info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Scenario for the Second Civil War
134 views
Skip to first unread message
raykeller
Oct 16, 2016, 11:06:47 PM10/16/16
to
Bracken: A Scenario for the Second Civil War
MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a
Constitutionalist, and a self-described "freedomista". He's the author of
several books, including Enemies Foreign and Domestic. This is the first
part in a series of different author's thoughts on the next civil war. Here's
what Bracken sees as a potential scenario for the next American Civil War.
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights does not "grant" Americans the
right to armed self-defense, it simply recognizes and affirms this God-given
human right. The Constitution, including the Bill or Rights, is a very
succinct document that was written in plain English intended to be fully
understandable by ordinary citizens, requiring no interpretation by judges.
Article III of the Constitution discusses the responsibilities, powers and
limitations of the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is a
super-legislature authorized to amend the Bill of Rights by a simple
majority vote among its nine lifetime-appointed justices. In fact, Article
III Section 2 explicitly grants to Congress the power to regulate which
cases the Supreme Court may adjudicate at all. However, in the current
political climate, with a toothless Congress abdicating its power to the
Executive and Judicial branches, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will
be reined in and confined within its Constitutional limits.
My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
victory in November 2016, followed in 2017 by the appointment of a Supreme
Court justice politically to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Second
Amendment will then be gutted using a specious argument such as that the
militia has "evolved" into the modern National Guard, meaning that there is
no longer a right for private citizens to individually keep or bear arms.
Liberal politicians and the collaborating liberal mainstream media will be
in full-throated agreement with this false interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
Subsequently, some states will ban semi-automatic pistols and rifles capable
of taking a detachable magazine, meaning that nearly all semi-automatic
firearms will become "illegal" with the stroke of a pen. Firearms
confiscation raids against gun collectors and outspoken "Right to Keep and
Bear Arms" activists will then take place with the intended purpose being to
strike fear into holdouts. But instead of forcing gun owners into
compliance, the confiscation raids will be the trigger for a new civil war.
There will be casualties among both citizens and law enforcement as these
confiscation raids are increasingly met with armed resistance.
The First Amendment will likewise be gutted, using the argument that the
"bitter clingers" who are still advocating the "obsolete" interpretation of
the Second Amendment are supporting terrorism when they argue that law
enforcement has no valid legal or moral reason to engage in gun confiscation
raids. Freedom-oriented writers will declare that the federal government is
in breach of contract with the people, because the rogue Supreme Court had
no authority to unilaterally nullify key elements of the Bill of Rights.
Millions of Americans who still support the original interpretation of the
Second Amendment will consider those who advocate the new interpretation to
be traitors and domestic enemies of the Constitution. Writers who argue that
the new interpretation of the Second Amendment is invalid, and that citizens
are therefore morally justified in opposing the new gun laws by force of
arms will be arrested for "inciting violence" and "encouraging terrorism."
Websites which promulgate these views will be banned and shut down.
At that point, with no other options available to oppose the emerging hard
tyranny, a guerrilla insurgency will emerge, and some of those responsible
for limiting the Bill of Rights will become victims of sniper attacks.
Targeted individuals will include national politicians, prominent
"journalists" and federal law enforcement personnel who vocally support or
even simply enforce the new gun bans. These deadly sniper attacks will
typically involve a single shooter firing a single shot from long range.
Federal law enforcement will be given the impossible task of predicting who
will become the next sniper from among scores of millions of Americans. Gun
confiscation raids and arrests for "inciting violence" will escalate, and so
will the retaliatory sniper attacks.
The start of Civil War Two will probably be pegged to the assassination of a
prominent judge or politician who is held responsible by "constitutional
originalists" for invalidating the First and Second Amendments. The new
tyranny will not back down in the face of these sniper attacks, but will
double down in its efforts to disarm the resistance. Arrests and
disappearances of "constitutional extremists" will be countered with even
more sniper attacks against key supporters of the new tyranny. Civil War Two
could resemble the "Dirty War" in Argentina during the 1970s, with
recalcitrant "constitutionalists" becoming the victims of secret government
special-action units. It's difficult to imagine the final outcome of an
American "dirty civil war," but it's impossible to imagine the forces of
tyranny successfully disarming the American people.
It's well known that Switzerland has never been invaded by a foreign power,
largely because of its national policy of providing adult male military
reservists with modern battle rifles, which they keep at home for their
entire lives. It's less well understood that Switzerland has also never seen
the emergence of a tyranny, and for the same reason: a would-be tyrant would
not survive for long in Switzerland. Likewise, would-be tyrants in the
United States might have a strong desire to disarm the American people, but
any widespread attempts to do so will, at the very least, result in a
prolonged and bloody dirty civil war.
".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.."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a
Constitutionalist, and a self-described "freedomista". He's the author of
several books, including Enemies Foreign and Domestic. This is the first
part in a series of different author's thoughts on the next civil war. Here's
what Bracken sees as a potential scenario for the next American Civil War.
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights does not "grant" Americans the
right to armed self-defense, it simply recognizes and affirms this God-given
human right. The Constitution, including the Bill or Rights, is a very
succinct document that was written in plain English intended to be fully
understandable by ordinary citizens, requiring no interpretation by judges.
Article III of the Constitution discusses the responsibilities, powers and
limitations of the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court is a
super-legislature authorized to amend the Bill of Rights by a simple
majority vote among its nine lifetime-appointed justices. In fact, Article
III Section 2 explicitly grants to Congress the power to regulate which
cases the Supreme Court may adjudicate at all. However, in the current
political climate, with a toothless Congress abdicating its power to the
Executive and Judicial branches, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will
be reined in and confined within its Constitutional limits.
My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
victory in November 2016, followed in 2017 by the appointment of a Supreme
Court justice politically to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Second
Amendment will then be gutted using a specious argument such as that the
militia has "evolved" into the modern National Guard, meaning that there is
no longer a right for private citizens to individually keep or bear arms.
Liberal politicians and the collaborating liberal mainstream media will be
in full-throated agreement with this false interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
Subsequently, some states will ban semi-automatic pistols and rifles capable
of taking a detachable magazine, meaning that nearly all semi-automatic
firearms will become "illegal" with the stroke of a pen. Firearms
confiscation raids against gun collectors and outspoken "Right to Keep and
Bear Arms" activists will then take place with the intended purpose being to
strike fear into holdouts. But instead of forcing gun owners into
compliance, the confiscation raids will be the trigger for a new civil war.
There will be casualties among both citizens and law enforcement as these
confiscation raids are increasingly met with armed resistance.
The First Amendment will likewise be gutted, using the argument that the
"bitter clingers" who are still advocating the "obsolete" interpretation of
the Second Amendment are supporting terrorism when they argue that law
enforcement has no valid legal or moral reason to engage in gun confiscation
raids. Freedom-oriented writers will declare that the federal government is
in breach of contract with the people, because the rogue Supreme Court had
no authority to unilaterally nullify key elements of the Bill of Rights.
Millions of Americans who still support the original interpretation of the
Second Amendment will consider those who advocate the new interpretation to
be traitors and domestic enemies of the Constitution. Writers who argue that
the new interpretation of the Second Amendment is invalid, and that citizens
are therefore morally justified in opposing the new gun laws by force of
arms will be arrested for "inciting violence" and "encouraging terrorism."
Websites which promulgate these views will be banned and shut down.
At that point, with no other options available to oppose the emerging hard
tyranny, a guerrilla insurgency will emerge, and some of those responsible
for limiting the Bill of Rights will become victims of sniper attacks.
Targeted individuals will include national politicians, prominent
"journalists" and federal law enforcement personnel who vocally support or
even simply enforce the new gun bans. These deadly sniper attacks will
typically involve a single shooter firing a single shot from long range.
Federal law enforcement will be given the impossible task of predicting who
will become the next sniper from among scores of millions of Americans. Gun
confiscation raids and arrests for "inciting violence" will escalate, and so
will the retaliatory sniper attacks.
The start of Civil War Two will probably be pegged to the assassination of a
prominent judge or politician who is held responsible by "constitutional
originalists" for invalidating the First and Second Amendments. The new
tyranny will not back down in the face of these sniper attacks, but will
double down in its efforts to disarm the resistance. Arrests and
disappearances of "constitutional extremists" will be countered with even
more sniper attacks against key supporters of the new tyranny. Civil War Two
could resemble the "Dirty War" in Argentina during the 1970s, with
recalcitrant "constitutionalists" becoming the victims of secret government
special-action units. It's difficult to imagine the final outcome of an
American "dirty civil war," but it's impossible to imagine the forces of
tyranny successfully disarming the American people.
It's well known that Switzerland has never been invaded by a foreign power,
largely because of its national policy of providing adult male military
reservists with modern battle rifles, which they keep at home for their
entire lives. It's less well understood that Switzerland has also never seen
the emergence of a tyranny, and for the same reason: a would-be tyrant would
not survive for long in Switzerland. Likewise, would-be tyrants in the
United States might have a strong desire to disarm the American people, but
any widespread attempts to do so will, at the very least, result in a
prolonged and bloody dirty civil war.
".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.."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!Jones
Oct 17, 2016, 9:48:48 AM10/17/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:
>My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>victory in November 2016, followed in 2017 by the appointment of a Supreme
>Court justice politically to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Second
>Amendment will then be gutted using a specious argument such as that the
>militia has "evolved" into the modern National Guard, meaning that there is
>no longer a right for private citizens to individually keep or bear arms.
>Liberal politicians and the collaborating liberal mainstream media will be
>in full-throated agreement with this false interpretation of the Second
>Amendment.
Well, the term "militia" has certainly evolved; wasn't it in Miller
where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
militia membership? Thus, if you remove the "militia" language, we're
left with: "[The] well regulated [...] right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed." Which probably reflects exactly
what the founders meant to write.
The questions now become: what does "well regulated" mean and what
does "infringed" mean?
The idea of background checks as a national precondition for obtaining
a gun legally has overwhelming support; further, the idea of "gun
responsibility" (meaning that a person would be criminally liable for
selling a gun without a background check or allowing a child to gain
access to the gun) has deep support.
I would tend to believe that a background check falls reasonably under
the idea of "well regulation" as written in the second amendment.
Laws that make it illegal for a felon to buy a gun are and have long
been in place; the data systems exist and are reliable; all we need to
do is to check them.
I doubt that there would be a "civil war" over it simply because the
sides aren't regionally defined and the number of people who staunchly
oppose background checks is well under 10% of the population who
regularly sell guns into the secondary market (i.e.: Mexico).
Jones
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote:
>My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>victory in November 2016, followed in 2017 by the appointment of a Supreme
>Court justice politically to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Second
>Amendment will then be gutted using a specious argument such as that the
>militia has "evolved" into the modern National Guard, meaning that there is
>no longer a right for private citizens to individually keep or bear arms.
>Liberal politicians and the collaborating liberal mainstream media will be
>in full-throated agreement with this false interpretation of the Second
>Amendment.
where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
militia membership? Thus, if you remove the "militia" language, we're
left with: "[The] well regulated [...] right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed." Which probably reflects exactly
what the founders meant to write.
The questions now become: what does "well regulated" mean and what
does "infringed" mean?
The idea of background checks as a national precondition for obtaining
a gun legally has overwhelming support; further, the idea of "gun
responsibility" (meaning that a person would be criminally liable for
selling a gun without a background check or allowing a child to gain
access to the gun) has deep support.
I would tend to believe that a background check falls reasonably under
the idea of "well regulation" as written in the second amendment.
Laws that make it illegal for a felon to buy a gun are and have long
been in place; the data systems exist and are reliable; all we need to
do is to check them.
I doubt that there would be a "civil war" over it simply because the
sides aren't regionally defined and the number of people who staunchly
oppose background checks is well under 10% of the population who
regularly sell guns into the secondary market (i.e.: Mexico).
Jones
pyotr filipivich
Oct 17, 2016, 10:29:26 AM10/17/16
to
"raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700 typed in misc.survivalism the
following:
Most of what would form The Confederacy had seceded by the time
the new President was inaugurated. I doubt that those who favor
direct action are going to wait for the Democrats to officially take
power.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700 typed in misc.survivalism the
following:
>
>My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>victory in November 2016, followed in 2017
Why wait so long?
>My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>victory in November 2016, followed in 2017
Most of what would form The Confederacy had seceded by the time
the new President was inaugurated. I doubt that those who favor
direct action are going to wait for the Democrats to officially take
power.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
RD Sandman
Oct 17, 2016, 12:13:20 PM10/17/16
to
!Jones <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
news:gbk90cprhudql1hui...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote:
>
>>My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>>victory in November 2016, followed in 2017 by the appointment of a
>>Supreme Court justice politically to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
>>The Second Amendment will then be gutted using a specious argument
>>such as that the militia has "evolved" into the modern National Guard,
>>meaning that there is no longer a right for private citizens to
>>individually keep or bear arms. Liberal politicians and the
>>collaborating liberal mainstream media will be in full-throated
>>agreement with this false interpretation of the Second Amendment.
>
> Well, the term "militia" has certainly evolved; wasn't it in Miller
> where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
> militia membership?
That was stated firmly in Heller.
Thus, if you remove the "militia" language, we're
> left with: "[The] well regulated [...] right of the people to keep and
> bear arms shall not be infringed." Which probably reflects exactly
> what the founders meant to write.
The term "well regulated" addresses the militia so if you remove the
"militia" language, you remove "well regulated" also.
--
RD Sandman
Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
news:gbk90cprhudql1hui...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote:
>
>>My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>>victory in November 2016, followed in 2017 by the appointment of a
>>Supreme Court justice politically to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
>>The Second Amendment will then be gutted using a specious argument
>>such as that the militia has "evolved" into the modern National Guard,
>>meaning that there is no longer a right for private citizens to
>>individually keep or bear arms. Liberal politicians and the
>>collaborating liberal mainstream media will be in full-throated
>>agreement with this false interpretation of the Second Amendment.
>
> Well, the term "militia" has certainly evolved; wasn't it in Miller
> where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
> militia membership?
Thus, if you remove the "militia" language, we're
> left with: "[The] well regulated [...] right of the people to keep and
> bear arms shall not be infringed." Which probably reflects exactly
> what the founders meant to write.
"militia" language, you remove "well regulated" also.
--
RD Sandman
Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Just Wondering
Oct 17, 2016, 12:23:00 PM10/17/16
to
On 10/17/2016 7:48 AM, !Jones wrote:
>
> wasn't it in Miller where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment
> no longer depended on militia membership?
>
No, because it never did.
>
> wasn't it in Miller where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment
> no longer depended on militia membership?
>
> Thus, if you remove the "militia" language, we're left with:
> "[The] well regulated [...] right of the people to keep and
> bear arms shall not be infringed." Which probably reflects
> exactly what the founders meant to write.
>
student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
have to remove the entire dependent clause.
Frank
Oct 17, 2016, 12:26:45 PM10/17/16
to
On 10/17/2016 10:29 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700 typed in misc.survivalism the
> following:
>>
>> My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>> victory in November 2016, followed in 2017
>
> Why wait so long?
>
> Most of what would form The Confederacy had seceded by the time
> the new President was inaugurated. I doubt that those who favor
> direct action are going to wait for the Democrats to officially take
> power.
>
Those Democrats opposed to the 2nd amendment and voting for Hilary do
> "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700 typed in misc.survivalism the
> following:
>>
>> My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>> victory in November 2016, followed in 2017
>
> Why wait so long?
>
> Most of what would form The Confederacy had seceded by the time
> the new President was inaugurated. I doubt that those who favor
> direct action are going to wait for the Democrats to officially take
> power.
>
not realize that if she gets the supreme court judges she wants that not
only the 2nd amendment will be eroded.
These progressives will also go after the first amendment with the
argument that we did not have all these rapid methods of communication
when the amendment was written and it should also be revised.
It's a slippery slope.
Dechucka
Oct 17, 2016, 3:07:53 PM10/17/16
to
"raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote in message news:nu1f7g$sv8$1...@dont-email.me...
> Bracken: A Scenario for the Second Civil War
> MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a
> Constitutionalist, and a self-described "freedomista". He's the author of
> several books, including Enemies Foreign and Domestic. This is the first
> part in a series of different author's thoughts on the next civil war.
> Here's what Bracken sees as a potential scenario for the next American
> Civil War.
Another internal terrorist mob for the authorities to hunt down and
> MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a
> Constitutionalist, and a self-described "freedomista". He's the author of
> several books, including Enemies Foreign and Domestic. This is the first
> part in a series of different author's thoughts on the next civil war.
> Here's what Bracken sees as a potential scenario for the next American
> Civil War.
imprison.
pyotr filipivich
Oct 17, 2016, 3:26:17 PM10/17/16
to
Frank <"frank "@frank.net> on Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:26:36 -0400 typed in
misc.survivalism the following:
I do not give a rodents rear end what they do or don't know. Do the
conservatives and the "irredeemable deplorables" also have that same
death wish? If they are going to wait until the Hillary
administration is all confirmed by the Senate, and she appoints
Bozette the Clown to the Supreme Court - God help us all - those who
have talked a good game will have failed.
"Why wait so long?" We know that if Hillary is elected, it is all
in the toilet - not "going" - gone!. Past tense, game over, 'withdraw
to orbit and nuke it from space.' So why wait until she make any
appointments - even just listing the names for her cabinet? Why wait?
Do we need to have an engraved invitation to the gallows before we
realize this? The rule of law is dead. Got that? - it freaking
doesn't matter which candidate wins, Americans lose - because the
Supreme Court is not going to overturn anything the progressives don't
like. Congress couldn't get out of its own way - the only thing
restraining the executive branch is its own inertia.
If Hilary wins, we lose - there is no tomorrow.
If Trump wins, we may buy some time - but not really. What can
Trump do against the entrenched beuarcacy, the cultural sewers which
is mass media, or the indoctrination which is modern education?
electing Trump may buy time - but I doubt it will be spent wisely.
slope" but well down it, gaining speed, headed for sudden intrusion of
reality. The Gods of the copybook headings are come to announce that
there is a Piper here who is going to be paid.
Regardless of who wins in November, the purges will begin the next
week, and will become official after January.
misc.survivalism the following:
>On 10/17/2016 10:29 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> "raykeller on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700 typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>>> My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>>> victory in November 2016, followed in 2017
>>
>> Why wait so long?
>>
>> Most of what would form The Confederacy had seceded by the time
>> the new President was inaugurated. I doubt that those who favor
>> direct action are going to wait for the Democrats to officially take
>> power.
>>
>Those Democrats opposed to the 2nd amendment and voting for Hilary do
>not realize that if she gets the supreme court judges she wants that not
>only the 2nd amendment will be eroded.
So. What. ?. That they have a death wish is documented. So what?
>>> victory in November 2016, followed in 2017
>>
>> Why wait so long?
>>
>> Most of what would form The Confederacy had seceded by the time
>> the new President was inaugurated. I doubt that those who favor
>> direct action are going to wait for the Democrats to officially take
>> power.
>>
>Those Democrats opposed to the 2nd amendment and voting for Hilary do
>not realize that if she gets the supreme court judges she wants that not
>only the 2nd amendment will be eroded.
I do not give a rodents rear end what they do or don't know. Do the
conservatives and the "irredeemable deplorables" also have that same
death wish? If they are going to wait until the Hillary
administration is all confirmed by the Senate, and she appoints
Bozette the Clown to the Supreme Court - God help us all - those who
have talked a good game will have failed.
"Why wait so long?" We know that if Hillary is elected, it is all
in the toilet - not "going" - gone!. Past tense, game over, 'withdraw
to orbit and nuke it from space.' So why wait until she make any
appointments - even just listing the names for her cabinet? Why wait?
Do we need to have an engraved invitation to the gallows before we
realize this? The rule of law is dead. Got that? - it freaking
doesn't matter which candidate wins, Americans lose - because the
Supreme Court is not going to overturn anything the progressives don't
like. Congress couldn't get out of its own way - the only thing
restraining the executive branch is its own inertia.
If Hilary wins, we lose - there is no tomorrow.
If Trump wins, we may buy some time - but not really. What can
Trump do against the entrenched beuarcacy, the cultural sewers which
is mass media, or the indoctrination which is modern education?
electing Trump may buy time - but I doubt it will be spent wisely.
>
>These progressives will also go after the first amendment with the
>argument that we did not have all these rapid methods of communication
>when the amendment was written and it should also be revised.
>
>It's a slippery slope.
And we are well down that slope. We are not "started on that
>These progressives will also go after the first amendment with the
>argument that we did not have all these rapid methods of communication
>when the amendment was written and it should also be revised.
>
>It's a slippery slope.
slope" but well down it, gaining speed, headed for sudden intrusion of
reality. The Gods of the copybook headings are come to announce that
there is a Piper here who is going to be paid.
Regardless of who wins in November, the purges will begin the next
week, and will become official after January.
!Jones
Oct 17, 2016, 4:28:15 PM10/17/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:13:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Well, the term "militia" has certainly evolved; wasn't it in Miller
>> where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
>> militia membership?
>
>That was stated firmly in Heller.
I was thinking it predated Heller. Miller was the sawed-off shotgun
thingy and he was saying "but I'm in the militia" and the fed was
saying "there is no military use for a sawed-off shotgun." Court told
both of 'em to STFU and he didn't *have* to be in a militia, then
upheld the conviction under the "well regulated" part of the clause.
Heller essentially said that prohibiting *all* guns exceeded "well
regulated" and crossed into "infringed".
Neither would apply to a simple, 20-second background check to see if
the buyer is legal.
Jones
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:13:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Well, the term "militia" has certainly evolved; wasn't it in Miller
>> where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
>> militia membership?
>
>That was stated firmly in Heller.
thingy and he was saying "but I'm in the militia" and the fed was
saying "there is no military use for a sawed-off shotgun." Court told
both of 'em to STFU and he didn't *have* to be in a militia, then
upheld the conviction under the "well regulated" part of the clause.
Heller essentially said that prohibiting *all* guns exceeded "well
regulated" and crossed into "infringed".
Neither would apply to a simple, 20-second background check to see if
the buyer is legal.
Jones
!Jones
Oct 17, 2016, 4:31:19 PM10/17/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:24:38 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a "D"
>student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
>right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
>have to remove the entire dependent clause.
The "militia" no longer applies; however the "well regulated" clause
does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
consistent with current law.
SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
guns are still required to be "well regulated".
Jones
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:24:38 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a "D"
>student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
>right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
>have to remove the entire dependent clause.
does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
consistent with current law.
SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
guns are still required to be "well regulated".
Jones
raykeller
Oct 17, 2016, 5:03:11 PM10/17/16
to
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:qpn90c154m7ennjje...@4ax.com...
!Jones
Oct 17, 2016, 7:53:14 PM10/17/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:33:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>I love how you can fracture grammar rules...
It's not about a grammar flame. It's about how the next full supreme
court will interpret the constitution. If you had Scalia on the
bench, *any* restriction would have been opposed because he was firmly
in the gun lobby's pocket. Garland... not so much; although he has
never ruled on any case involving the second amendment. He did, once
upon a time, join a majority in a ruling that went against the NRA as
plaintiffs, thereby incurring their undying animosity.
Jones
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:33:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>I love how you can fracture grammar rules...
It's not about a grammar flame. It's about how the next full supreme
court will interpret the constitution. If you had Scalia on the
bench, *any* restriction would have been opposed because he was firmly
in the gun lobby's pocket. Garland... not so much; although he has
never ruled on any case involving the second amendment. He did, once
upon a time, join a majority in a ruling that went against the NRA as
plaintiffs, thereby incurring their undying animosity.
Jones
Just Wondering
Oct 17, 2016, 8:31:22 PM10/17/16
to
guns are required to be well regulated, and call on you to back up your
claim with actual proof of such a SCOTUS ruling.
Just Wondering
Oct 17, 2016, 8:34:48 PM10/17/16
to
On 10/17/2016 5:33 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> founding fathers meant. They were not as illiterate as today's
> liberals seem to be.
>
> A liberal education is a conservative idea and those gentlemen were
> extremely well educated. Not like the products of today's liberal-run
> schools who make social promotions no matter how badly the kid is
> failing their subjects. Stupid but plays well with others. Shares
> sandbox toys.
> adjusts how fast it runs. When it's "well regulated" it means it's
> working correctly.
>
> I agree. All guns should be working correctly.
>
I see no problem with someone, if that's what he/she wants, keeping a
gun that has had its firing pin removed and therefore is not working
correctly. I see no problem with someone keeping some rusted-solid gun
as a wall hanger. Perhaps you refer to guns that operate but have some
defect that makes them dangerous to the operator?
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:31:16 -0500, !Jones wrote:
>
>> The "militia" no longer applies; however the "well regulated" clause
>> does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
>> consistent with current law.
>
> I love how you can fracture grammar rules and say that's what the
>
>> The "militia" no longer applies; however the "well regulated" clause
>> does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
>> consistent with current law.
>
> founding fathers meant. They were not as illiterate as today's
> liberals seem to be.
>
> A liberal education is a conservative idea and those gentlemen were
> extremely well educated. Not like the products of today's liberal-run
> schools who make social promotions no matter how badly the kid is
> failing their subjects. Stupid but plays well with others. Shares
> sandbox toys.
>
>> SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
>> guns are still required to be "well regulated".
>
> "Well regulated" means working. The regulator on a clock or a watch
>> SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
>> guns are still required to be "well regulated".
>
> adjusts how fast it runs. When it's "well regulated" it means it's
> working correctly.
>
> I agree. All guns should be working correctly.
>
I see no problem with someone, if that's what he/she wants, keeping a
gun that has had its firing pin removed and therefore is not working
correctly. I see no problem with someone keeping some rusted-solid gun
as a wall hanger. Perhaps you refer to guns that operate but have some
defect that makes them dangerous to the operator?
news16
Oct 17, 2016, 8:55:15 PM10/17/16
to
reports.
news16
Oct 17, 2016, 10:20:09 PM10/17/16
to
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:36:26 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>>
> I see no problem with someone, if that's what he/she wants, keeping a
> gun that has had its firing pin removed and therefore is not working
> correctly. I see no problem with someone keeping some rusted-solid gun
> as a wall hanger. Perhaps you refer to guns that operate but have some
> defect that makes them dangerous to the operator?
Regulated as controlled.
>>
> I see no problem with someone, if that's what he/she wants, keeping a
> gun that has had its firing pin removed and therefore is not working
> correctly. I see no problem with someone keeping some rusted-solid gun
> as a wall hanger. Perhaps you refer to guns that operate but have some
> defect that makes them dangerous to the operator?
Flopping around so kiddies can get hold of them isn't.
Thankfully it is their owners that usually end up suffering.
rbowman
Oct 17, 2016, 10:28:42 PM10/17/16
to
On 10/17/2016 02:27 PM, !Jones wrote:
> Neither would apply to a simple, 20-second background check to see if
> the buyer is legal.
How about a simple, 20 second background check to see if a voter is
> Neither would apply to a simple, 20-second background check to see if
> the buyer is legal.
legal too? Or a welfare applicant?
The sporting goods stores might object to a 20 second check. It usually
takes a few minutes to phone in the 4473 giving you time to wander
around and buy other stuff.
Martin Eastburn
Oct 17, 2016, 11:14:29 PM10/17/16
to
Ever see a recruit in a Civil war movie ? Training to how to shoot
on command and reload and stand a line .....regulated.
By the regs - do this or that.
Martin
on command and reload and stand a line .....regulated.
By the regs - do this or that.
Martin
!Jones
Oct 17, 2016, 11:41:03 PM10/17/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:28:53 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>How about a simple, 20 second background check to see if a voter is
>legal too? Or a welfare applicant?
Oh, why would anyone seriously object to that? Not that someone
wouldn't, mind you; however, it wouldn't raise any constitutional
issues.
A more apt analogy might be the validation of a prescription for pain
pills. If I have such a valid document, I am prohibited by federal
law from reselling the substance even though it's legally mine.
Jones
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 20:28:53 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>How about a simple, 20 second background check to see if a voter is
>legal too? Or a welfare applicant?
wouldn't, mind you; however, it wouldn't raise any constitutional
issues.
A more apt analogy might be the validation of a prescription for pain
pills. If I have such a valid document, I am prohibited by federal
law from reselling the substance even though it's legally mine.
Jones
!Jones
Oct 17, 2016, 11:44:03 PM10/17/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
I believe that my point was that SCOTUS only said that the *militia*
wasn't a valid test; even Heller reaffirmed that regulation may
exist... just not a blanket prohibition.
Why would a simple background check amount to prohibition?
Jones
wasn't a valid test; even Heller reaffirmed that regulation may
exist... just not a blanket prohibition.
Why would a simple background check amount to prohibition?
Jones
news16
Oct 18, 2016, 2:48:43 AM10/18/16
to
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:14:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn wrote:
> Ever see a recruit in a Civil war movie ? Training to how to shoot on
> command and reload and stand a line .....regulated.
> By the regs - do this or that.
Nope, guess again.
> Ever see a recruit in a Civil war movie ? Training to how to shoot on
> command and reload and stand a line .....regulated.
> By the regs - do this or that.
Sheesh, some people are real thick.
Gunner Asch
Oct 18, 2016, 4:04:47 AM10/18/16
to
<some fucking moron>
>> Regulated as controlled.
>> Flopping around so kiddies can get hold of them isn't.
>> Thankfully it is their owners that usually end up suffering.
>>
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/foghorn/debunking-mother-jones-10-pro-gun-myths-shot/
Snerk!!
And Martin is absolutely correct. "Well regulated" means nothing more
nor less than "well trained","working properly"
>> Regulated as controlled.
>> Flopping around so kiddies can get hold of them isn't.
>> Thankfully it is their owners that usually end up suffering.
>>
Snerk!!
And Martin is absolutely correct. "Well regulated" means nothing more
nor less than "well trained","working properly"
!Jones
Oct 18, 2016, 8:58:57 AM10/18/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
>Anyone that isn't a lock step liberal sheeple - parroting the DNC
>talking points - is in someone's pocket. God, I truly love liberal
>logic. It's so tragic and so entertaining at the same time.
Well... Scalia was pretty far out there in terms of judicial activism;
he was just a judicial activist with whom you happened to agree.
During his tenure, he always voted well to the right of center on any
social issue; he was an indefatigable proponent of capital punishment
actually speaking on its behalf publicly and frequently espoused
extreme positions wrt the second amendment which always drew applause
from the NRA. He was a far right-wing jurist and you know that.
OTOH, some (William O. Douglas comes to mind as an example) have been
equally active on the left. Do you happen to remember that, after
Douglas suffered a stroke in the early '70s, Richard Nixon wasted no
time appointing a right-leaning judge?
Now comes Garland who is about as moderate as you're going to get.
Garland has *never* either ruled on or written about the second
amendment. He once voted with the majority on a judicial panel where
the decision went against what the NRA wanted... they were the
plaintiff suing... California(?)... anyway, federal law required the
states to monitor compliance and the NRA tried to destroy all of the
records that would facilitate that; thus, he's "soft on the second
amendment"... he has never even mentioned it.
I expect Hillary to continue with Garland's nomination. Some
presidents just come along at the right time in history and some
don't. Bill Clinton did and we remember him as the "Great Economist"
(and for other less attractive activities); we remember George Bush
for the dot-com crash and 9/11... it was luck of the draw.
Hillary will almost certainly have two nominations and (should she
survive reelection) probably three. And, yes... the make-up of SCOTUS
will shift big time! Do you expect Hillary to apoint a right-winger?
Did Nixon replace Douglas with a pot-puffing hippie? ... should he
have done so? (Just for consistency, you know.)
Jones
>talking points - is in someone's pocket. God, I truly love liberal
>logic. It's so tragic and so entertaining at the same time.
Well... Scalia was pretty far out there in terms of judicial activism;
he was just a judicial activist with whom you happened to agree.
During his tenure, he always voted well to the right of center on any
social issue; he was an indefatigable proponent of capital punishment
actually speaking on its behalf publicly and frequently espoused
extreme positions wrt the second amendment which always drew applause
from the NRA. He was a far right-wing jurist and you know that.
OTOH, some (William O. Douglas comes to mind as an example) have been
equally active on the left. Do you happen to remember that, after
Douglas suffered a stroke in the early '70s, Richard Nixon wasted no
time appointing a right-leaning judge?
Now comes Garland who is about as moderate as you're going to get.
Garland has *never* either ruled on or written about the second
amendment. He once voted with the majority on a judicial panel where
the decision went against what the NRA wanted... they were the
plaintiff suing... California(?)... anyway, federal law required the
states to monitor compliance and the NRA tried to destroy all of the
records that would facilitate that; thus, he's "soft on the second
amendment"... he has never even mentioned it.
I expect Hillary to continue with Garland's nomination. Some
presidents just come along at the right time in history and some
don't. Bill Clinton did and we remember him as the "Great Economist"
(and for other less attractive activities); we remember George Bush
for the dot-com crash and 9/11... it was luck of the draw.
Hillary will almost certainly have two nominations and (should she
survive reelection) probably three. And, yes... the make-up of SCOTUS
will shift big time! Do you expect Hillary to apoint a right-winger?
Did Nixon replace Douglas with a pot-puffing hippie? ... should he
have done so? (Just for consistency, you know.)
Jones
!Jones
Oct 18, 2016, 9:01:25 AM10/18/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
*GUNS*!!!
Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
checks... they work!
Jones
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
*GUNS*!!!
Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
checks... they work!
Jones
Frank
Oct 18, 2016, 9:08:08 AM10/18/16
to
I only have one vote but I will make myself heard.
pyotr filipivich
Oct 18, 2016, 9:52:37 AM10/18/16
to
Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> on Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:33:00 -0600
Quibbling over SCOTUS rulings in 2016 is arguing over the
placement of deck chairs on the Lusitania.
In case you have missed it, the SCOTUS has become yet another arm
of the Permanent Incumbent Party: "Public" includes "Private" - a fine
is really a tax, and public policy takes precedent over personal
belief.
--
pyotr filipivich
"We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society, for our law
has ceased to be law and become instead its opposite -- mere force at the
disposal of whoever is at the controls." Charles A. Reich, _The Greening of America_, (c) 1971
typed in misc.survivalism the following:
placement of deck chairs on the Lusitania.
In case you have missed it, the SCOTUS has become yet another arm
of the Permanent Incumbent Party: "Public" includes "Private" - a fine
is really a tax, and public policy takes precedent over personal
belief.
--
pyotr filipivich
"We are today in the most literal sense a lawless society, for our law
has ceased to be law and become instead its opposite -- mere force at the
disposal of whoever is at the controls." Charles A. Reich, _The Greening of America_, (c) 1971
rbowman
Oct 18, 2016, 9:55:09 AM10/18/16
to
scrawl. I vote absentee and one year they sent the paperwork back, said
the scrawl didn't match the one on record, so try again. Many motels now
require photo id even though they have your credit card in hand. I've
got an Interagency Senior Pass. It costs $10, is good for the rest of
your life, and I'm not going to pass for under 62 anytime soon. Still, I
have to show photo ID to the Smokey at the front door.
rbowman
Oct 18, 2016, 10:03:47 AM10/18/16
to
In fact the sheriff of the adjoining county went to court when the Feds
wanted him to do it for free:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States
Maybe I don't go to the right gun shows but from what I've seen the 'gun
show loophole' is vastly overstated too. I'm not saying that a Chicago
gangbanger who shops on Maxwell Street is going to get checked; that
goes without saying.
So, what sort of background check do you have in mind? The one we have
probably has more holes than a sieve but that would require something
like inter-agency cooperation, accurate data, and other stuff that won't
happen in my lifetime.
rbowman
Oct 18, 2016, 10:08:05 AM10/18/16
to
On 10/18/2016 06:58 AM, !Jones wrote:
> Hillary will almost certainly have two nominations and (should she
> survive reelection) probably three. And, yes... the make-up of SCOTUS
> will shift big time! Do you expect Hillary to apoint a right-winger?
> Did Nixon replace Douglas with a pot-puffing hippie? ... should he
> have done so? (Just for consistency, you know.)
The best we can hope for is Hillary buys a pig in a poke like Earl
> Hillary will almost certainly have two nominations and (should she
> survive reelection) probably three. And, yes... the make-up of SCOTUS
> will shift big time! Do you expect Hillary to apoint a right-winger?
> Did Nixon replace Douglas with a pot-puffing hippie? ... should he
> have done so? (Just for consistency, you know.)
Warren or John Roberts. I'd even say that's the mark of a good jurist --
you're really surprised on how it comes out. Hire a 'wise Latina' and
you can sleep soundly at night.
rbowman
Oct 18, 2016, 10:10:44 AM10/18/16
to
On 10/18/2016 07:07 AM, Frank wrote:
>
> I only have one vote but I will make myself heard.
I will be voting for the public library's bond issue to expand the
>
> I only have one vote but I will make myself heard.
facility. Whether I check any of the other boxes depends on how bored i am.
RD Sandman
Oct 18, 2016, 12:32:32 PM10/18/16
to
!Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
news:gkca0ctkep426pftt...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:13:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well, the term "militia" has certainly evolved; wasn't it in Miller
>>> where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
>>> militia membership?
>>
>>That was stated firmly in Heller.
>
> I was thinking it predated Heller.
Here it is in Heller:
Held:
1. **The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia,** and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.
2–53. [emphasis mine]
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does
not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. **The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to
disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a
select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to
abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that
the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.**
[emphasis mine and agrees with a similar statement in Miller...namely
that "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."]
Miller was the sawed-off shotgun
> thingy and he was saying "but I'm in the militia" and the fed was
> saying "there is no military use for a sawed-off shotgun."
The fed said that there was no known use for a sawed off shotgun in the
military ignoring the "trench sweeper". One reason was that there was no
appearance at that trial by the appellees. Ergo, only one side was
presented of that argument was presented.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/174.html
Court told
> both of 'em to STFU and he didn't *have* to be in a militia, then
> upheld the conviction under the "well regulated" part of the clause.
Why would the Court have said that to a side that didn't show up?
Here is what the Miller Court said:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at
this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154,
158.
> Heller essentially said that prohibiting *all* guns exceeded "well
> regulated" and crossed into "infringed".
Why don't you state what the Heller Court *actually* said? It is
available on the internet.
> Neither would apply to a simple, 20-second background check to see if
> the buyer is legal.
I am not one who made that claim.
--
RD Sandman
Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.
news:gkca0ctkep426pftt...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:13:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well, the term "militia" has certainly evolved; wasn't it in Miller
>>> where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
>>> militia membership?
>>
>>That was stated firmly in Heller.
>
> I was thinking it predated Heller.
Held:
1. **The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia,** and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp.
2–53. [emphasis mine]
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does
not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. **The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to
disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a
select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to
abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that
the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.**
[emphasis mine and agrees with a similar statement in Miller...namely
that "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the
debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly
enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."]
Miller was the sawed-off shotgun
> thingy and he was saying "but I'm in the militia" and the fed was
> saying "there is no military use for a sawed-off shotgun."
military ignoring the "trench sweeper". One reason was that there was no
appearance at that trial by the appellees. Ergo, only one side was
presented of that argument was presented.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/174.html
Court told
> both of 'em to STFU and he didn't *have* to be in a militia, then
> upheld the conviction under the "well regulated" part of the clause.
Here is what the Miller Court said:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at
this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154,
158.
> Heller essentially said that prohibiting *all* guns exceeded "well
> regulated" and crossed into "infringed".
available on the internet.
> Neither would apply to a simple, 20-second background check to see if
> the buyer is legal.
--
RD Sandman
Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.
RD Sandman
Oct 18, 2016, 12:45:27 PM10/18/16
to
!Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
news:33da0c50h46i3ihm4...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:24:38 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a
"D"
>>student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
>>right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
>>have to remove the entire dependent clause.
>
> The "militia" no longer applies;
When did they go away? Per 10 USC 311 that are still around:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §?1(7), Sept. 2,
1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §?524(a), Nov. 30,
1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
however the "well regulated" clause
> does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
> consistent with current law.
Yes, and if you look at the sentence structure it refers to the militia
in the 2A.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and Arms shall not be infringed."
> SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
> guns are still required to be "well regulated".
No, they haven't. Perhaps you should take your drugs for medicinal
purposes and forget the recreational part. ;)
news:33da0c50h46i3ihm4...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:24:38 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a
"D"
>>student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
>>right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
>>have to remove the entire dependent clause.
>
> The "militia" no longer applies;
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §?1(7), Sept. 2,
1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §?524(a), Nov. 30,
1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
however the "well regulated" clause
> does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
> consistent with current law.
in the 2A.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and Arms shall not be infringed."
> SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
> guns are still required to be "well regulated".
purposes and forget the recreational part. ;)
RD Sandman
Oct 18, 2016, 12:47:24 PM10/18/16
to
!Jones <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
news:dnoa0cpc4tskrabre...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:33:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>I love how you can fracture grammar rules...
>
> It's not about a grammar flame. It's about how the next full supreme
> court will interpret the constitution.
Well, when they do, we can have this discussion if they change it.
If you had Scalia on the
> bench, *any* restriction would have been opposed because he was firmly
> in the gun lobby's pocket.
Scalia was one Justice. A majority is 5.
Garland... not so much; although he has
> never ruled on any case involving the second amendment. He did, once
> upon a time, join a majority in a ruling that went against the NRA as
> plaintiffs, thereby incurring their undying animosity.
Oh, well......
news:dnoa0cpc4tskrabre...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:33:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>I love how you can fracture grammar rules...
>
> It's not about a grammar flame. It's about how the next full supreme
> court will interpret the constitution.
If you had Scalia on the
> bench, *any* restriction would have been opposed because he was firmly
> in the gun lobby's pocket.
Garland... not so much; although he has
> never ruled on any case involving the second amendment. He did, once
> upon a time, join a majority in a ruling that went against the NRA as
> plaintiffs, thereby incurring their undying animosity.
pyotr filipivich
Oct 18, 2016, 1:44:11 PM10/18/16
to
Frank <"frank "@frank.net> on Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:07:58 -0400 typed in
misc.survivalism the following:
>
I remember a story where The Party Leadership had gone into their
secret bunker as the war drew to a disastrous close. But in the part
was a True Believer of a young officer. Who wondered why nobody
seemed to care about the conduct of the war.. Finally, he asks to be
relieved of duties and allowed to leave for the front. And is show
the entrance door, which opened reveals a tunnel full of rubble. "Kid,
the war is over, and we lost, and we knew it was lost a long time
ago."
It is called a reality check. Let us say for sake of argument,
that Your Preferred Republican candidate is inaugurated President this
January. Then what? The IRS is against him, the FEC is against him.
The Department of Education sees no need to change the Correct Policy
just because a Republican was elected. The Democrat Flacks with
by-lines are against him. And Whoopi, Cher, and all the other
celebrities are going to lie and not leave the country. Do you really
think that the GOP/GMC bipartisan Fusion Coalition in Congress will
pass a budget? They haven't yet in over fifteen years. Herds of
continuing resolution, but no budgets.
And that is just the Federal Government. Do you really believe
that electing a Republican as President will change the syllabusI at
colleges and schools across the country? Or that Hollywood will stop
making "corrupt neo-nazi supporting corporations" the bad guys in
their movies?
Meanwhile, Daesh might pause, but realize that the Americans will
only be "strong" till the Progressive return. So will other
adventurous leaders. Besides, the US military is being hollowed out
by social engineering policies, and knows that far too much of the
influence makers are opposed to them.
As has been pointed out, if you want a President who Congress and
the Media will both watch like a hawk, and do everything they can to
stop illegal Presidential actions: vote for a straight white
Republican male. Nobody will give him any leeway on account of race,
gender, sexual ordination or Party Affiliation.
--
pyotr filipivich
"As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?"
William Marcy "Boss" Tweed. (Democrat New York,) 1871
misc.survivalism the following:
>
>>> It's a slippery slope.
>> And we are well down that slope. We are not "started on that
>> slope" but well down it, gaining speed, headed for sudden intrusion of
>> reality. The Gods of the copybook headings are come to announce that
>> there is a Piper here who is going to be paid.
>>
>> Regardless of who wins in November, the purges will begin the next
>> week, and will become official after January.
>>
>
>That kind of thinking makes people give up - What difference does it make?
Who will do the purging, for the later point.
>> And we are well down that slope. We are not "started on that
>> slope" but well down it, gaining speed, headed for sudden intrusion of
>> reality. The Gods of the copybook headings are come to announce that
>> there is a Piper here who is going to be paid.
>>
>> Regardless of who wins in November, the purges will begin the next
>> week, and will become official after January.
>>
>
>That kind of thinking makes people give up - What difference does it make?
I remember a story where The Party Leadership had gone into their
secret bunker as the war drew to a disastrous close. But in the part
was a True Believer of a young officer. Who wondered why nobody
seemed to care about the conduct of the war.. Finally, he asks to be
relieved of duties and allowed to leave for the front. And is show
the entrance door, which opened reveals a tunnel full of rubble. "Kid,
the war is over, and we lost, and we knew it was lost a long time
ago."
It is called a reality check. Let us say for sake of argument,
that Your Preferred Republican candidate is inaugurated President this
January. Then what? The IRS is against him, the FEC is against him.
The Department of Education sees no need to change the Correct Policy
just because a Republican was elected. The Democrat Flacks with
by-lines are against him. And Whoopi, Cher, and all the other
celebrities are going to lie and not leave the country. Do you really
think that the GOP/GMC bipartisan Fusion Coalition in Congress will
pass a budget? They haven't yet in over fifteen years. Herds of
continuing resolution, but no budgets.
And that is just the Federal Government. Do you really believe
that electing a Republican as President will change the syllabusI at
colleges and schools across the country? Or that Hollywood will stop
making "corrupt neo-nazi supporting corporations" the bad guys in
their movies?
Meanwhile, Daesh might pause, but realize that the Americans will
only be "strong" till the Progressive return. So will other
adventurous leaders. Besides, the US military is being hollowed out
by social engineering policies, and knows that far too much of the
influence makers are opposed to them.
As has been pointed out, if you want a President who Congress and
the Media will both watch like a hawk, and do everything they can to
stop illegal Presidential actions: vote for a straight white
Republican male. Nobody will give him any leeway on account of race,
gender, sexual ordination or Party Affiliation.
>
>I only have one vote but I will make myself heard.
Good.
>I only have one vote but I will make myself heard.
--
pyotr filipivich
"As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?"
William Marcy "Boss" Tweed. (Democrat New York,) 1871
Just Wondering
Oct 18, 2016, 3:43:15 PM10/18/16
to
On 10/18/2016 7:01 AM, !Jones wrote:
>
> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
> checks... they work!
>
What do you mean by "they work"? That Switzerland has
>
> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
> checks... they work!
>
background checks, and those checks keep guns out of
the hands of criminals? If that's what you mean back
up your assertion with some hard facts. Prove that
Switzerland has criminals who can't get their hands
on any guns, and that those criminals can't get any
guns BECAUSE OF background check laws.
Dechucka
Oct 18, 2016, 3:55:01 PM10/18/16
to
"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lXuNz.129828$cF2....@fx39.iad...
are a disgustingly law abiding country
Just Wondering
Oct 18, 2016, 4:07:34 PM10/18/16
to
On 10/18/2016 1:56 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> It's working very well in Chicago; 3,475 people shot and at least 595
> dead with 2 1/2 months still to go.
>
> Of course, that's just those several thousand shooters that don't give
> a hoot about obeying those nasty old laws.
>
> But the responsible, law abiding citizens of Chicago, they are not out
> there shooting people like they would be without strict gun control.
>
I'm a little slow today; that WAS sarcasm, right?
> dead with 2 1/2 months still to go.
>
> Of course, that's just those several thousand shooters that don't give
> a hoot about obeying those nasty old laws.
>
> But the responsible, law abiding citizens of Chicago, they are not out
> there shooting people like they would be without strict gun control.
>
I'm a little slow today; that WAS sarcasm, right?
Dechucka
Oct 18, 2016, 4:14:26 PM10/18/16
to
snip
> I'm a little slow today;
Only TODAY?
snip
> I'm a little slow today;
snip
PaxPerPoten
Oct 18, 2016, 5:17:04 PM10/18/16
to
It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
weapons.
Non Citizens must register to carry firearms in Switzerland. If you as a
noncitizen or a new citizen piss the Swiss off...You are deported
withing a couple of days with no appeal.
>
> Jones
>
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
Dechucka
Oct 18, 2016, 5:34:09 PM10/18/16
to
"PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
news:nu63fp$o35$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 10/18/2016 8:01 AM, !Jones wrote:
>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
>> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>
>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>> *GUNS*!!!
>>
>> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
>> checks... they work!
>
> Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the Government.
> It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
> regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
> weapons.
Cite please
>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
>> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>
>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>> *GUNS*!!!
>>
>> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
>> checks... they work!
>
> Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the Government.
> It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
> regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
> weapons.
>
> Non Citizens must register to carry firearms in Switzerland. If you as a
> noncitizen or a new citizen piss the Swiss off...You are deported withing
> a couple of days with no appeal.
!Jones
Oct 18, 2016, 8:31:41 PM10/18/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:32:24 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Here it is in Heller:
OK, cool... Heller, then. Either way, the term "militia" no longer
applies. That leaves with a "well regulated [...] right of the
people..." yada yada.
I'm OK with that.
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:32:24 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Here it is in Heller:
applies. That leaves with a "well regulated [...] right of the
people..." yada yada.
I'm OK with that.
Jones
!Jones
Oct 18, 2016, 8:33:16 PM10/18/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:08:16 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>The best we can hope for is Hillary buys a pig in a poke like Earl
>Warren or John Roberts. I'd even say that's the mark of a good jurist --
>you're really surprised on how it comes out. Hire a 'wise Latina' and
>you can sleep soundly at night.
I don't believe that Garland will be as bad as you think; he ain't a
done deal either way.
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:08:16 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>The best we can hope for is Hillary buys a pig in a poke like Earl
>Warren or John Roberts. I'd even say that's the mark of a good jurist --
>you're really surprised on how it comes out. Hire a 'wise Latina' and
>you can sleep soundly at night.
done deal either way.
Jones
!Jones
Oct 18, 2016, 8:47:10 PM10/18/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:57:00 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Irrelevant and you are avoiding the point. You just gave us your view
>of his views. Fine. Why does that make him in someone's pocket. Before
>you start weaseling, that phrase implies bought with cash or other
>favors, not simple agreement of views.
Uuuh, please go back and explain who "his" views are... I would guess
that's Scalia... he was far right, that much is obvious. All I have
to do is to know the philosophical question and I could predict
Scalia's vote with 100% accuracy. Douglas was far left. If you knew
the question, there were no surprises.
Douglas was "in the left's pocket" meaning that he was a vote they
could take to the bank. Scalia was "in the right's pocket" because he
never handed them anything but what they expected.
That's pretty straightforward, sir, and that *is* the point *I* am
trying to make. If you're trying to make a different one, then please
feel free to do so; however, I haven't seen it yet. Don't talk about
what *I* said and try to claim I'm avoiding *your* point... you'll
have to make that on your own; don't expect me to make it for you,
sir!
Knock off the "weaseling" vocabulary... just make your point. Quit
whining about what *I* said and say what *you* think is the point.
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:57:00 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Irrelevant and you are avoiding the point. You just gave us your view
>of his views. Fine. Why does that make him in someone's pocket. Before
>you start weaseling, that phrase implies bought with cash or other
>favors, not simple agreement of views.
Uuuh, please go back and explain who "his" views are... I would guess
that's Scalia... he was far right, that much is obvious. All I have
to do is to know the philosophical question and I could predict
Scalia's vote with 100% accuracy. Douglas was far left. If you knew
the question, there were no surprises.
Douglas was "in the left's pocket" meaning that he was a vote they
could take to the bank. Scalia was "in the right's pocket" because he
never handed them anything but what they expected.
That's pretty straightforward, sir, and that *is* the point *I* am
trying to make. If you're trying to make a different one, then please
feel free to do so; however, I haven't seen it yet. Don't talk about
what *I* said and try to claim I'm avoiding *your* point... you'll
have to make that on your own; don't expect me to make it for you,
sir!
Knock off the "weaseling" vocabulary... just make your point. Quit
whining about what *I* said and say what *you* think is the point.
Jones
!Jones
Oct 18, 2016, 9:16:57 PM10/18/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:47:17 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well, when they do, we can have this discussion if they change it.
Oh, I have a feeling that it will change pretty radically over the
next few years.
We have had this bit about unrestricted gun proliferation for
20-something years and all we have seen is an ever-increasing crime
rate fueled by mass shootings unmatched by any other civilized
country.
We're just tired of it and, based on the coming election, we hope it
changes... here's why we're hopeful:
We expect Hillary to nominate Garland thereby playing to Obama's base;
the republicans, should they, by some miracle, retain a senate
majority, will be out of options. It ain't a done deal that they even
keep a majority... maybe??? Some polls give 'em a 0.36 probability; I
am not taking a position.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: will probably retire soon; she's pretty liberal,
so a liberal replacement would have to be *real* liberal to change the
chemistry very much.
Anthony Kennedy: hard to say; a flaming liberal replacement would have
a severe impact on the court!
The above will probably be Hillary nominations even as a one-term
president!
****************************************************************
Stephen Breyer might retire... might not; however, he's about 60%
liberal... or so. The right can probably argue for a moderate.
There are very few questions regarding who the next president will be.
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:47:17 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Well, when they do, we can have this discussion if they change it.
next few years.
We have had this bit about unrestricted gun proliferation for
20-something years and all we have seen is an ever-increasing crime
rate fueled by mass shootings unmatched by any other civilized
country.
We're just tired of it and, based on the coming election, we hope it
changes... here's why we're hopeful:
We expect Hillary to nominate Garland thereby playing to Obama's base;
the republicans, should they, by some miracle, retain a senate
majority, will be out of options. It ain't a done deal that they even
keep a majority... maybe??? Some polls give 'em a 0.36 probability; I
am not taking a position.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: will probably retire soon; she's pretty liberal,
so a liberal replacement would have to be *real* liberal to change the
chemistry very much.
Anthony Kennedy: hard to say; a flaming liberal replacement would have
a severe impact on the court!
The above will probably be Hillary nominations even as a one-term
president!
****************************************************************
Stephen Breyer might retire... might not; however, he's about 60%
liberal... or so. The right can probably argue for a moderate.
There are very few questions regarding who the next president will be.
Jones
rbowman
Oct 18, 2016, 11:52:09 PM10/18/16
to
and Catholics and see what happens. I do agree the Republicans should
have taken Garland. Who knows what goat is behind the other door. If
they lose their majority all they can do is filibuster until the Dems
shut them down.
rbowman
Oct 18, 2016, 11:58:21 PM10/18/16
to
On 10/18/2016 07:16 PM, !Jones wrote:
> We're just tired of it and, based on the coming election, we hope it
> changes... here's why we're hopeful:
It won't. If you want the national crime rate to go down institute a
> We're just tired of it and, based on the coming election, we hope it
> changes... here's why we're hopeful:
'one strike and you're dead' policy in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore,
Compton, and so forth. The bangers aren't shopping at Gander Mountain
and filling out 4473's.
Racist? Afraid so. When around 5% of the homicides in Chicago involve
whites as either the victim or perpetrator how can it be anything but?
rbowman
Oct 19, 2016, 12:01:26 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/18/2016 01:54 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>
> Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US,
> they are a disgustingly law abiding country
We can ship them the entire BLM contingent; that will fix them. Funny
>
> Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US,
> they are a disgustingly law abiding country
how mostly homogeneous countries tend to be law abiding where the
multi-culti experiments do not work so well.
news16
Oct 19, 2016, 12:08:59 AM10/19/16
to
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:58:34 -0600, rbowman wrote:
> Racist? Afraid so. When around 5% of the homicides in Chicago involve
> whites as either the victim or perpetrator how can it be anything but?
To prove you not just a worthless mouth, when did it change. At one
> Racist? Afraid so. When around 5% of the homicides in Chicago involve
> whites as either the victim or perpetrator how can it be anything but?
stage, the white burbs were the problem.
news16
Oct 19, 2016, 12:16:33 AM10/19/16
to
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:01:39 -0600, rbowman wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 01:54 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US,
>> they are a disgustingly law abiding country
>
> We can ship them the entire BLM contingent; that will fix them.
It will definitely fix the BLM contingent, permanently.
> On 10/18/2016 01:54 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US,
>> they are a disgustingly law abiding country
>
> We can ship them the entire BLM contingent; that will fix them.
>Funny
> how mostly homogeneous countries tend to be law abiding where the
> multi-culti experiments do not work so well.
Dechucka
Oct 19, 2016, 12:28:59 AM10/19/16
to
"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:e6o9gi...@mid.individual.net...
PaxPerPoten
Oct 19, 2016, 2:34:46 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/18/2016 4:33 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>
> "PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
> news:nu63fp$o35$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/18/2016 8:01 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
>>> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>>
>>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>>> *GUNS*!!!
>>>
>>> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
>>> checks... they work!
>>
>> Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the Government.
>> It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
>> regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
>> weapons.
>
> Cite please
Google is your Friend.. Switzerland is the oldest and longest Democracy
>
> "PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
> news:nu63fp$o35$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/18/2016 8:01 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
>>> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>>
>>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>>> *GUNS*!!!
>>>
>>> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
>>> checks... they work!
>>
>> Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the Government.
>> It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
>> regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
>> weapons.
>
> Cite please
on earth. Since the later 1200's they have been free, armed and the
Roman Catholics have hired their military to Guard the Vatican. The
Swiss Regular Military takes an Oath to never Surrender. That is why
Hitler left them basically untouched.
>
>>
>> Non Citizens must register to carry firearms in Switzerland. If you as
>> a noncitizen or a new citizen piss the Swiss off...You are deported
>> withing a couple of days with no appeal.
>
>
> Do you hear voices telling you this crap or just make it up
When you finally lick the shit off your fingertips and can type without
>>
>> Non Citizens must register to carry firearms in Switzerland. If you as
>> a noncitizen or a new citizen piss the Swiss off...You are deported
>> withing a couple of days with no appeal.
>
>
> Do you hear voices telling you this crap or just make it up
slipping off the keys...Do a Google search and then slither away in shame!
Dechucka
Oct 19, 2016, 2:43:59 AM10/19/16
to
"PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
> On 10/18/2016 4:33 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
>> news:nu63fp$o35$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/18/2016 8:01 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
>>>> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>>>> *GUNS*!!!
>>>>
>>>> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
>>>> checks... they work!
>>>
>>> Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the Government.
>>> It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
>>> regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
>>> weapons.
>>
>> Cite please
>
> Google is your Friend.. Switzerland is the oldest and longest Democracy on
> earth. Since the later 1200's they have been free, armed and the Roman
> Catholics have hired their military to Guard the Vatican. The Swiss
> Regular Military takes an Oath to never Surrender. That is why Hitler left
> them basically untouched.
1) no cite for Swiss Banks being protected by automatic weapons
>>
>> "PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
>> news:nu63fp$o35$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/18/2016 8:01 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
>>>> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>>>> *GUNS*!!!
>>>>
>>>> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
>>>> checks... they work!
>>>
>>> Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the Government.
>>> It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
>>> regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
>>> weapons.
>>
>> Cite please
>
> Google is your Friend.. Switzerland is the oldest and longest Democracy on
> earth. Since the later 1200's they have been free, armed and the Roman
> Catholics have hired their military to Guard the Vatican. The Swiss
> Regular Military takes an Oath to never Surrender. That is why Hitler left
> them basically untouched.
2) not everyone has Gov supplied guns and ammo. Even reservists have there
ammo secured in central armories'
3) Hitler didn't invade Switzerland as he needed to sell his gold somewhere,
the Swiss were producing war material for him e.g. ball bearings and
wouldn't have the shit bombed out of them, he needed the tunnels to Italy
which would have been venerable to partisan attack and so on.
4) I think you're confusing the Swiss military with the Swiss Guard when it
comes to the oath thing
Dechucka
Oct 19, 2016, 2:45:58 AM10/19/16
to
"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G76dnV-79Lq0i5rF...@westnet.com.au...
PaxPerPoten
Oct 19, 2016, 2:58:25 AM10/19/16
to
> 2) not everyone has Gov supplied guns and ammo. Even reservists have
> there ammo secured in central armories'
the home...it is the Law.
> 3) Hitler didn't invade Switzerland as he needed to sell his gold
> somewhere, the Swiss were producing war material for him e.g. ball
> bearings and wouldn't have the shit bombed out of them,
agree to make some machine parts in return for Coal that the Swiss have
none of. The Swiss were not buying Gold..the sent all of their Gold
reserves to the United States and could not retrieve it until 1949.
Also the Swiss had Red Cross inspection teams that checked all sides
Prisoner of war camps and delivered care packages. The Swiss also were
the gate to the Underground railroad for escaping Jews. Berne was the
Home of the *International Congress of Jews* that declared economic war
on Germany in the 1930's
he needed the
> tunnels to Italy which would have been venerable to partisan attack and
> so on.
allowed across Switzerland!!!
> 4) I think you're confusing the Swiss military with the Swiss Guard when
> it comes to the oath thing
PaxPerPoten
Oct 19, 2016, 2:59:42 AM10/19/16
to
Dechucka
Oct 19, 2016, 3:19:34 AM10/19/16
to
"PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
I've been in the pub since half past three"
The Old Quartermasters song.
No such frigging luck, RFS tonight
Dechucka
Oct 19, 2016, 3:24:00 AM10/19/16
to
"PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
>
>> 2) not everyone has Gov supplied guns and ammo. Even reservists have
>> there ammo secured in central armories'
>
> Sorry Sonny...But every reservist has 3 days worth of fighting Ammo in the
> home...it is the Law.
It's the law he doesn't, try and keep up by doing some research
>> 2) not everyone has Gov supplied guns and ammo. Even reservists have
>> there ammo secured in central armories'
>
> Sorry Sonny...But every reservist has 3 days worth of fighting Ammo in the
> home...it is the Law.
>
>> 3) Hitler didn't invade Switzerland as he needed to sell his gold
>> somewhere, the Swiss were producing war material for him e.g. ball
>> bearings and wouldn't have the shit bombed out of them,
>
> Nope...Switzerland refused to make full weaponry for Germany.
But did
> agree to make some machine parts in return for Coal that the Swiss have
> none of. The Swiss were not buying Gold..the sent all of their Gold
> reserves to the United States and could not retrieve it until 1949.
They were buying German gold and acting as intermediatrys
> agree to make some machine parts in return for Coal that the Swiss have
> none of. The Swiss were not buying Gold..the sent all of their Gold
> reserves to the United States and could not retrieve it until 1949.
> Also the Swiss had Red Cross inspection teams that checked all sides
> Prisoner of war camps and delivered care packages. The Swiss also were the
> gate to the Underground railroad for escaping Jews. Berne was the
> Home of the *International Congress of Jews* that declared economic war on
> Germany in the 1930's
>
> he needed the
>> tunnels to Italy which would have been venerable to partisan attack and
>> so on.
>
> Actually the Italians blew up some of those. And War materials were not
> allowed across Switzerland!!!
look so I don't know basis
>
>> 4) I think you're confusing the Swiss military with the Swiss Guard when
>> it comes to the oath thing
>
> The Swiss Guard are Swiss military on special assignment.
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 6:31:37 AM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:03:59 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>iirc, this country has had a background check for a couple of decades.
>In fact the sheriff of the adjoining county went to court when the Feds
>wanted him to do it for free:
Well, no, we don't. I can buy a gun just fine in most states
perfectly legally with no background check... all I have to show the
seller are pictures of dead presidents in sufficient quantity; no
identification is required.
We passed a law that mandated background checks... then our gun lobby
promptly loaded it full of exceptions, special cases, "loopholes", and
disclaimers... then they stood back and said: "See? We *told* you it
wouldn't work!" The law isn't effective because 1) it is based
entirely on the honor system in most states and 2) if my state has a
background check requirment, I can simply drive across a state line
and avoid it.
Background checks work, though; they have a long history of working...
we have just never tried them. I think it's time that we, at least
*tried* them for a few years... let's try 'em for al long as we have
tried gun proliferation and then see if there's any difference. I
expect that it's probably going to happen soon, anyway.
I doubt we will suddenly find ourselves living in a world of
serendipitous harmony because it is our national character to be a
violent, aggressive people; something that simple probably won't
change our social fabric.
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:03:59 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>iirc, this country has had a background check for a couple of decades.
>In fact the sheriff of the adjoining county went to court when the Feds
>wanted him to do it for free:
Well, no, we don't. I can buy a gun just fine in most states
perfectly legally with no background check... all I have to show the
seller are pictures of dead presidents in sufficient quantity; no
identification is required.
We passed a law that mandated background checks... then our gun lobby
promptly loaded it full of exceptions, special cases, "loopholes", and
disclaimers... then they stood back and said: "See? We *told* you it
wouldn't work!" The law isn't effective because 1) it is based
entirely on the honor system in most states and 2) if my state has a
background check requirment, I can simply drive across a state line
and avoid it.
Background checks work, though; they have a long history of working...
we have just never tried them. I think it's time that we, at least
*tried* them for a few years... let's try 'em for al long as we have
tried gun proliferation and then see if there's any difference. I
expect that it's probably going to happen soon, anyway.
I doubt we will suddenly find ourselves living in a world of
serendipitous harmony because it is our national character to be a
violent, aggressive people; something that simple probably won't
change our social fabric.
Jones
Impicit Bias
Oct 19, 2016, 6:40:59 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/19/2016 5:31 AM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:03:59 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
> <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> iirc, this country has had a background check for a couple of decades.
>> In fact the sheriff of the adjoining county went to court when the Feds
>> wanted him to do it for free:
>
> Well, no, we don't. I can buy a gun just fine in most states
> perfectly legally with no background check... all I have to show the
> seller are pictures of dead presidents in sufficient quantity; no
> identification is required.
Most of us don't deal in the back alleys that you do.
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:03:59 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
> <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> iirc, this country has had a background check for a couple of decades.
>> In fact the sheriff of the adjoining county went to court when the Feds
>> wanted him to do it for free:
>
> Well, no, we don't. I can buy a gun just fine in most states
> perfectly legally with no background check... all I have to show the
> seller are pictures of dead presidents in sufficient quantity; no
> identification is required.
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 7:29:22 AM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:08:59 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Calling people who disagree with you insane and trying to make fun of
>them is a pretty weak debate position.
>
>Just to follow the lead where you want to take this comedy-fest,
>answer my question in direct simple English, are you willing to say it
>WON'T stop at that.
>
>When you are done saying how we can trust the government promises, you
>might address:
>
>If you like your doctor you can keep them.
>If you like your health plan you can keep it.
>The average family will get better care and save $2,500.
>The income tax is voluntary.
>Only very rich people will ever be subject to income tax.
>
>For extra points, you may then address whether gun owners are insane
>for not trusting the government or if liberals are insane FOR
>believing them.
I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about. If we don't like
our government, we can vote 'em out of office, you know. In fact, you
will have an opportunity to participate in that process in less than
three weeks. Just because everyone else doesn't see it just like *I*
do doesn't mean the system is a failure... be sure to vote!
I don't know a whole lot about health care in the macro perspective;
it has its good points and also bad, or so I understand. The pre-ACA
system was broken. Of course you *may* keep your doctor and health
plan insofar as the ACA goes; however, the ACA does not address your
doctor's practice or the continued availability of your health plan...
it's a major change.
The point being that the ACA never mandated that you change doctors;
however, it did change the whole landscape. Will it stop at that? I
don't know... do you mean "government death panels" and the like? A
people get the leaders they will follow; if everyone ignores 'em,
they're not leaders.
"Income tax is voluntary???" I never heard anybody say that; are you
suggesting that it *should* be and are miffed because it isn't?
>address whether gun owners are insane for not trusting the government...
I'm not sure what you want on the "trust" comment; everything in life
is based on a complex "web of trust"... some people, one trusts more
than others. Do I *trust* the government?... well, let me put it like
this: I trust the government more that I'd trust a militia group
taking over bird sanctuaries because they think it's time for an armed
insurrection... does that address the question? Essentially, I trust
*you* (I mean, I have no reason not to); however, if you want to have
a gun, I want you to pass the background check. The same applies to
everyone. Nobody is trying to take your gun away from you unless you
start blowing up post offices and that sort of thing... or threatening
to do so.
If I object to bombing federal buildings, does that make me a "sheep"?
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:08:59 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Calling people who disagree with you insane and trying to make fun of
>them is a pretty weak debate position.
>
>Just to follow the lead where you want to take this comedy-fest,
>answer my question in direct simple English, are you willing to say it
>WON'T stop at that.
>
>When you are done saying how we can trust the government promises, you
>might address:
>
>If you like your doctor you can keep them.
>If you like your health plan you can keep it.
>The average family will get better care and save $2,500.
>The income tax is voluntary.
>Only very rich people will ever be subject to income tax.
>
>For extra points, you may then address whether gun owners are insane
>for not trusting the government or if liberals are insane FOR
>believing them.
I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about. If we don't like
our government, we can vote 'em out of office, you know. In fact, you
will have an opportunity to participate in that process in less than
three weeks. Just because everyone else doesn't see it just like *I*
do doesn't mean the system is a failure... be sure to vote!
I don't know a whole lot about health care in the macro perspective;
it has its good points and also bad, or so I understand. The pre-ACA
system was broken. Of course you *may* keep your doctor and health
plan insofar as the ACA goes; however, the ACA does not address your
doctor's practice or the continued availability of your health plan...
it's a major change.
The point being that the ACA never mandated that you change doctors;
however, it did change the whole landscape. Will it stop at that? I
don't know... do you mean "government death panels" and the like? A
people get the leaders they will follow; if everyone ignores 'em,
they're not leaders.
"Income tax is voluntary???" I never heard anybody say that; are you
suggesting that it *should* be and are miffed because it isn't?
>address whether gun owners are insane for not trusting the government...
I'm not sure what you want on the "trust" comment; everything in life
is based on a complex "web of trust"... some people, one trusts more
than others. Do I *trust* the government?... well, let me put it like
this: I trust the government more that I'd trust a militia group
taking over bird sanctuaries because they think it's time for an armed
insurrection... does that address the question? Essentially, I trust
*you* (I mean, I have no reason not to); however, if you want to have
a gun, I want you to pass the background check. The same applies to
everyone. Nobody is trying to take your gun away from you unless you
start blowing up post offices and that sort of thing... or threatening
to do so.
If I object to bombing federal buildings, does that make me a "sheep"?
Jones
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 8:12:53 AM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:44:55 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>What do you mean by "they work"? That Switzerland has
>background checks, and those checks keep guns out of
>the hands of criminals? If that's what you mean back
>up your assertion with some hard facts. Prove that
>Switzerland has criminals who can't get their hands
>on any guns, and that those criminals can't get any
>guns BECAUSE OF background check laws.
Ah, yes... the old "prove it" line. You *have* heard of what's known
as "the Dickey Amendment", have you naught? You could probably fill a
book with things I don't know; however, I do know social research and
there are two terms to avoid: "prove" and "because of".
>That Switzerland has background checks <comma splice> and those checks
for "proof", BTW, is usually a precursor to what's known as the "more
information troll" and I'm not going there.)
1) Does Switzerland have [universal] background checks? Absolutely...
I mean, I don't live there; however, based on what I have read, they
do. They also have strict registration not only of guns, but also
ammunition. I'm not going to paste a URL; you can Google as well as I
can.
2) Do the Swiss background checks "keep guns out of the hands of
criminals"? Well, the Swiss gun homicide rate is orders of magnitude
lower than the US rate; however, their criminals might all be
passivists and the US is just accident-prone???
Societies that follow effective, common-sense gun practices tend to
have much lower gun-related death rates than countries that do not...
and, by that, I do not mean simply passing Draconian gun laws that
everyone ignores.
By the way, effective gun practices have never correlated with
prohibiting gun ownership; however, it might interfere with stroking a
gun fetish; they usually don't allow any gun you want, as many as you
want, any time you want, any place you want... and so on. I mention
Switzerland only because I understand that they're the society most
like the US in terms of gun proliferation... I have never actually
visited the country; however, I would like to sometime. I have,
though, traveled quite a bit and, in most western countries (Europe,
for example), the people are not particularly impressed with the
protections we have in place in the U.S. for human rights, personal
privacy, and individual liberty. While they will acknowledge that we
deffo got guns out the gazoo, they quickly point out that they don't
*need* to carry a gun and they wouldn't want to live where people do.
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:44:55 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>What do you mean by "they work"? That Switzerland has
>background checks, and those checks keep guns out of
>the hands of criminals? If that's what you mean back
>up your assertion with some hard facts. Prove that
>Switzerland has criminals who can't get their hands
>on any guns, and that those criminals can't get any
>guns BECAUSE OF background check laws.
as "the Dickey Amendment", have you naught? You could probably fill a
book with things I don't know; however, I do know social research and
there are two terms to avoid: "prove" and "because of".
>That Switzerland has background checks <comma splice> and those checks
>keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
Since it's a conjunction, I'm assuming it's two questions. (A demand
for "proof", BTW, is usually a precursor to what's known as the "more
information troll" and I'm not going there.)
1) Does Switzerland have [universal] background checks? Absolutely...
I mean, I don't live there; however, based on what I have read, they
do. They also have strict registration not only of guns, but also
ammunition. I'm not going to paste a URL; you can Google as well as I
can.
2) Do the Swiss background checks "keep guns out of the hands of
criminals"? Well, the Swiss gun homicide rate is orders of magnitude
lower than the US rate; however, their criminals might all be
passivists and the US is just accident-prone???
Societies that follow effective, common-sense gun practices tend to
have much lower gun-related death rates than countries that do not...
and, by that, I do not mean simply passing Draconian gun laws that
everyone ignores.
By the way, effective gun practices have never correlated with
prohibiting gun ownership; however, it might interfere with stroking a
gun fetish; they usually don't allow any gun you want, as many as you
want, any time you want, any place you want... and so on. I mention
Switzerland only because I understand that they're the society most
like the US in terms of gun proliferation... I have never actually
visited the country; however, I would like to sometime. I have,
though, traveled quite a bit and, in most western countries (Europe,
for example), the people are not particularly impressed with the
protections we have in place in the U.S. for human rights, personal
privacy, and individual liberty. While they will acknowledge that we
deffo got guns out the gazoo, they quickly point out that they don't
*need* to carry a gun and they wouldn't want to live where people do.
Jones
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 8:18:34 AM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:54:35 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Dechucka"
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US, they
>are a disgustingly law abiding country
So I have heard. I'm always amazed when I cross the Canadian border
and realize that everyone (most of 'em, anyway) is obeying the speed
limit. I suspect that it's because of their metric system...
kilometers seem faster, of course.
Jones
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:54:35 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Dechucka"
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US, they
>are a disgustingly law abiding country
and realize that everyone (most of 'em, anyway) is obeying the speed
limit. I suspect that it's because of their metric system...
kilometers seem faster, of course.
Jones
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 8:32:20 AM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, in talk.politics.guns PaxPerPoten
<P...@USA.org> wrote:
>Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the Government.
>It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
>regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
>weapons.
>
>Non Citizens must register to carry firearms in Switzerland. If you as a
>noncitizen or a new citizen piss the Swiss off...You are deported
>withing a couple of days with no appeal.
I suspect that you probably know as much about Switzerland as I do; it
sounds like it, anyway.
-> I do not believe the Swiss government provides everyone with a gun.
-> I have seen mandatory military service in the US in my lifetime;
the laws are still in place and our young people still register.
-> Banks in Europe look a lot like banks in the US; I have never been
in a Swiss bank.
-> If you actually carried a gun into a public building anyplace in
Europe, you'd be laughed out of it. Non residents cannot legally own
a gun in the US; we just don't check. If you don't want to be kicked
out of the country, don't piss 'em off... samey-same in the US. (By
the way, they drive on the wrong side of the road there.)
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, in talk.politics.guns PaxPerPoten
<P...@USA.org> wrote:
>Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the Government.
>It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a term of
>regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
>weapons.
>
>Non Citizens must register to carry firearms in Switzerland. If you as a
>noncitizen or a new citizen piss the Swiss off...You are deported
>withing a couple of days with no appeal.
sounds like it, anyway.
-> I do not believe the Swiss government provides everyone with a gun.
-> I have seen mandatory military service in the US in my lifetime;
the laws are still in place and our young people still register.
-> Banks in Europe look a lot like banks in the US; I have never been
in a Swiss bank.
-> If you actually carried a gun into a public building anyplace in
Europe, you'd be laughed out of it. Non residents cannot legally own
a gun in the US; we just don't check. If you don't want to be kicked
out of the country, don't piss 'em off... samey-same in the US. (By
the way, they drive on the wrong side of the road there.)
Jones
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 8:34:07 AM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:33:47 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Dechucka"
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Do you hear voices telling you this crap or just make it up
We're just experts. I know a lot about Switzerland... in fact, I have
a pound of their cheese in my fridge... so there!
Jones
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:33:47 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Dechucka"
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Do you hear voices telling you this crap or just make it up
a pound of their cheese in my fridge... so there!
Jones
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 8:39:36 AM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:45:19 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>When did they go away? Per 10 USC 311 that are still around:
Pay attention, please! Militia membership is not a criterion for gun
ownerfhip is what we're saying. Of course they're "still around"; we
have a group near here that drills almost every week when the weather
is nice. They dress up in cammies and velcro, march around with their
guns, and salute each other... you know... militia stuff.
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:45:19 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>When did they go away? Per 10 USC 311 that are still around:
Pay attention, please! Militia membership is not a criterion for gun
ownerfhip is what we're saying. Of course they're "still around"; we
have a group near here that drills almost every week when the weather
is nice. They dress up in cammies and velcro, march around with their
guns, and salute each other... you know... militia stuff.
Jones
Frnak McKenney
Oct 19, 2016, 9:33:37 AM10/19/16
to
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:08:59 -0700, Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:01:22 -0500, !Jones wrote:
[...]
> When you are done saying how we can trust the government promises, you
> might address:
>
> If you like your doctor you can keep them.
> If you like your health plan you can keep it.
> The average family will get better care and save $2,500.
> The income tax is voluntary.
> Only very rich people will ever be subject to income tax.
You left one out:
If you like your nukes you can keep them.
Sorry -- couldn't resist.
Frank McKenney
--
Capitalism succeeds because it accommodates chance and thus accords
with the reality of the human situation in a fundamentally incompre-
hensible, but nonetheless providential, universe. Economists who
attempt to banish chance through methods of rational management also
banish the only sources of human triumph. It is no coincidence that
the most deeply pessimistic of economic and social analysts are the
advocates of radical and comprehensive systems of planning.
-- George Gilder / Wealth and Poverty, A New Edition
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank und.scr mckenney aatt mindspring d.ot com
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:01:22 -0500, !Jones wrote:
[...]
> When you are done saying how we can trust the government promises, you
> might address:
>
> If you like your doctor you can keep them.
> If you like your health plan you can keep it.
> The average family will get better care and save $2,500.
> The income tax is voluntary.
> Only very rich people will ever be subject to income tax.
If you like your nukes you can keep them.
Sorry -- couldn't resist.
Frank McKenney
--
Capitalism succeeds because it accommodates chance and thus accords
with the reality of the human situation in a fundamentally incompre-
hensible, but nonetheless providential, universe. Economists who
attempt to banish chance through methods of rational management also
banish the only sources of human triumph. It is no coincidence that
the most deeply pessimistic of economic and social analysts are the
advocates of radical and comprehensive systems of planning.
-- George Gilder / Wealth and Poverty, A New Edition
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank und.scr mckenney aatt mindspring d.ot com
rbowman
Oct 19, 2016, 10:32:32 AM10/19/16
to
You mean when the wops ran Cicero? That was about 80 years ago.
Seriously, read the analysis and get back to me. There are more recent
statistics if you google but homicide in Chicago is a black/hispanic
occupation.
rbowman
Oct 19, 2016, 10:36:57 AM10/19/16
to
France where when someone says 'French' it might be someone from
anyplace in the world with their own third world religion and cultural
habits. We had a 'German exchange student' killed here a few years ago.
He was a Turk that liked to raid other people's garages. Old habits die
hard.
Multiculturalism means ultimately the cultures will fight with each other.
rbowman
Oct 19, 2016, 10:39:14 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/18/2016 10:28 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>
> Homogeneous? they have 3 main different groups speaking different languages
And they're all Caucasian. Language doesn't mean much; it's genetics. A
>
> Homogeneous? they have 3 main different groups speaking different languages
Somali speaking English is still a Somali. If a cow is born in a pigpen
is it a cow or a pig?
rbowman
Oct 19, 2016, 10:42:21 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/19/2016 04:31 AM, !Jones wrote:
> Well, no, we don't. I can buy a gun just fine in most states
> perfectly legally with no background check... all I have to show the
> seller are pictures of dead presidents in sufficient quantity; no
> identification is required.
You can buy crack, heroin, and oxycontin too. How is that war on drugs
> Well, no, we don't. I can buy a gun just fine in most states
> perfectly legally with no background check... all I have to show the
> seller are pictures of dead presidents in sufficient quantity; no
> identification is required.
going? Bring enough Franklins and you can even get a RPG. Try not to but
from a FBI agent though.
Buzz Forward
Oct 19, 2016, 10:57:17 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/16/2016 8:06 PM, raykeller wrote:
> Bracken: A Scenario for the Second Civil War
> MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a
> Constitutionalist, and a self-described "freedomista".
and a clueless fuckwit, just like ray-ray keeler
> Bracken: A Scenario for the Second Civil War
> MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a
> Constitutionalist, and a self-described "freedomista".
and a clueless fuckwit, just like ray-ray keeler
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:10:33 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 9:24 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 7:48 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>
>> wasn't it in Miller where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment
>> no longer depended on militia membership?
>
> No, because it never did.
It's true that it never did, but it was widely believed by many that it
did, and many still do believe it. As a practical matter rather than a
matter of valid logic or constitutional history, if the SCOTUS says that
gun ownership is dependent on militia membership, then it is. That's a
defect in our system, but it's going to be a defect in just about any
system.
>> Thus, if you remove the "militia" language, we're left with:
>> "[The] well regulated [...] right of the people to keep and
>> bear arms shall not be infringed." Which probably reflects
>> exactly what the founders meant to write.
>>
> No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a "D"
> student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
> right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
> have to remove the entire dependent clause.
Well regulated in the context of the second amendment means that the
militia has a defined structure and is subject to discipline, as in
training, marching, drills, etc. That's what it means. The right, of
course, is not regulated. The right is *limited*, and as we have shown,
the restrictions are inherent in the right itself. Justice Scalia got that.
> On 10/17/2016 7:48 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>
>> wasn't it in Miller where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment
>> no longer depended on militia membership?
>
> No, because it never did.
It's true that it never did, but it was widely believed by many that it
did, and many still do believe it. As a practical matter rather than a
matter of valid logic or constitutional history, if the SCOTUS says that
gun ownership is dependent on militia membership, then it is. That's a
defect in our system, but it's going to be a defect in just about any
system.
>> Thus, if you remove the "militia" language, we're left with:
>> "[The] well regulated [...] right of the people to keep and
>> bear arms shall not be infringed." Which probably reflects
>> exactly what the founders meant to write.
>>
> No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a "D"
> student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
> right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
> have to remove the entire dependent clause.
Well regulated in the context of the second amendment means that the
militia has a defined structure and is subject to discipline, as in
training, marching, drills, etc. That's what it means. The right, of
course, is not regulated. The right is *limited*, and as we have shown,
the restrictions are inherent in the right itself. Justice Scalia got that.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:12:02 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 9:26 AM, Frank wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 10:29 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> "raykeller"
>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
>> on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700 typed in misc.survivalism the
>> following:
>>>
>>> My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>>> victory in November 2016, followed in 2017
>>
>> Why wait so long?
>>
>> Most of what would form The Confederacy had seceded by the time
>> the new President was inaugurated. I doubt that those who favor
>> direct action are going to wait for the Democrats to officially take
>> power.
>>
>
> Those Democrats opposed to the 2nd amendment and voting for Hilary do
> not realize that if she gets the supreme court judges she wants that not
> only the 2nd amendment will be eroded.
>
> These progressives will also go after the first amendment with the
> argument that we did not have all these rapid methods of communication
> when the amendment was written and it should also be revised.
>
> It's a slippery slope.
The proggies intend to gut the entire Bill of Rights, but most
particularly the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments.
> On 10/17/2016 10:29 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> "raykeller"
>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
>> on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:06:46 -0700 typed in misc.survivalism the
>> following:
>>>
>>> My scenario for a second American civil war involves a Hillary Clinton
>>> victory in November 2016, followed in 2017
>>
>> Why wait so long?
>>
>> Most of what would form The Confederacy had seceded by the time
>> the new President was inaugurated. I doubt that those who favor
>> direct action are going to wait for the Democrats to officially take
>> power.
>>
>
> Those Democrats opposed to the 2nd amendment and voting for Hilary do
> not realize that if she gets the supreme court judges she wants that not
> only the 2nd amendment will be eroded.
>
> These progressives will also go after the first amendment with the
> argument that we did not have all these rapid methods of communication
> when the amendment was written and it should also be revised.
>
> It's a slippery slope.
The proggies intend to gut the entire Bill of Rights, but most
particularly the first, second, fourth and fifth amendments.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:13:08 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 12:07 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>
> "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote in message news:nu1f7g$sv8$1...@dont-email.me...
>> author of several books, including Enemies Foreign and Domestic. This
>> is the first part in a series of different author's thoughts on the
>> next civil war. Here's what Bracken sees as a potential scenario for
>> the next American Civil War.
>
> Another internal terrorist mob for the authorities to hunt down and
> imprison.
Keeler's paranoid fantasy isn't going to come to pass, but if it did,
your fantastical hypothetical response to it would not happen, either.
>
> "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote in message news:nu1f7g$sv8$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Bracken: A Scenario for the Second Civil War
>> MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a
>> Constitutionalist, and a self-described "freedomista". He's the
>> MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a
>> author of several books, including Enemies Foreign and Domestic. This
>> is the first part in a series of different author's thoughts on the
>> next civil war. Here's what Bracken sees as a potential scenario for
>> the next American Civil War.
>
> Another internal terrorist mob for the authorities to hunt down and
> imprison.
Keeler's paranoid fantasy isn't going to come to pass, but if it did,
your fantastical hypothetical response to it would not happen, either.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:14:14 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 1:27 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:13:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Well, the term "militia" has certainly evolved; wasn't it in Miller
>>> where SCOTUS asserted that the second amendment no longer depended on
>>> militia membership?
>>
>> That was stated firmly in Heller.
>>> militia membership?
>>
>
> I was thinking it predated Heller. Miller was the sawed-off shotgun
> thingy and he was saying "but I'm in the militia" and the fed was
> saying "there is no military use for a sawed-off shotgun." Court told
> both of 'em to STFU and he didn't *have* to be in a militia, then
> upheld the conviction under the "well regulated" part of the clause.
>
> Heller essentially said that prohibiting *all* guns exceeded "well
> regulated" and crossed into "infringed".
That's not what Heller said.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:23:14 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 1:31 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:24:38 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a "D"
>> student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
>> right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
>> have to remove the entire dependent clause.
>
> The "militia" no longer applies; however the "well regulated" clause
> Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a "D"
>> student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
>> right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
>> have to remove the entire dependent clause.
>
> does.
It doesn't. He is right: you failed English grammar, not to mention
never learned law. The term "well regulated" consists of an adverb
"well" and a participial adjective "regulated." The adjective modifies
the noun, "militia." That is *all* it modifies. The adverb modifies
the adjective, qualitatively. The militia is not considered to be
regulated "a little bit" or haphazardly; it is to be well regulated.
"Well regulated" has no bearing on the right in any way. The right is
not regulated. The right is *limited*, and the limits are inherent in
the right itself, as Justice Scalia plainly understood and wrote.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:25:18 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 4:33 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> consistent with current law.
>
> I love how you can fracture grammar rules and say that's what the
> founding fathers meant. They were not as illiterate as today's
> liberals seem to be.
>
> A liberal education is a conservative idea and those gentlemen were
> extremely well educated. Not like the products of today's liberal-run
> schools who make social promotions no matter how badly the kid is
> failing their subjects. Stupid but plays well with others. Shares
> sandbox toys.
>
>> SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
>> guns are still required to be "well regulated".
>
> "Well regulated" means working.
Not here it doesn't. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:31:16 -0500, !Jones wrote:
>
>> The "militia" no longer applies; however the "well regulated" clause
>> does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
>
>> The "militia" no longer applies; however the "well regulated" clause
>> consistent with current law.
>
> I love how you can fracture grammar rules and say that's what the
> founding fathers meant. They were not as illiterate as today's
> liberals seem to be.
>
> A liberal education is a conservative idea and those gentlemen were
> extremely well educated. Not like the products of today's liberal-run
> schools who make social promotions no matter how badly the kid is
> failing their subjects. Stupid but plays well with others. Shares
> sandbox toys.
>
>> SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
>> guns are still required to be "well regulated".
>
> "Well regulated" means working.
Not here it doesn't. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:25:45 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 4:53 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:33:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> I love how you can fracture grammar rules...
>
> It's not about a grammar flame.
It's about your ignorance regarding the language and meaning of the
second amendment. That's what it's about.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:26:30 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 5:33 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> guns are required to be well regulated,
That's not what he claimed. He claimed that the *right* is well
regulated. He's still full of shit on that as well.
> On 10/17/2016 2:31 PM, !Jones wrote:
>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>
>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:24:38 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
>> Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a "D"
>>> student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
>>> right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
>>> have to remove the entire dependent clause.
>>
>> Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No, it only reflects your failing grade in English grammar. Even a "D"
>>> student knows that "well regulated" refers to the militia, not to the
>>> right, and that if you were to remove the "militia" language, you would
>>> have to remove the entire dependent clause.
>>
>> The "militia" no longer applies; however the "well regulated" clause
>> does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
>> consistent with current law.
>>
>> does. This was the intent of the original writers and is entirely
>> consistent with current law.
>>
>> SCOTUS has ruled that you don't have to be in a militia *and* that
>> guns are still required to be "well regulated".
>>
> So you say. I call bullshit on your claim that SCOTUS has ruled that
>> guns are still required to be "well regulated".
>>
> guns are required to be well regulated,
That's not what he claimed. He claimed that the *right* is well
regulated. He's still full of shit on that as well.
james g. keegan jr.
Oct 19, 2016, 11:28:22 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/17/2016 4:53 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:33:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> I love how you can fracture grammar rules...
>
> It's not about a grammar flame. It's about how the next full supreme
> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> I love how you can fracture grammar rules...
>
> court will interpret the constitution. If you had Scalia on the
> bench, *any* restriction would have been opposed because he was firmly
> in the gun lobby's pocket.
Stupid fucking lie.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:29:57 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/18/2016 12:08 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:01:22 -0500, !Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:01:22 -0500, !Jones wrote:
>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>
>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>> *GUNS*!!!
>
>
>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>
>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>> *GUNS*!!!
>
> Calling people who disagree with you insane and trying to make fun of
> them is a pretty weak debate position.
Seems to work pretty well for Paul Krugman.
> them is a pretty weak debate position.
> Just to follow the lead where you want to take this comedy-fest,
> answer my question in direct simple English, are you willing to say it
> WON'T stop at that.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:31:27 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/18/2016 5:31 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:32:24 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Here it is in Heller:
>
> OK, cool... Heller, then. Either way, the term "militia" no longer
> applies. That leaves with a "well regulated [...] right of the
> people..."
No. That's wrong. "Well regulated" does not apply to the right in any
way - not grammatically, not legally.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 11:52:10 AM10/19/16
to
On 10/18/2016 11:58 PM, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 1:43 AM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
>> news:nu745g$vk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/18/2016 4:33 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:nu63fp$o35$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>> checks... they work!
>>>
>>> Google is your Friend.. Switzerland is the oldest and longest
>>> Democracy on earth. Since the later 1200's they have been free, armed
>>> and the Roman Catholics have hired their military to Guard the
>>> Vatican. The Swiss Regular Military takes an Oath to never Surrender.
>>> That is why Hitler left them basically untouched.
>>
>> 1) no cite for Swiss Banks being protected by automatic weapons
>
> I am sure that all their security methods are open to you.
>
>> 2) not everyone has Gov supplied guns and ammo. Even reservists have
>> there ammo secured in central armories'
>
> Sorry Sonny...But every reservist has 3 days worth of fighting Ammo in
> the home...it is the Law.
More bullshit. Reservists with government-owned guns at home do not
have ammunition for those guns in their homes. The ammunition is stored
in armories. When called up for semi-annual training, reservists bring
their guns and issued ammunition as needed.
>> 3) Hitler didn't invade Switzerland as he needed to sell his gold
>> somewhere, the Swiss were producing war material for him e.g. ball
>> bearings and wouldn't have the shit bombed out of them,
>
> Nope...Switzerland refused to make full weaponry for Germany. But did
> agree to make some machine parts in return for Coal that the Swiss have
> none of. The Swiss were not buying Gold..the sent all of their Gold
> reserves to the United States and could not retrieve it until 1949.
> Also the Swiss had Red Cross inspection teams that checked all sides
> Prisoner of war camps and delivered care packages. The Swiss also were
> the gate to the Underground railroad for escaping Jews. Berne was the
> Home of the *International Congress of Jews* that declared economic war
> on Germany in the 1930's
>
> he needed the
>> tunnels to Italy which would have been venerable to partisan attack and
>> so on.
>
> Actually the Italians blew up some of those. And War materials were not
> allowed across Switzerland!!!
>
>> 4) I think you're confusing the Swiss military with the Swiss Guard when
>> it comes to the oath thing
>
> The Swiss Guard are Swiss military on special assignment.
More bullshit. The Swiss Guard at the Vatican are *not* active duty
soldiers in the Swiss federal armed forces. They have, however,
*completed* their Swiss military training. That is a condition for
induction into the Pontifical Swiss Guard.
Poxed never knows what he's talking about - ever.
> On 10/19/2016 1:43 AM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
>> news:nu745g$vk$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/18/2016 4:33 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "PaxPerPoten" <P...@USA.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:nu63fp$o35$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 10/18/2016 8:01 AM, !Jones wrote:
>>>>>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:02:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
>>>>>> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>>>>>> *GUNS*!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look at countries like Switzerland where they have background
>>>>>> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone believe it stops at that ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, they're coming to take my guns, HA HA, THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE MY
>>>>>> *GUNS*!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> checks... they work!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the
>>>>> Government.
>>>>> It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a
>>>>> term of
>>>>> regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
>>>>> weapons.
>>>>
>>>> Cite please
>>>>> Yes..They work...Everyone has a gun and ammo provided by the
>>>>> Government.
>>>>> It is mandatory to serve in the armed and ready reserve after a
>>>>> term of
>>>>> regular service. Civilian Banks are protected with automatic And heavy
>>>>> weapons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Google is your Friend.. Switzerland is the oldest and longest
>>> Democracy on earth. Since the later 1200's they have been free, armed
>>> and the Roman Catholics have hired their military to Guard the
>>> Vatican. The Swiss Regular Military takes an Oath to never Surrender.
>>> That is why Hitler left them basically untouched.
>>
>> 1) no cite for Swiss Banks being protected by automatic weapons
>
> I am sure that all their security methods are open to you.
>
>> 2) not everyone has Gov supplied guns and ammo. Even reservists have
>> there ammo secured in central armories'
>
> Sorry Sonny...But every reservist has 3 days worth of fighting Ammo in
> the home...it is the Law.
More bullshit. Reservists with government-owned guns at home do not
have ammunition for those guns in their homes. The ammunition is stored
in armories. When called up for semi-annual training, reservists bring
their guns and issued ammunition as needed.
>> 3) Hitler didn't invade Switzerland as he needed to sell his gold
>> somewhere, the Swiss were producing war material for him e.g. ball
>> bearings and wouldn't have the shit bombed out of them,
>
> Nope...Switzerland refused to make full weaponry for Germany. But did
> agree to make some machine parts in return for Coal that the Swiss have
> none of. The Swiss were not buying Gold..the sent all of their Gold
> reserves to the United States and could not retrieve it until 1949.
> Also the Swiss had Red Cross inspection teams that checked all sides
> Prisoner of war camps and delivered care packages. The Swiss also were
> the gate to the Underground railroad for escaping Jews. Berne was the
> Home of the *International Congress of Jews* that declared economic war
> on Germany in the 1930's
>
> he needed the
>> tunnels to Italy which would have been venerable to partisan attack and
>> so on.
>
> Actually the Italians blew up some of those. And War materials were not
> allowed across Switzerland!!!
>
>> 4) I think you're confusing the Swiss military with the Swiss Guard when
>> it comes to the oath thing
>
> The Swiss Guard are Swiss military on special assignment.
More bullshit. The Swiss Guard at the Vatican are *not* active duty
soldiers in the Swiss federal armed forces. They have, however,
*completed* their Swiss military training. That is a condition for
induction into the Pontifical Swiss Guard.
Poxed never knows what he's talking about - ever.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 12:20:55 PM10/19/16
to
On 10/19/2016 7:37 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 10:16 PM, news16 wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:01:39 -0600, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2016 01:54 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US,
>>>> they are a disgustingly law abiding country
>>>
>>> We can ship them the entire BLM contingent; that will fix them.
>>
>> It will definitely fix the BLM contingent, permanently.
>>
>>> Funny
>>> how mostly homogeneous countries tend to be law abiding where the
>>> multi-culti experiments do not work so well.
>>
>> What does that have to do with Switzerland.
>>
>
> Last I knew, most Swiss were Swiss.
Less and less in the big cities. I lived in Geneva for a year in the
> On 10/18/2016 10:16 PM, news16 wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 22:01:39 -0600, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2016 01:54 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US,
>>>> they are a disgustingly law abiding country
>>>
>>> We can ship them the entire BLM contingent; that will fix them.
>>
>> It will definitely fix the BLM contingent, permanently.
>>
>>> Funny
>>> how mostly homogeneous countries tend to be law abiding where the
>>> multi-culti experiments do not work so well.
>>
>> What does that have to do with Switzerland.
>>
>
> Last I knew, most Swiss were Swiss.
early 1970s, and am still in contact with some people I knew then. They
lament that Geneva has basically been overrun by non-white immigrants,
many of them Muslim.
Switzerland is an essentially conservative country with a lot of
paradoxically socialist feature, and when I say "socialist", I don't
mean social welfare - I mean real socialism, i.e. government provision
of (some) goods and services. Generally, however, the country is highly
capitalistic - the huge majority of the economy consists of private
enterprise firms operating in generally free markets.
Pertaining to this thread, one essential difference between Switzerland
and the USA is that the idea of keeping guns in the home for defense of
self and family is entirely illegitimate - legally, philosophically and
culturally. Military reservists have their military guns at home as a
requirement of their military service. People who have other guns, or
their former military guns, at home have them because they enjoy
shooting and possibly hunting. (Most Swiss do not hunt.)
Gun acquisition and ownership is *far* more regulated than in the USA.
All guns are registered, and the purchase of ammunition also requires
the furnishing of ID, address, an official police copy of one's criminal
record, and a valid gun acquisition or gun carry permit. One can only
buy ammunition for guns one provably owns.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 12:23:31 PM10/19/16
to
On 10/18/2016 9:28 PM, upchucka bullshitted
>
> "rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
> news:e6o9gi...@mid.individual.net...
their big cities are now home to an invasion of non-European immigrants.
Even so, as stated, there are only *three* large indigenous cultural
groups, rather than the hundreds one finds in multi-culti enclaves like
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and virtually all big cities in the USA.
>
> "rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
> news:e6o9gi...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 10/18/2016 01:54 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US,
>>> they are a disgustingly law abiding country
>>
>> We can ship them the entire BLM contingent; that will fix them. Funny
>>>
>>> Switzerland is a bad example for either side because, unlike the US,
>>> they are a disgustingly law abiding country
>>
>> how mostly homogeneous countries tend to be law abiding where the
>> multi-culti experiments do not work so well.
>
>> multi-culti experiments do not work so well.
>
> Homogeneous? they have 3 main different groups speaking different languages
*Ethnically*, Switzerland is still relatively homogeneous, although
their big cities are now home to an invasion of non-European immigrants.
Even so, as stated, there are only *three* large indigenous cultural
groups, rather than the hundreds one finds in multi-culti enclaves like
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and virtually all big cities in the USA.
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 12:23:53 PM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:52:21 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>I was hoping for Srinivasan. Throw a Hindu in that crowd of elderly Jews
>and Catholics and see what happens. I do agree the Republicans should
>have taken Garland. Who knows what goat is behind the other door. If
>they lose their majority all they can do is filibuster until the Dems
>shut them down.
My money is on Hillary nominating Garland simply as the path of least
resistance. That shouldn't seriously anger many groups. The
republicans didn't have to confirm him; however, it was pretty cheesy
to do go about it the way they did. Aye, goodness, would they not be
shrieking were the tables turned!
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:52:21 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>I was hoping for Srinivasan. Throw a Hindu in that crowd of elderly Jews
>and Catholics and see what happens. I do agree the Republicans should
>have taken Garland. Who knows what goat is behind the other door. If
>they lose their majority all they can do is filibuster until the Dems
>shut them down.
My money is on Hillary nominating Garland simply as the path of least
resistance. That shouldn't seriously anger many groups. The
republicans didn't have to confirm him; however, it was pretty cheesy
to do go about it the way they did. Aye, goodness, would they not be
shrieking were the tables turned!
Jones
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 12:25:11 PM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:10:32 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Correct. That's what I meant. Not the usual meaning of that phrase.
>If you do it, I'll call it what it is. "The point" WAS what YOU said.
Whatever.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:10:32 -0700, in talk.politics.guns
Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>Correct. That's what I meant. Not the usual meaning of that phrase.
>If you do it, I'll call it what it is. "The point" WAS what YOU said.
Whatever.
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 12:29:04 PM10/19/16
to
On 10/19/2016 5:12 AM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:44:55 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by "they work"? That Switzerland has
>> background checks, and those checks keep guns out of
>> the hands of criminals? If that's what you mean back
>> up your assertion with some hard facts. Prove that
>> Switzerland has criminals who can't get their hands
>> on any guns, and that those criminals can't get any
>> guns BECAUSE OF background check laws.
>
> Ah, yes... the old "prove it" line. You *have* heard of what's known
> as "the Dickey Amendment", have you naught? You could probably fill a
> book with things I don't know; however, I do know social research and
> there are two terms to avoid: "prove" and "because of".
>
>> That Switzerland has background checks <comma splice> and those checks
>> keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
>
> Since it's a conjunction, I'm assuming it's two questions. (A demand
> for "proof", BTW, is usually a precursor to what's known as the "more
> information troll" and I'm not going there.)
>
> 1) Does Switzerland have [universal] background checks? Absolutely...
> I mean, I don't live there; however, based on what I have read, they
> do. They also have strict registration not only of guns, but also
> ammunition. I'm not going to paste a URL; you can Google as well as I
> can.
>
> 2) Do the Swiss background checks "keep guns out of the hands of
> criminals"? Well, the Swiss gun homicide rate is orders of magnitude
> lower than the US rate;
Another stupid nugget of bullshit. The Swiss gun homicide rate is 0.74
per hundred thousand people; the rate for the US is 3.82. That is not
even *one* order of magnitude difference, let alone "orders of magnitude."
http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-2015-6
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 12:32:31 PM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:58:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>It won't. If you want the national crime rate to go down institute a
>'one strike and you're dead' policy in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore,
>Compton, and so forth. The bangers aren't shopping at Gander Mountain
>and filling out 4473's.
Universal background checks would stop "legal gun owners" from selling
their guns onto the street... well, they could report them as stolen,
I suppose.
I am absolutely certain that *I* never used the term "racist"; you
must be reading someone else's posting; it ain't mine, dude!
Jones
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:58:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>It won't. If you want the national crime rate to go down institute a
>'one strike and you're dead' policy in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore,
>Compton, and so forth. The bangers aren't shopping at Gander Mountain
>and filling out 4473's.
>
>Racist? Afraid so. When around 5% of the homicides in Chicago involve
>whites as either the victim or perpetrator how can it be anything but?
Of course they aren't. They steal the guns or buy 'em on the street.
>Racist? Afraid so. When around 5% of the homicides in Chicago involve
>whites as either the victim or perpetrator how can it be anything but?
Universal background checks would stop "legal gun owners" from selling
their guns onto the street... well, they could report them as stolen,
I suppose.
I am absolutely certain that *I* never used the term "racist"; you
must be reading someone else's posting; it ain't mine, dude!
Jones
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 12:33:05 PM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 04:08:36 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns news16
<new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>To prove you not just a worthless mouth, when did it change. At one
>stage, the white burbs were the problem.
Huh?
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 04:08:36 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns news16
<new...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>To prove you not just a worthless mouth, when did it change. At one
>stage, the white burbs were the problem.
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 12:33:51 PM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:41:04 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Impicit Bias
<Oh-R...@Sanctimonious.com> wrote:
>Most of us don't deal in the back alleys that you do.
Well, a 15% markup isn't bad.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:41:04 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Impicit Bias
<Oh-R...@Sanctimonious.com> wrote:
>Most of us don't deal in the back alleys that you do.
Well, a 15% markup isn't bad.
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 12:41:41 PM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:43:41 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Dechucka"
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>1) no cite for Swiss Banks being protected by automatic weapons
In Europe, I noticed that the banks had sally-ports at the entrance; I
never actually *saw* an armed guard; however, if you have one, it
would make more sense to keep him or her back in reserve.
In the US, we don't use sally-ports because the school of thought here
is to give 'em the money and get 'em out of there before they decide
to start shooting people... take their picture and arrest 'em later
when we get around to it.
I'm told that many European banks actually have gold reserves;
however, I'm *told* many things.
Jones
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:43:41 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Dechucka"
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>1) no cite for Swiss Banks being protected by automatic weapons
never actually *saw* an armed guard; however, if you have one, it
would make more sense to keep him or her back in reserve.
In the US, we don't use sally-ports because the school of thought here
is to give 'em the money and get 'em out of there before they decide
to start shooting people... take their picture and arrest 'em later
when we get around to it.
I'm told that many European banks actually have gold reserves;
however, I'm *told* many things.
Jones
!Jones
Oct 19, 2016, 12:44:06 PM10/19/16
to
x-no-idiots: yes
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:45:41 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Dechucka"
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bloody spell-check and my eyes 'vulnerable
My spell checker once changed a misspelled "election" to "erection"...
on a freshman test document!!! (... in 1999)
Jones
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:45:41 +1100, in talk.politics.guns "Dechucka"
<Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bloody spell-check and my eyes 'vulnerable
My spell checker once changed a misspelled "election" to "erection"...
on a freshman test document!!! (... in 1999)
Jones
Frank
Oct 19, 2016, 1:20:05 PM10/19/16
to
On 10/18/2016 10:10 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 07:07 AM, Frank wrote:
>>
>> I only have one vote but I will make myself heard.
>
> I will be voting for the public library's bond issue to expand the
> facility. Whether I check any of the other boxes depends on how bored i am.
The only time I do not vote is in school board elections which are off
season and rigged.
Otherwise the booths are electronic and all you need do is push buttons.
> On 10/18/2016 07:07 AM, Frank wrote:
>>
>> I only have one vote but I will make myself heard.
>
> I will be voting for the public library's bond issue to expand the
> facility. Whether I check any of the other boxes depends on how bored i am.
The only time I do not vote is in school board elections which are off
season and rigged.
Otherwise the booths are electronic and all you need do is push buttons.
Jim Wilkins
Oct 19, 2016, 1:23:20 PM10/19/16
to
"!Jones" <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote in message
news:d6te0ctf4iphikhcn...@4ax.com...
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/
news:d6te0ctf4iphikhcn...@4ax.com...
RD Sandman
Oct 19, 2016, 1:24:22 PM10/19/16
to
!Jones <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
news:dhfd0c5p0jsbcalp4...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
>
> I'm OK with that.
>
> Jones
>
>
No, it doesn't. "Well regulated" modified "militia". If there is no
relationship with the militia per the Supreme Court, there is no
relationship with a "well regulated" one.
--
RD Sandman
Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
news:dhfd0c5p0jsbcalp4...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:32:24 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Here it is in Heller:
>
> OK, cool... Heller, then. Either way, the term "militia" no longer
> applies. That leaves with a "well regulated [...] right of the
> people..." yada yada.
> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Here it is in Heller:
>
> OK, cool... Heller, then. Either way, the term "militia" no longer
> applies. That leaves with a "well regulated [...] right of the
>
> I'm OK with that.
>
> Jones
>
>
No, it doesn't. "Well regulated" modified "militia". If there is no
relationship with the militia per the Supreme Court, there is no
relationship with a "well regulated" one.
--
RD Sandman
Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
RD Sandman
Oct 19, 2016, 1:32:01 PM10/19/16
to
Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:glMNz.87583$rG2.30364
@fx34.iad:
Heller does state that regulations may apply to the right to keep and
bear arms and gives examples, such as concealed weapons, possession by
felons and/or the mentally ill, or in sensitive places such as schools or
government buildings and qualification on the sale of firearms:
Held:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is
not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The
Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such
as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the
sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds
support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of
dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.
Heller also gives what may be considered violations of the 2A. Like DC's
handgun ban in the home, and on some of the core lawful purposes of self
defense or protection of the home.
I would assume that before one can offer up what the Heller opinion said,
it would, at least, be expected that one has read it.
@fx34.iad:
bear arms and gives examples, such as concealed weapons, possession by
felons and/or the mentally ill, or in sensitive places such as schools or
government buildings and qualification on the sale of firearms:
Held:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is
not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The
Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such
as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the
sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds
support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of
dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.
Heller also gives what may be considered violations of the 2A. Like DC's
handgun ban in the home, and on some of the core lawful purposes of self
defense or protection of the home.
I would assume that before one can offer up what the Heller opinion said,
it would, at least, be expected that one has read it.
RD Sandman
Oct 19, 2016, 1:39:10 PM10/19/16
to
!Jones <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
news:ukgd0c9urm97f783v...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:47:17 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, when they do, we can have this discussion if they change it.
>
> Oh, I have a feeling that it will change pretty radically over the
> next few years.
>
> We have had this bit about unrestricted gun proliferation for
> 20-something years and all we have seen is an ever-increasing crime
> rate fueled by mass shootings unmatched by any other civilized
> country.
Oh, bullshit....more "factoids" you simply pull out of your ass. Number
of guns in this country is way up and number of homicides have dropped
since 1993.
> We're just tired of it and, based on the coming election, we hope it
> changes... here's why we're hopeful:
Your choice.....I just wish you would get your facts right, but then you
really have never cared for them.
> We expect Hillary to nominate Garland thereby playing to Obama's base;
> the republicans, should they, by some miracle, retain a senate
> majority, will be out of options.
Nope. They could still reject him if they have the votes.
It ain't a done deal that they even
> keep a majority... maybe??? Some polls give 'em a 0.36 probability; I
> am not taking a position.
>
> Ruth Bader Ginsburg: will probably retire soon; she's pretty liberal,
Yep.......the left's answer to Scalia. You might as well toss in Breyer,
Sotomayor and Kagan. They along with Ginsburg tend to vote as a bloc.
On the conservative side, you had Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. The
deciding or swing vote was most often Kennedy. He tends to vote like
O'Conner did.
> so a liberal replacement would have to be *real* liberal to change the
> chemistry very much.
Nope....just match up with Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer.
> Anthony Kennedy: hard to say; a flaming liberal replacement would have
> a severe impact on the court!
Yep, since Kennedy is often the deciding vote.
> The above will probably be Hillary nominations even as a one-term
> president!
> ****************************************************************
>
> Stephen Breyer might retire... might not; however, he's about 60%
> liberal... or so. The right can probably argue for a moderate.
Breyer is close to Ginsburg.
> There are very few questions regarding who the next president will be.
Unfortunately, that is true.....no matter which one it is.
news:ukgd0c9urm97f783v...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:47:17 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, when they do, we can have this discussion if they change it.
>
> Oh, I have a feeling that it will change pretty radically over the
> next few years.
>
> We have had this bit about unrestricted gun proliferation for
> 20-something years and all we have seen is an ever-increasing crime
> rate fueled by mass shootings unmatched by any other civilized
> country.
Oh, bullshit....more "factoids" you simply pull out of your ass. Number
of guns in this country is way up and number of homicides have dropped
since 1993.
> We're just tired of it and, based on the coming election, we hope it
> changes... here's why we're hopeful:
Your choice.....I just wish you would get your facts right, but then you
really have never cared for them.
> We expect Hillary to nominate Garland thereby playing to Obama's base;
> the republicans, should they, by some miracle, retain a senate
> majority, will be out of options.
Nope. They could still reject him if they have the votes.
It ain't a done deal that they even
> keep a majority... maybe??? Some polls give 'em a 0.36 probability; I
> am not taking a position.
>
> Ruth Bader Ginsburg: will probably retire soon; she's pretty liberal,
Yep.......the left's answer to Scalia. You might as well toss in Breyer,
Sotomayor and Kagan. They along with Ginsburg tend to vote as a bloc.
On the conservative side, you had Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. The
deciding or swing vote was most often Kennedy. He tends to vote like
O'Conner did.
> so a liberal replacement would have to be *real* liberal to change the
> chemistry very much.
Nope....just match up with Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer.
> Anthony Kennedy: hard to say; a flaming liberal replacement would have
> a severe impact on the court!
Yep, since Kennedy is often the deciding vote.
> The above will probably be Hillary nominations even as a one-term
> president!
> ****************************************************************
>
> Stephen Breyer might retire... might not; however, he's about 60%
> liberal... or so. The right can probably argue for a moderate.
Breyer is close to Ginsburg.
> There are very few questions regarding who the next president will be.
Unfortunately, that is true.....no matter which one it is.
RD Sandman
Oct 19, 2016, 1:41:31 PM10/19/16
to
!Jones <ĄJo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
news:7k7f0cd8rjgu0ipcg...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:58:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
> <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>
>>It won't. If you want the national crime rate to go down institute a
>>'one strike and you're dead' policy in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore,
>>Compton, and so forth. The bangers aren't shopping at Gander Mountain
>>and filling out 4473's.
>>
>>Racist? Afraid so. When around 5% of the homicides in Chicago involve
>>whites as either the victim or perpetrator how can it be anything but?
>
> Of course they aren't. They steal the guns or buy 'em on the street.
>
> Universal background checks would stop "legal gun owners" from selling
> their guns onto the street... well, they could report them as stolen,
> I suppose.
Interesting....why isn't the FOID stopping those sales today?
> I am absolutely certain that *I* never used the term "racist"; you
> must be reading someone else's posting; it ain't mine, dude!
>
> Jones
>
>
news:7k7f0cd8rjgu0ipcg...@4ax.com:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:58:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns rbowman
> <bow...@montana.com> wrote:
>
>>It won't. If you want the national crime rate to go down institute a
>>'one strike and you're dead' policy in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore,
>>Compton, and so forth. The bangers aren't shopping at Gander Mountain
>>and filling out 4473's.
>>
>>Racist? Afraid so. When around 5% of the homicides in Chicago involve
>>whites as either the victim or perpetrator how can it be anything but?
>
> Of course they aren't. They steal the guns or buy 'em on the street.
>
> Universal background checks would stop "legal gun owners" from selling
> their guns onto the street... well, they could report them as stolen,
> I suppose.
> I am absolutely certain that *I* never used the term "racist"; you
> must be reading someone else's posting; it ain't mine, dude!
>
> Jones
>
>
Rudy Canoza
Oct 19, 2016, 1:43:54 PM10/19/16
to
On 10/19/2016 10:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
arrogant stubborn fuck, so he won't back down.
> !Jones <¡Jo...@fubahor.com> wrote in
> news:dhfd0c5p0jsbcalp4...@4ax.com:
>
>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:32:24 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
>> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here it is in Heller:
>>
>> OK, cool... Heller, then. Either way, the term "militia" no longer
>> applies. That leaves with a "well regulated [...] right of the
>> people..." yada yada.
>>
>> I'm OK with that.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>
> No, it doesn't. "Well regulated" modified "militia". If there is no
> relationship with the militia per the Supreme Court, there is no
> relationship with a "well regulated" one.
He is clearly wrong about the sense of "well regulated", but he's an
>
>> x-no-idiots: yes
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:32:24 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
>> <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here it is in Heller:
>>
>> OK, cool... Heller, then. Either way, the term "militia" no longer
>> applies. That leaves with a "well regulated [...] right of the
>> people..." yada yada.
>>
>> I'm OK with that.
>>
>> Jones
>>
>>
>
> No, it doesn't. "Well regulated" modified "militia". If there is no
> relationship with the militia per the Supreme Court, there is no
> relationship with a "well regulated" one.
arrogant stubborn fuck, so he won't back down.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages