laws,
customs, or beliefs. *In contrast* , *natural rights* (also called moral
rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not* contingent
upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are
culturally and politically relative. "]
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People
to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal
Station to which *the Laws of Nature* and of Nature’s God *entitle*
them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that *they are endowed* *by their Creator* with *certain unalienable*
Rights* , that *among these* are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness—That *to secure these Rights* , Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
that whenever *any form of Government* becomes destructive of these
Ends, it is the *Right of the People* to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and
organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that
Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But *when a long Train* of Abuses and *Usurpations*, pursuing invariably
the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is *their Right* , it is their *Duty* , to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such
has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the
Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a
History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct
Object the *Establishment of an absolute Tyranny* over these States. To
prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has *refused his Assent to Laws*, the most wholesome and necessary
for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should
be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend
to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large
Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of
Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and
formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records,
for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others
to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of
Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;
the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of
Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that
Purpose *obstructing the Laws* *for Naturalization of foreigners* ;
refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and
raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his assent
to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their
Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
*He has erected* *a Multitude* *of new Offices* , and *sent hither*
*Swarms of Officers* *to harrass* our People, and *eat out* *their
Substance* .
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the
consent of our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a *Jurisdiction foreign*
*to our Constitution* , and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his
Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders
which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
*For imposing Taxes* on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring
Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government and enlarging its
Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for
introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
*altering fundamentally* *the forms of* *our Governments* :
For suspending our own Legislatures, and *declaring themselves*
*invested with Power* to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection
and waging War against us.
He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and
destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to
compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny already begun with
circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most
barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to
bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their
friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to
bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages,
whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all
Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in
the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by *every act*
*which may* *define a Tyrant* , is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have
warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend
an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the
Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to
their native justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have
been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must,
therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation,
and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace,
Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World
for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority
of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That
these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND
INDEPENDENT STATES, that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the
State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that
as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War,
conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for
the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection
of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out
jonas hellborg
> Poetic Justice <Blac...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:4a81b0df$0$26187
> $ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>
>
>>Everyone getting a drivers license should be psych tested, but guns are
>>a right, and rights aren't handed out by our Government.
> Where do they come from?
They come from ourselves, as we are merely another life form that has
the same natural instincts, like every other living critter.
(remember that fight or flight thingy?)
"Rights" for Humans are and can only be known and PROTECTED by our
"Laws", by a caring and knowledgeable Government of the people, with the
same rightious laws that they also must follow, that protect them as
well, with no contradictions.
No "written law?"
Does that mean that you as a human, can't defend yourself individually
against another who wants to smash you with a frying pan... like your
wife/Mother/daughter/boyfriend/Father/gaylover wants to do?
YOU have the "NATURAL "INHERENT" right to utilize whatever forces are
available to protect your self, be they man made or natural, to protect
yourself, family, and your property!
Deadly force if needed!
Otherwise, explain why you make and raise your fists to protect your
body when being accosted..... or do you just say: "Find an opening and
take my wife.. please!"
If YOU don't want a weapon or method, fine!
No Government has ever forced one to have either one!
But to DENY all, That is just sick!
Jeff George
$cf6....@newsfe16.iad:
> natural rights* (also called moral
> rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not* contingent
> upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
> Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are
> culturally and politically relative. "]
But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
Poetic Justice
> Poetic Justice <blac...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:gnCgm.99093
> $cf6....@newsfe16.iad:
>
>> natural rights* (also called moral
>> rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not* contingent
>> upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
>> Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are
>> culturally and politically relative. "]
>
> But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
>
equal, that *they are endowed* *by their Creator* with *certain
unalienable* Rights* , that *among these* are Life, Liberty, and the
Apparently you have never and didn't read the Declaration which was in
the post you are quoting, you CUT 90% of the text and instead, you
should have read it.
If Nature was your Creator, then yes Nature is where they came from.
They allow you to choose your own creator, even if it was the Giant
Spaghetti...
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9C6588EEAE7C9g...@62.141.42.83:
> Poetic Justice <blac...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:gnCgm.99093
> $cf6....@newsfe16.iad:
>
>> natural rights* (also called moral
>> rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not* contingent
>> upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
>> Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are
>> culturally and politically relative. "]
>
> But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
>
Shut up. You have no right to ask any questions. You have no rights at all.
So said you.
--
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too,
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
<antic...@heaven.com> wrote:
>Poetic Justice <Blac...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:4a81b0df$0$26187
>$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>
>> Everyone getting a drivers license should be psych tested, but guns are
>> a right, and rights aren't handed out by our Government.
>
>Where do they come from?
The same place the "Big Bang" came from.
Poetic Justice
amino acids in a mud puddle.
Jeff George
$DF1....@newsfe13.iad:
> Jeff George wrote:
>> Poetic Justice <blac...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:gnCgm.99093
>> $cf6....@newsfe16.iad:
>>
>>> natural rights* (also called moral
>>> rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not*
contingent
>>> upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
>>> Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights
are
>>> culturally and politically relative. "]
>>
>> But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
>>
> [" WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
> equal, that *they are endowed* *by their Creator* with *certain
> unalienable* Rights* , that *among these* are Life, Liberty, and the
> Pursuit of Happiness "]
The words above are simply the opinion of some writers. Just because they
feel that something came from their creator doesn't make it so. No
evidence to support it.
> Apparently you have never and didn't read the Declaration which was in
> the post you are quoting, you CUT 90% of the text and instead, you
> should have read it.
Read it many times. Proves nothing.
> If Nature was your Creator, then yes Nature is where they came from.
Nature grants no rights.
> They allow you to choose your own creator, even if it was the Giant
> Spaghetti...
No one chooses their own creator. It is always two parents.
Jeff George
news:Xns9C659239FDA82We...@216.196.97.142:
> Jeff George <antic...@heaven.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9C6588EEAE7C9g...@62.141.42.83:
>
>> Poetic Justice <blac...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:gnCgm.99093
>> $cf6....@newsfe16.iad:
>>
>>> natural rights* (also called moral
>>> rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not*
>>> contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular
>>> society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal,
>>> whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. "]
>>
>> But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
>>
>
> Shut up. You have no right to ask any questions. You have no rights at
> all. So said you.
Show me where I said I have no rights. You can't do it, can you? I can't
help it if you are stupid to read what people write.
Jeff George
$607e...@cv.net:
> Jeff George wrote:
>> Poetic Justice <Blac...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:4a81b0df$0
>>
>>
>>>Everyone getting a drivers license should be psych tested, but guns
>>>are a right, and rights aren't handed out by our Government.
>
>> Where do they come from?
>
> They come from ourselves, as we are merely another life form that has
> the same natural instincts, like every other living critter.
> (remember that fight or flight thingy?)
Now we're getting somewhere.
> "Rights" for Humans are and can only be known and PROTECTED by our
> "Laws", by a caring and knowledgeable Government of the people, with
> the same rightious laws that they also must follow, that protect them >
> as well, with no contradictions.
Correct, the man-made government decides what the man-made rights of the
people in its jurisdiction are.
> No "written law?"
> Does that mean that you as a human, can't defend yourself
> individually against another who wants to smash you with a frying
> pan... like your wife/Mother/daughter/boyfriend/Father/gaylover wants
> to do?
The law grants the right to defend ourselves.
> YOU have the "NATURAL "INHERENT" right
Right=entitlement.
> to utilize whatever forces are
> available to protect your self, be they man made or natural, to protect
> yourself, family, and your property!
> Deadly force if needed!
So do bunny rabbits have rights?
> Otherwise, explain why you make and raise your fists to protect your
> body when being accosted..... or do you just say: "Find an opening and
> take my wife.. please!"
That has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with being a biological
organism.
> If YOU don't want a weapon or method, fine!
> No Government has ever forced one to have either one!
>
> But to DENY all, That is just sick!
No one is denying anything.
Jeff George
4ax.com:
There were no rights until man came upon the concept of it.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
<antic...@heaven.com> wrote:
>jf...@ix.netcom.com wrote in news:c74685d87l82v3gs9lt0odhk7vc494ue4b@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:56:02 +0000 (UTC), Jeff George
>> <antic...@heaven.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Poetic Justice <Blac...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:4a81b0df$0$26187
>>>$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>>>
>>>> Everyone getting a drivers license should be psych tested, but guns are
>>>> a right, and rights aren't handed out by our Government.
>>>
>>>Where do they come from?
>>
>>
>> The same place the "Big Bang" came from.
>
>There were no rights until man came upon the concept of it.
When was that?
Poetic Justice
> Poetic Justice <blac...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:EgDgm.62014
> $DF1....@newsfe13.iad:
>
>> Jeff George wrote:
>>> Poetic Justice <blac...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:gnCgm.99093
>>> $cf6....@newsfe16.iad:
>>>
>>>> natural rights* (also called moral
>>>> rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not*
> contingent
>>>> upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
>>>> Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights
> are
>>>> culturally and politically relative. "]
>>>
>>> But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
>>>
>> [" WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
>> equal, that *they are endowed* *by their Creator* with *certain
>> unalienable* Rights* , that *among these* are Life, Liberty, and the
>> Pursuit of Happiness "]
>
> The words above are simply the opinion of some writers. Just because they
> feel that something came from their creator doesn't make it so. No
> evidence to support it.
Where ever you live it may be just words, I live where these words are
the basic foundation of society.
They are as basic as E=mc�. Who gave you your rights? If it's another
man then you're a slave to that man. I was born with my rights and no
man can usurp them without harming everyone else in my Nation.
Ask a tribesman in New Guinea what E=mc� means to him, then ask him if
he should be made to live in a cave with the exit caged off.... even he
will tell you, you have no right to imprison him.
Some rights/things are universally understood.
Tell him his God/s or religions don't exist and he can no longer pray
and he will tell you, you have no right to do that.
You can tell the tribesman he can't use a wood fire to cook because it
creates pollution, he will tell you he has a natural(God) given right to
cook his food.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Curly Surmudgeon
That is a giant leap of illogic. Dunno about you but I was created by my
mother and father.
> They allow you to choose your own creator, even if it was the Giant
> Spaghetti...
A vastly superior dog than the Judeo-Christian sociopath.
HH&C
> On Aug 11, 9:14 pm, "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:58 pm, Fiftycal <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT), "HH&C"
>
> > > <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I have never had an orgasm, but if I did, the entire universe and all of the
> > > >> realms of the extra-universe would know it. Barack Obama is a good man.
>
> > > >> Mark
>
> > > >Are you 12? Not even a tingle run up your leg?
>
> > > He's saving himself for his "true love", but he hasn't found him yet.
>
> > Wait til he finds TMT. Misc.surv will get all sticky.
>
>
> Somebody get the mop.
>
> TMT
How's your Moms?
Strabo
> Poetic Justice <blac...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:gnCgm.99093
> $cf6....@newsfe16.iad:
>
>> natural rights* (also called moral
>> rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not* contingent
>> upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
>> Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are
>> culturally and politically relative. "]
>
> But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
>
As you have no respect for the Declaration or of Organic or Natural
Law, or by extension, the US Republic, your question is academic.
But because your are inextricably a part of the mix and will be
effected by events, you should know what is shaking your universe.
Some people have the capacity to deduce their origins and their
rights.
Some people know that they have the inherent right to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and live their lives
accordingly.
Since you are not one of these people, believe what you will,
but do not infringe the rights of others.
HH&C
wrote:
> Jeff George <antichr...@heaven.com> wrote innews:Xns9C6588EEAE7C9g...@62.141.42.83:
>
> > Poetic Justice <blackh...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote in news:gnCgm.99093
> > $cf6.37...@newsfe16.iad:
>
> >> natural rights* (also called moral
> >> rights or *inalienable rights* ) are rights which are *not* contingent
> >> upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
> >> Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are
> >> culturally and politically relative. "]
>
> > But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
>
> Shut up. You have no right to ask any questions. You have no rights at all.
> So said you.
He wanted you to say that natural rights come from the creator, so he
could call you a "CrazyMotherFucker" in Curly-style.
Jeff George
As do I, but that doesn't mean that they originate from some magical
source. The concept of rights did not exist until man created them.
> They are as basic as E=mc�. Who gave you your rights? If it's another
> man then you're a slave to that man.
Not true.
> I was born with my rights
You were born with the rights designated to you as a member of whatever
nation you are a citizen of. Nature does not grant rights. If it did
bunny rabbits would have rights, too.
> Ask a tribesman in New Guinea what E=mc� means to him, then ask him if
> he should be made to live in a cave with the exit caged off.... even
> he will tell you, you have no right to imprison him.
Correct, because it's against the law.
> Some rights/things are universally understood.
Only because people have agreed, arbitrarily, to them. There is no
objective source.
> Tell him his God/s or religions don't exist and he can no longer pray
> and he will tell you, you have no right to do that.
If the law grants him the right to pray then he will be correct.
> You can tell the tribesman he can't use a wood fire to cook because it
> creates pollution, he will tell you he has a natural(God) given right
> to cook his food.
And I will tell him that he would first have to prove that the source he
claims gave him a right is in extant.
> Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Nice thoughts, created by man.
Jeff George
news:dWJgm.158419$eS5....@newsfe25.iad:
> Jeff George wrote:
>>
>> But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from Nature.
>>
>
> As you have no respect for the Declaration or of Organic or Natural
> Law, or by extension, the US Republic, your question is academic.
>
> But because your are inextricably a part of the mix and will be
> effected by events, you should know what is shaking your universe.
>
> Some people have the capacity to deduce their origins and their
> rights.
>
> Some people know that they have the inherent right to life,
> liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and live their lives
> accordingly.
>
> Since you are not one of these people, believe what you will,
> but do not infringe the rights of others.
I'm making no effort to infringe any one's rights. I recognize the
rights that I and others have. However, I am not illogical enough to
claim that these rights magically appeared. I know and understand that
they are man-made concepts, originated by man.
Jeff George
news:i8c685514vjnc8et9...@4ax.com:
I don't know the exact time and date, but I will tell you that it was part
of man's enlightenment. It was then that the concepts of natural rights
arose, but it was purely a human concept. Nature grants no rights. Nature
is.
Poetic Justice
Yes the concept did originate from a magical source, it was seen in the
minds of all men. We all know that these rights are inherent to human
existence. This is in our core, our instinct.... We know
>> They are as basic as E=mc�. Who gave you your rights? If it's another
>> man then you're a slave to that man.
>
> Not true.
You rely on someone else to give you your rights?
>> I was born with my rights
>
> You were born with the rights designated to you as a member of whatever
> nation you are a citizen of. Nature does not grant rights. If it did
> bunny rabbits would have rights, too.
No I was born where they respect the rights I was born with, I have the
rights whether the Government recognizes them or not.
>> Ask a tribesman in New Guinea what E=mc� means to him, then ask him if
>> he should be made to live in a cave with the exit caged off.... even
>> he will tell you, you have no right to imprison him.
>
> Correct, because it's against the law.
It's against his natural rights. Even when the law says it would be OK
to imprison him for no reason, he still has the Natural right to be free.
>> Some rights/things are universally understood.
>
> Only because people have agreed, arbitrarily, to them. There is no
> objective source.
When did we agree with tribesmen that locking them up for no reason was
a violation of their natural rights?
>
>> Tell him his God/s or religions don't exist and he can no longer pray
>> and he will tell you, you have no right to do that.
>
> If the law grants him the right to pray then he will be correct.
Either way he is correct, the right is not Governments to give or
take... what belief is in a mans mind is not the Governments domain.
>> You can tell the tribesman he can't use a wood fire to cook because it
>> creates pollution, he will tell you he has a natural(God) given right
>> to cook his food.
>
> And I will tell him that he would first have to prove that the source he
> claims gave him a right is in extant.
>
>
>> Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>
> Nice thoughts, created by man.
Those were here before man.... we "discovered" them.... As we
discovered Flight and gun powder. It took a while but once self
awareness was discovered people found our natural rights. The
realization of those rights were taken for granted until governments
ignored them.
Jeff George
No, it wasn't. It did not exist until man evolved enough to create it.
> We all know that these rights are inherent to
> human existence. This is in our core, our instinct.... We know
No, you don't know. You believe. There's a difference. Rights are an
abstract, intangible concept created by man for man.
>>> They are as basic as E=mc�. Who gave you your rights? If it's
>>> another man then you're a slave to that man.
>>
>> Not true.
>
> You rely on someone else to give you your rights?
I do not decide what rights I have in the country I live in.
>>> I was born with my rights
>>
>> You were born with the rights designated to you as a member of
>> whatever nation you are a citizen of. Nature does not grant rights.
>> If it did bunny rabbits would have rights, too.
>
> No I was born where they respect the rights I was born with,
You were born with no inherent rights, as Nature, the only objective source
of life, grants no rights, only possibilities.
>I have the rights whether the Government recognizes them or not.
No, you don't. If the government decided that you didn't have the right to
live, they would kill you. Right extinguished.
>>> Ask a tribesman in New Guinea what E=mc� means to him, then ask him
>>> if he should be made to live in a cave with the exit caged off....
>>> even he will tell you, you have no right to imprison him.
>>
>> Correct, because it's against the law.
>
> It's against his natural rights.
No. He has no concept of rights. He is following his nature.
> Even when the law says it would be OK to imprison him for no reason, he >
> still has the Natural right to be free.
Nature does that grant that.
>>> Some rights/things are universally understood.
>>
>> Only because people have agreed, arbitrarily, to them. There is no
>> objective source.
>
> When did we agree with tribesmen that locking them up for no reason
> was a violation of their natural rights?
When we decided, as humans, that people should have that right. We made
that decision, arbitrarily and subjectively.
>>> Tell him his God/s or religions don't exist and he can no longer
>>> pray and he will tell you, you have no right to do that.
>>
>> If the law grants him the right to pray then he will be correct.
>
> Either way he is correct, the right is not Governments to give or
> take... what belief is in a mans mind is not the Governments domain.
Belief is simply another word for opinion.
>>> You can tell the tribesman he can't use a wood fire to cook because
>>> it creates pollution, he will tell you he has a natural(God) given
>>> right to cook his food.
>>
>> And I will tell him that he would first have to prove that the source
>> he claims gave him a right is in extant.
No response?
>>> Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>>
>> Nice thoughts, created by man.
>>
> Those were here before man.... we "discovered" them....
No. They did not exist as concepts of human life until man decided they
should be.
> As we discovered Flight and gun powder.
Scientific achievements due to man's nature. These are tangible,
quantifiable successess. Rights are a concept, created by man and not in
existence for any one until given to him.
> It took a while but once self awareness was discovered people found our
> natural rights.
Those are not natural rights. Those are what humanity decided all people
should be entitled to, not due to any inherent existence in nature, but due
to the way we think.
> The realization of those rights were taken for granted until governments
> ignored them.
Correct. And under those governments those rights ceased to exist.
Poetic Justice
They were suppressed, but they always existed, even before "we" were
aware of them.
jf...@ix.netcom.com
<antic...@heaven.com> wrote:
>jf...@ix.netcom.com wrote in
>news:i8c685514vjnc8et9...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:30:31 +0000 (UTC), Jeff George
>> <antic...@heaven.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>There were no rights until man came upon the concept of it.
>>
>>
>> When was that?
>
>I don't know the exact time and date, but I will tell you that it was part
>of man's enlightenment. It was then that the concepts of natural rights
>arose, but it was purely a human concept. Nature grants no rights. Nature
>is.
Can you come up with a century or a millennium perhaps?
Scout
> jf...@ix.netcom.com wrote in
> news:i8c685514vjnc8et9...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:30:31 +0000 (UTC), Jeff George
>> <antic...@heaven.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There were no rights until man came upon the concept of it.
>>
>>
>> When was that?
>
> I don't know the exact time and date, but I will tell you that it was
> part of man's enlightenment. It was then that the concepts of natural
> rights arose, but it was purely a human concept. Nature grants no
> rights. Nature is.
Really? So what is the origin of Nature?
Who established Nature?
What makes you think that Nature is inherent, but rights are not?
Scout
Neither did the concept of Nature.
Indeed, all concepts are created by man.
So what makes this concept any different from the others?
Scout
> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
> news:dWJgm.158419$eS5....@newsfe25.iad:
>
>> Jeff George wrote:
>>>
>>> But where do these alleged natural rights come from? Not from
>>> Nature.
>>>
>>
>> As you have no respect for the Declaration or of Organic or Natural
>> Law, or by extension, the US Republic, your question is academic.
>>
>> But because your are inextricably a part of the mix and will be
>> effected by events, you should know what is shaking your universe.
>>
>> Some people have the capacity to deduce their origins and their
>> rights.
>>
>> Some people know that they have the inherent right to life,
>> liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and live their lives
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Since you are not one of these people, believe what you will,
>> but do not infringe the rights of others.
>
> I'm making no effort to infringe any one's rights. I recognize the
> rights that I and others have.
Sorry, but you don't have rights, by your own admission.
tankfixer
@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, too_man...@yahoo.com says...
>
> On Aug 11, 12:59 pm, Poetic Justice <Blackh...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> > Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> > > On Aug 11, 10:40 am, Poetic Justice <blackh...@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> > >> lorad wrote:
> > >>> On Aug 10, 1:42 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Considering the ongoing bloodshed from psychos owning guns, it is
> > >>>> inevitable that tighter regulation for gun ownership is coming
> > >>>> including the psych testing of potential and current owners.
> > >>>> Responsible usage of a gun is the responsibility we accept when we
> > >>>> exercise our right to bear arms.
> > >>>> Irresponsible usage is subject to penalties and denial of ownership.
> > >>>> Why do some fear the psych testing for gun ownership?
> > >>>> TMT
> > >> You forget the crazies driving and killing kids every day, why do you
> > >> continue to allow it? Stop the Killing fields.
> >
> > >> Drunks like you could be stopped from getting a license if they psych
> > >> test you.
> >
> > >> Have you noticed that you can get drunk and kill people and the
> > >> Government will give you a license again, if you get drunk and shoot
> > >> someone the government won't give you another gun.
> >
> > > Uh?
> >
> > > So you are saying that both irresponsible alcohol usage and gun
> > > ownership to mentally unstable users should be controlled more
> > > rigorously.
> >
> > > Good for you for backing the upcoming psych testing.
> >
> > > TMT
> >
> > Well... as usual you got it wrong.
> >
> > Everyone getting a drivers license should be psych tested, but guns are
> > given they can't be taken away.
>
> Guns are not a right.
>
> Otherwise all would have them...they don't...ask any felon.
Should i ask that felon right after he.. votes...
>
> The right to bear arms is subject to regulation...just like any other
> privilege.
Thats wher you stay confused..
>
> You can stomp your little winger feet all you want...it won't change
> reality.
You best stop championing a pscyc test..
your postings here would fail you in second
Jeff George
@news.bytemine.net:
>> Guns are not a right.
>>
>> Otherwise all would have them...they don't...ask any felon.
>
> Should i ask that felon right after he.. votes...
>
>>
>> The right to bear arms is subject to regulation...just like any other
>> privilege.
>
> Thats wher you stay confused..
What's so confusing about it to you?
>> You can stomp your little winger feet all you want...it won't change
>> reality.
>
>
> You best stop championing a pscyc test..
> your postings here would fail you in second
Why? Because he makes sense and can express a rational position?
tankfixer
antic...@heaven.com says...
>
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:MPG.24fce7d0857f97ad128
> @news.bytemine.net:
>
> >> Guns are not a right.
> >>
> >> Otherwise all would have them...they don't...ask any felon.
> >
> > Should i ask that felon right after he.. votes...
> >
> >>
> >> The right to bear arms is subject to regulation...just like any other
> >> privilege.
> >
> > Thats wher you stay confused..
>
> What's so confusing about it to you?
Why you leftists continue to think owning a firearm is a privilege...
>
>
> >> You can stomp your little winger feet all you want...it won't change
> >> reality.
> >
> >
> > You best stop championing a pscyc test..
> > your postings here would fail you in second
>
> Why? Because he makes sense and can express a rational position?
When did that happen ?
Was he sober or had his welfare check run out and he was in the DT's
with no drugs ?
Jeff George
news:MPG.24fda96...@news.bytemine.net:
>> >> The right to bear arms is subject to regulation...just like any other
>> >> privilege.
>> >
>> > Thats wher you stay confused..
>>
>> What's so confusing about it to you?
>
> Why you leftists continue to think owning a firearm is a privilege...
Here's a definition of privilege from dictionary.com:
'any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional
government'
So it's a privilege, as previously stated.
RD (The Sandman)
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.24fda96...@news.bytemine.net:
>
>>> >> The right to bear arms is subject to regulation...just like any
>>> >> other privilege.
>>> >
>>> > Thats wher you stay confused..
>>>
>>> What's so confusing about it to you?
>>
>> Why you leftists continue to think owning a firearm is a privilege...
>
> Here's a definition of privilege from dictionary.com:
>
> 'any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern
> constitutional government'
>
> So it's a privilege, as previously stated.
>
Privilege - A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a
person, company or class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens.
An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right,
advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or a
class, not generally possessed by others.
Black's Law, 6th Ed.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank
space between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."
Peter McWilliams, author, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".
Jeff George
news:Xns9C7376D34...@216.196.97.130:
> Jeff George <antic...@heaven.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9C7378AAEF9A8g...@62.141.42.83:
>
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.24fda96...@news.bytemine.net:
>>
>>>> >> The right to bear arms is subject to regulation...just like any
>>>> >> other privilege.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thats wher you stay confused..
>>>>
>>>> What's so confusing about it to you?
>>>
>>> Why you leftists continue to think owning a firearm is a
>>> privilege...
>>
>> Here's a definition of privilege from dictionary.com:
>>
>> 'any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern
>> constitutional government'
>>
>> So it's a privilege, as previously stated.
>>
>
> Privilege - A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by
> a person, company or class, beyond the common advantages of other
> citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A
> peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity
> held by a person or a class, not generally possessed by others.
>
> Black's Law, 6th Ed.
Which definition makes the definition I posted no less true.
RD (The Sandman)
Just giving you the legal definition. One thing you may look at is your
definition says "common to all citizens" and the legal definition talks
about things "not generally possessed by others".
Jeff George
I know. But your definition is dependent on mine. There can be no legal
definition without there citizenship involved.
RD (The Sandman)
Their.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.
tankfixer
antic...@heaven.com says...
>
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.24fda96...@news.bytemine.net:
>
> >> >> The right to bear arms is subject to regulation...just like any other
> >> >> privilege.
> >> >
> >> > Thats wher you stay confused..
> >>
> >> What's so confusing about it to you?
> >
> > Why you leftists continue to think owning a firearm is a privilege...
>
> Here's a definition of privilege from dictionary.com:
>
> 'any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional
> government'
>
> So it's a privilege, as previously stated.
Interesting you chose #5 of the ones listed...
priv·i·lege [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, -leged, -leg·
ing.
?noun
1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the
advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2. a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in
authority or office to free them from certain obligations or
liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without
danger of a libel suit.
3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or
immunity, under certain conditions.
4. the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5. any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern
constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.
6. an advantage or source of pleasure granted to a person: It's my
privilege to be here.
7. Stock Exchange. an option to buy or sell stock at a stipulated price
for a limited period of time, including puts, calls, spreads, and
straddles.
?verb (used with object)
8. to grant a privilege to.
9. to exempt (usually fol. by from).
10. to authorize or license (something otherwise forbidden).
tankfixer
Sandman)" says...
He cherry picked the 5th one listed in his source...
Jeff George
Close. I actually left out a word. It should've read 'there being
citizenship involved'. It read correctly while I was thinking it. It
just didn't reach my fingers.
Jeff George
news:MPG.2503863...@news.bytemine.net:
It doesn't matter which definition it is. It doesn't change the validity
of it.
tankfixer
antic...@heaven.com says...
Also doesn't change the fact he is using the word wrong.
Too_Many_Tools
> tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.com> wrote innews:MPG.24fda96...@news.bytemine.net:
If it a right then why does society prevent felons from owning guns?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> In article <a4a13301-caf9-480f-a918-c777d48c0101
LOL...many of us would like to ask why some felons
vote .......Republican.
TMT
Beam Me Up Scotty
Society is violating the constitution when is takes a free man's rights,
once someone has paid their debt for their crime, they are no longer a
criminal...... treating them like slaves or 3/5 of a human is not
acceptable. If they are dangerous then the sentence should keep society
safe until the criminal gets out, someone on Parole or other out
criminal situation may be acceptable but once the sentence is ended they
should be 100% free citizens.
Too_Many_Tools
If it is a right it cannot be taken away.
If it is a privilege it can be regulated by society...as gun ownership
is.
All the discussion does not change reality....gun ownership is a
privilege that can and is revoked when necessary by society.
Requiring psych testing for gun ownership is coming....because gun
owners cannot regulate themselves.
I suspect it has something to do with their lack of bladder control.
TMT
Beam Me Up Scotty
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be
infringed* ."
> All the discussion does not change reality....gun ownership is a
> privilege that can and is revoked when necessary by society.
>
Illegally. Just as they sold slaves and that was wrong.
> Requiring psych testing for gun ownership is coming....because gun
> owners cannot regulate themselves.
Government is NOT permitted to regulate guns.
RD (The Sandman)
Damn, you have been exposed to the same problem I have from time to time.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:26:28 -0700 (PDT),
> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If it is a right it cannot be taken away.
>>
>> If it is a privilege it can be regulated by society...as gun ownership
>> is.
>
> because it is not a privilige---but a right
>
Probably why they put it in the *BILL OF RIGHTS*
> However, it is not a true statement that a "right"
> cannot be taken away.
It can be violated, NOT taken away.
The government can only violate your rights.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
"By pursuing his own self interest he frequently promotes that of
society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I
have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the
public good"
- Adam Smith -
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
So why are felons denied their right to bear arms?
Why does the Government require a permit (which can be denied) before
you are allowed to own a gun?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:26:28 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
> >If it is a right it cannot be taken away.
>
> >If it is a privilege it can be regulated by society...as gun ownership
> >is.
>
> because it is not a privilige---but a right
>
> cannot be taken away.
I agree...rights can be taken away.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:34:58 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
> >> If it is a privilege it can be regulated by society...as gun ownership
> >> is.
>
> >"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be
> >infringed* ."
>
>
> If it means that you believe that no circumstances or
> laws can keep you from doing gunloon "stuff"---then
> you're wrong
>
> Your so-called "un-infringable right" is curtailed,
> regulated and proscribed by dozens of various laws,
> rules, regulations at the city, county, state and
> federal level.
Well said.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
dog.com> wrote:
LOL...play with the words but the results are the same...no guns.
Most of us live in reality...unlike gun nuts.
TMT
RD (The Sandman)
news:4a9c1726$0$32186$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
No right is absolute.
>> If it is a privilege it can be regulated by society...as gun
>> ownership is.
>>
>
> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be
> infringed* ."
No right is absolute.
>> All the discussion does not change reality....gun ownership is a
>> privilege that can and is revoked when necessary by society.
>>
>
> Illegally. Just as they sold slaves and that was wrong.
>
>
>> Requiring psych testing for gun ownership is coming....because gun
>> owners cannot regulate themselves.
>
> Government is NOT permitted to regulate guns.
Yes, it is. It is per Cruikshank, Presser and Heller.
RD (The Sandman)
4ax.com:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:50:19 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> If they are dangerous then the sentence should keep society
>>safe until the criminal gets out
>
> Then you agree
>
> Government can take away rights.
>
Yes, but for non violent crimes, that right to keep and bear arms should be
restored when incarceration is complete.
Gunner Asch
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:34:58 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
><Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If it is a privilege it can be regulated by society...as gun ownership
>>> is.
>>>
>>
>>"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be
>>infringed* ."
>
>What does "infringed" mean to you?
>
>If it means that you believe that no circumstances or
>laws can keep you from doing gunloon "stuff"---then
>you're wrong
>
>Your so-called "un-infringable right" is curtailed,
>regulated and proscribed by dozens of various laws,
>rules, regulations at the city, county, state and
>federal level.
Yes indeed they do. So did segregation, ghettoization, seperate
schooling, and so forth.
All of which were implimented by racists, bigots and others who paid no
attention to the Constitution. Fascists and totalitarians for the most
part.
Just like you.
Tell you what Skippy...lets let you work on removing the 2nd Amendment
to the Constitution, and we will work on removing your 1st Amendment
rights. Is it a deal?
Gunner
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
Gunner Asch
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:50:19 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
><Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> If they are dangerous then the sentence should keep society
>>safe until the criminal gets out
>
>Then you agree
>
>Government can take away rights.
Not legally except in very specifically named instances for criminal
behavior.
On the other hand..totalitarians like you simply use the Constitution as
butt wipe.
Shrug..in less than 3 yrs..you and your fellow totalitarians will be
dead or fled, so its a moot point.
Beam Me Up Scotty
- James Madison and Andrew Jackson -
RD (The Sandman)
> Sci...@Science.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:26:28 -0700 (PDT),
>> Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If it is a right it cannot be taken away.
>>>
>>> If it is a privilege it can be regulated by society...as gun
ownership
>>> is.
>>
>> Much as I hate to disagree---you can be a gun loon
>> because it is not a privilige---but a right
>>
>
> Probably why they put it in the *BILL OF RIGHTS*
Which in itself is defined as: The first ten amendments to the US
Constitutions providing for individual rights, freedoms and protections.
>> However, it is not a true statement that a "right"
>> cannot be taken away.
>
> It can be violated, NOT taken away.
It can be violated, not recognized (as RKBA in Mexico or Jamaica) or
removed from an individual citizen via due process (loss of RKBA to
felons, etc).
> The government can only violate your rights.
>
>
--
RD (The Sandman)
Apparently they have been overruled by the USSC.
Beam Me Up Scotty
You want the guns, go get them and do a house to house socialist search,
see how far you get.
Now who is not living in reality?
Beam Me Up Scotty
And people sometimes pay attention to that.
Come do a house to house confiscation, the people will obey your law to
take them too.... BBBBbwbbwbwwhahahahahahahahh
Beam Me Up Scotty
We have found that the Government is breaking the law, as they did in
Washington D.C.
The government breaks the law all the time, Who gave Obama a right to
run GM?