Guns are such hoot!

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Van

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to

I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
attacking Charles Schumer -- he must be their current big boogey man.
They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
against the government. And they wonder why their membership is
flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!

Van
******************************************
Steve Kangas Mirror Site
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
The truth lives on
******************************************

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to
All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.

After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.

Don't mean to confuse you with the facts, just wanted to hear more Leftist
propaganda.

TR


Van wrote in message <36fd3b73...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...


>
>
>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were

>attacking Charles Shumer. They were probably attacking others, but I
>could only watch so long. The funny part, though, was watching


>someone dressed up in a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo
>the Clown with a group of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>
>Van

>--

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to
Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
: flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in

: a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
: of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!

Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?

Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?

From: jv...@usa.net (Van)
..
Subject: Guns are such hoot!
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:28:32 GMT


From: jv...@usa.net (Van)
..
Subject: Re: Guns are such hoot!
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:46:12 GMT


From: jv...@usa.net (Van)
...
Subject: Re: Guns are such hoot!
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:48:20 GMT

--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key

Bill Bonde

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:

>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:48:20 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>
> >I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
> >out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
> >they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
> >politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
> >attacking Charles Schumer -- he must be their current big boogey man.
> >They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
> >their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
> >thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
> >against the government. And they wonder why their membership is
> >flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
> >a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
> >of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>
> That's Eddie the Eagle.
>
> He teaches kids how to go for the head shot on their classmates after
> they pull the fire alarm at school.
>
The head shot is one of the more difficult, but with all those damned
feathers, most body shots just bounce off.

Duane K. Kelly

unread,
Mar 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/27/99
to
Van wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
> >: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?

> >: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
> >
> >: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
> >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
> >: about.
> >
> >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
> >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
> >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
> >the first one when you wrote the second.
>
> If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
> Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
>
> Van

Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?

> I have *noticed* that a lot of right-wingers have this problem of
> trying to make hay over typos. I don't think it's genetic, though.
> It's the best they can do.
>
> Van

Cordially,

Duane K. Kelly
--
========================================================
========================================================
I do not refer to myself as a "spam hater", but an internet lover who
has no desire to see it destroyed out of greed, be it in the name of
business, charity, or any other so called "public interest".

The Big Lie | http://www.kellyfreehold.com/spam/
Join the fight against Spam! | http://www.cauce.org
Join the fight for ethical internet business! |
http://spam.abuse.net/spam
To reply directly to this post: http://www.kellyfreehold.com/usenet.html
========================================================

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:41:11 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
Zarlenga) wrote:

>Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>: flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in


>: a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
>: of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>

>Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
>
>Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?

Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
about.

Van

Duane K. Kelly

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Van wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:41:11 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
> >: flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
> >: a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
> >: of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
> >
> >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
> >
> >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
>
> Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
> watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
> about.
>
> Van

I have noted that a lot of left-wingers have this problem. Must be
something genetic.

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On 28 Mar 1999 01:03:17 GMT, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null> wrote:

>Van wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:41:11 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>> Zarlenga) wrote:
>>
>> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>> >: flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in
>> >: a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
>> >: of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>> >
>> >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
>> >
>> >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
>>
>> Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
>> watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
>> about.
>>
>> Van
>
>I have noted

Hmmm?

> that a lot of left-wingers have this problem. Must be
>something genetic.
>

Nyah, I don't see posting to these newsgroups while watching a
basketball game as a problem, genetic or otherwise. You're screwy.

I have *noticed* that a lot of right-wingers have this problem of
trying to make hay over typos. I don't think it's genetic, though.
It's the best they can do.

Van

Duane K. Kelly

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

I see you cannot read as well. I was "making over" your spamming. I
never once mentioned your inability to spell or compose a sentence
correctly. BTW, if you were cancelling them, then why is it that this is
being addressed in several threads, off of which stated with your
posting?

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Because idiot Zarlenga thought it would be fun?

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?

: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?

: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
: about.

Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had


the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
the first one when you wrote the second.

--

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
Zarlenga) wrote:

>Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
>: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
>
>: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
>: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
>: about.
>
>Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
>the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
>rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
>the first one when you wrote the second.

If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.


Knock yourself out, dumb ass.

Van

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:20:53 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
wrote:

>Van wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
>> Zarlenga) wrote:
>>
>> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>> >: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
>> >: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
>> >
>> >: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
>> >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
>> >: about.
>> >
>> >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
>> >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
>> >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
>> >the first one when you wrote the second.
>>
>> If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
>> Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
>>
>> Van
>

>Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
>stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
>regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?

You're about ignorant. No I take that back...

Duane K. Kelly

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Van wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:20:53 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
> wrote:
>
> >Van wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> >> Zarlenga) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
> >> >: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
> >> >: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
> >> >
> >> >: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
> >> >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
> >> >: about.
> >> >
> >> >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
> >> >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
> >> >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
> >> >the first one when you wrote the second.
> >>
> >> If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
> >> Knock yourself out, dumb ass.
> >>
> >> Van
> >
> >Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
> >stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
> >regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?
>
> You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
>
> Van

Thought you would.

Zepp

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.

Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.


>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.

Numbers?


>
>Don't mean to confuse you with the facts, just wanted to hear more Leftist
>propaganda.
>

You're confused. That's rightist propaganda.


>TR
>
>
>Van wrote in message <36fd3b73...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>>

>>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were

>>attacking Charles Shumer. They were probably attacking others, but I

>>could only watch so long. The funny part, though, was watching


>>someone dressed up in a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo
>>the Clown with a group of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>>

>>Van
>>--
>>******************************************
>> Steve Kangas Mirror Site
>> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
>> The truth lives on
>>******************************************
>
>

*********************************************************************

http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm

Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/Kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
http://
http://
WARNING: Contains ideas.

Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Yeh, no "about" to it. And not just ignorant, but a lowlife snake who
maligns the dead....right-winger through and through.

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
: >: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while

: >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
: >: about.

: >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
: >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
: >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
: >the first one when you wrote the second.

: If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
: Knock yourself out, dumb ass.

No way around it, Vanny, you sat there, posted your "guns are hoot"
article, then kept reposting as a reply to the prior article(s). You
did that three(!) times, presumably for small editing changes. And
in all that corrective fever, youmanaged to miss the glaring "guns
are hoot" mistake a total of six(!) times.

I hope you're not that careless in the rest of your life endeavors.

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
: >Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you

: >stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
: >regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?

: You're about ignorant. No I take that back...

I wonder how many times you "Cancel"ed this one and re-edited it
only to miss the fact that the first sentence makes no sense at all.

You must be a terrible embarrassment to the literate people on your
side of the political fence ...

ken berg

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
You guys are arguing ancient history. All I know is that while I do not
presently own a gun, as soon as they were outlawed I would get one.

Never mind about criminals. I am far less worried about criminals being the
only ones with guns than I am about government officials being the only
folks allowed to have guns.

I live in California, and so far in my adult life I have (thank God) not
needed a gun. However, the very moment the government passes a law saying I
cannot have one is the moment I go to the black market and buy one.

I am not some gun fanatic. I don't think most folks need guns, and have
been called an anti-gunner or whatever by staunch gun advocates. Regardless
of what radicals on both sides say, while not everyone needs a gun, everyone
needs the RIGHT to buy one if they decide it is best for them in whatever
circumstances they find themselves.

This is still America, and the Constitution gives us Americans the right to
keep and bear arms and that is a fact. Another fact is that - contrary to
popular belief - nothing says our government is permanent or all powerful.
As Americans we have right to arm ourselves and if necessary, overthrow our
government if it ever gets to the point of totalitarianism.

Like it or not, those ARE our rights as Americans. WE allow the government
to exist, not the other way around. The government grants NO rights. WE
granted ourselves the rights listed in the Constitution before the
government existed.

All the hot headed Left and Right wing rhetoric cannot change the facts.

All this having been said, when folks get killed from handguns or shotguns,
it is usually their own damn fault. Many die each year, and many more will
die before folks learn how to control their anger and rage.

This is the price we pay for being free. Part of freedom is being
responsible for your own actions. These folks who run around killing people
are symptoms of a greater problem in our society; one that manifests itself
in folks not knowing what their own personal bounderies are. The result is
other innocent folks get killed and the criminal is either shot and killed,
or jailed for a very long time. This is both heartbreaking and expensive.

As a nation, we need to get back to learning how to:

be polite and civil toward each other,

read and write, and knowing some math,

we should re-learn and practice the civics lessons we all learned in high
school, mainly the one that says we should all vote, and the one that says
my rights end where the other guy's nose begins.

Most of all, we should all pay attention to what our parents, and priest,
pastor, or rabbi have to say.

Ken Berg
go...@inreach.com


Zepp wrote in message <36fdd61f...@news.snowcrest.net>...


>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
>
>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain

>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were . . . .<yadayadayada
. .snipped for the sake of brevity>

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
ken berg <go...@inreach.com> wrote in message news:3yrL2.10416$E5.91...@news.inreach.com...

>You guys are arguing ancient history. All I know is that while I do not
>presently own a gun, as soon as they were outlawed I would get one.

That brings up a question: Would you immediately go out and publicly burn
a US flag if and when that ever becomes outlawed? I'm not being facetious,
I'm just curious to know your views on the 1st Amendment.

>Never mind about criminals. I am far less worried about criminals being the
>only ones with guns than I am about government officials being the only
>folks allowed to have guns.
>
>I live in California, and so far in my adult life I have (thank God) not
>needed a gun. However, the very moment the government passes a law saying I
>cannot have one is the moment I go to the black market and buy one.

Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?

>I am not some gun fanatic. I don't think most folks need guns, and have
>been called an anti-gunner or whatever by staunch gun advocates. Regardless
>of what radicals on both sides say, while not everyone needs a gun, everyone
>needs the RIGHT to buy one if they decide it is best for them in whatever
>circumstances they find themselves.

I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the well-
regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.

>This is still America, and the Constitution gives us Americans the right to
>keep and bear arms and that is a fact. Another fact is that - contrary to
>popular belief - nothing says our government is permanent or all powerful.

That's a good point; the Constitution is not cast in stone. Technically,
the 2nd Amendment could be lawfully repealed, just like any other amendment,
could it not?

>As Americans we have right to arm ourselves and if necessary, overthrow our
>government if it ever gets to the point of totalitarianism.
>Like it or not, those ARE our rights as Americans. WE allow the government
>to exist, not the other way around. The government grants NO rights. WE
>granted ourselves the rights listed in the Constitution before the
>government existed.

I agree; our government grants no rights. Our government was established
primarily to recognize, enforce and protect our rights as we have defined
them, against any who would infringe upon them.

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Zepp wrote in message <36fdd61f...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
>
>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
>Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.

Here's the Leftist propaganda I was looking for. These are false
assertations. Proof?

>>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.
>
>Numbers?

Do your own homework, asswipe.

>>Don't mean to confuse you with the facts, just wanted to hear more Leftist
>>propaganda.
>>
>You're confused. That's rightist propaganda.

Thanks for the Leftist propaganda. I knew that you, Zepp, would be stupid
enough to provide. Wnat to play poker -- for money?

>>TR
>>
>>
>>Van wrote in message <36fd3b73...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>>>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>>>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>>>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were
>>>attacking Charles Shumer. They were probably attacking others, but I
>>>could only watch so long. The funny part, though, was watching
>>>someone dressed up in a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo
>>>the Clown with a group of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>>>

>>>Van
>>>--
>>>******************************************
>>> Steve Kangas Mirror Site
>>> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
>>> The truth lives on
>>>******************************************
>>
>>
>

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message
<7dlnbh$c4n$1...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net>...

>Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?


Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what then.
Ant the citizens would have given up an advantage.

Does that help?

TR

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mUtL2.519$fb4....@news2.giganews.com...

Somewhat, but as I said:
>I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
>argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
>militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
>me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the well-
>regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
>

So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not entail
some sort of listing of its members.

Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons etc...
should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
One should not have to belong to a "militia" to own a gun. Where is that
required? Second, where did the weapons that fought the Revolutionary War
come from? Where did the cannons come from? besides those supplied by the
French, who were responsible for, as I recall appx 40% of the cannon and 10%
of the guns.

Convicted criminals and felons should serve long sentences in prison and
then be released (if released at all) with a prohibition against any type of
weapon ownership. Hence they would not be eligible for any type of "legal"
ownership.

The have already demonstrated their inability to follow the law, and should
not be entrusted with weapons.

With regard to the "militia only" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
militia membership is not a requirement.

TR

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message

<7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:06:11 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
Zarlenga) wrote:

>Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>: >Covering your tracks? I also noted you canceled the post where you
>: >stated the following about the same time you decided to attack me
>: >regarding a typo. Trying to build a case for plausible deniability?
>
>: You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
>
>I wonder how many times you "Cancel"ed this one and re-edited it
>only to miss the fact that the first sentence makes no sense at all.

You fit the above sentence too, Zarlenga. I take the "about" back,
though (sheesh....this should not have to be explained!).

Anyone who would start flapping their arms about a canceled post (like
anyone in these ngs would give a rats ass), has to have a screw or two
loose. Hardly the stuff of political debate, but then you do the best
you can with what you got, I suppose.

Let's see, your the same guy who thought I had some nefarious secret
purpose when I was using a date code as a spam buster, aren't you?
And now your doing the same shtick over canceled posts. Better watch
that crank, Zarlenga, I hear it induces paranoia. Oh, and you really
shouldn't be telling the kids how to make it, imho, even though you've
decided being big daddy meshes well with your weak ego and your
"libertarian" folderol.

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 12:51:46 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
Zarlenga) wrote:

>No way around it, Vanny, you sat there, posted your "guns are hoot"
>article, then kept reposting as a reply to the prior article(s). You
>did that three(!) times, presumably for small editing changes. And
>in all that corrective fever, youmanaged to miss the glaring "guns
>are hoot" mistake a total of six(!) times.

You're sounding more and more like Colonel Wilhelm Klink, or maybe
Captain Queeg. Next, I suppose, you'll be trying to figure out who
ate the strawberries.

What's the matter Zarlenga, did you lose your marbles?

Michael Ejercito

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:48:20 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>

> >I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
> >out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
> >they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
> >politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were

> >attacking Charles Schumer -- he must be their current big boogey man.
> >They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
> >their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
> >thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
> >against the government. And they wonder why their membership is

> >flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in


> >a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
> >of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>

> That's Eddie the Eagle.
>
> He teaches kids how to go for the head shot on their classmates after
> they pull the fire alarm at school.
>

> Jim
You are wrong again,Jimmy. Eddie Eagle teaches kids that guns are
hazardous. I know;I am a graduate of the program.


Michael


Member,CSULB College Republicans


For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way

Van

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:35:36 -0800, Bill Bonde <std...@mailexcite.com>
wrote:

>Van wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who would start flapping their arms about a canceled post (like
>> anyone in these ngs would give a rats ass), has to have a screw or two
>> loose. Hardly the stuff of political debate, but then you do the best
>> you can with what you got, I suppose.
>>

>Let's see, YOU started a thread with the title: "Gun loons are such [a]
>hoot!". THAT is hardly political debate. It is simply personal attack.

Nayh, it's entertainment.

ken berg

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message
<7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mUtL2.519$fb4....@news2.giganews.com...

>>Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?


I would only own one, and it will not be a registered gun.


>>Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what
then.

>>And citizens would have given up an advantage.


>
>>I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
>>argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
>>militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
>>me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the
well-
>>regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
>
>So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
>refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not entail
>some sort of listing of its members.
>

Then, in addition to registering guns, you would be registering citizens.

>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
etc...
>should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>

You must be joking Dan. No reasonable person who is seriously discussing
the matter thinks convicted criminals should be allowed to legally obtain
firearms. The foolish premise of your question belies your opinion on gun
control and citizen registration.

Ken Berg
go...@inreach.com


Zepp

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 09:41:18 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Zepp wrote in message <36fdd61f...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
>>
>>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
>>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
>>Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.
>
>Here's the Leftist propaganda I was looking for. These are false
>assertations. Proof?

Easily given. In the case of Germany, the Treaty of Versaille
stipulated the disarmenment of the German citizenry. When Hitler took
power, he hardly had to enact any gun control measures. Indeed, he
made it easier for members of the party to have weapons--"for
protection", of course. Vietnam and Cambodia both went through
protracted conflicts, with weapons lavishly donated by the US, the
USSR, and China. Both had subsequent genocides. A cursory review of
history of both countries since about 1962 will bear that out. China,
of course, had no gun control because historically, the citizenry
never had weapons, China being more or less a feudal state up until
about 1922. Oddly enough, the first wave of victims of the cultural
revolution probably DID own guns--the counter-revolutionaries who
fought for Chaing.

>
>>>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.
>>
>>Numbers?
>
>Do your own homework, asswipe.
>

Kissy, kissy, little gun loon. So you don't have anything to back
that up.

>>>Don't mean to confuse you with the facts, just wanted to hear more Leftist
>>>propaganda.
>>>
>>You're confused. That's rightist propaganda.
>
>Thanks for the Leftist propaganda. I knew that you, Zepp, would be stupid
>enough to provide. Wnat to play poker -- for money?
>

Your bluster can't quite conceal the fact that you have so little to
say.

>>>TR
>>>
>>>
>>>Van wrote in message <36fd3b73...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>>>>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>>>>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>>>>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were

>>>>attacking Charles Shumer. They were probably attacking others, but I

>>>>could only watch so long. The funny part, though, was watching


>>>>someone dressed up in a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo
>>>>the Clown with a group of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>>>>

>>>>Van
>>>>--
>>>>******************************************
>>>> Steve Kangas Mirror Site
>>>> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
>>>> The truth lives on
>>>>******************************************
>>>
>>>
>>

Michael Richmann

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Van wrote:

>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 03:57:54 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
> Zarlenga) wrote:
>
> >Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
> >: >Was it as funny as watching an idiot post the same thing three times?
> >: >Still tryin to figger out uzing dat dere compuder, eh, Vanny?
> >
> >: Nah. Just a combination of cancels not cancelling and posting while
> >: watching a basketball game. Nothing for an asshole like you to worry
> >: about.
> >
> >Better think up a better excuse, Vanny, every successive post had
> >the prior ones as a reference. Three distinct posts would be sepa-
> >rate threads, none referencing the others. You were replying to
> >the first one when you wrote the second.
>
> If you want to play detective, look up the cancels in deja news.
> Knock yourself out, dumb ass.

Why bother? Even my newsreader has it figured out better than you, oh
crossposter of the wastelands (who couldn't even hit talk.politics.guns
where this *really* belongs)...

--
Mike

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
ken berg <go...@inreach.com> wrote in message news:PVyL2.11171$E5.93...@news.inreach.com...

>Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message <7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mUtL2.519$fb4....@news2.giganews.com...
>>Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message <7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?
>
>I would only own one, and it will not be a registered gun.

What if your state requires firearms to be registered?

>>>Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what
>>>then. And citizens would have given up an advantage.
>>
>>>I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
>>>argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
>>>militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
>>>me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the

>>>well-regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.


>>
>>So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
>>refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not entail
>>some sort of listing of its members.
>>
>Then, in addition to registering guns, you would be registering citizens.

Well, what information about a gun would one register, if not its owner?

>>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
>>etc... should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>>
>You must be joking Dan. No reasonable person who is seriously discussing
>the matter thinks convicted criminals should be allowed to legally obtain
>firearms. The foolish premise of your question belies your opinion on gun
>control and citizen registration.

No, I wasn't joking, I was asking. For the record, I don't think
criminals should be allowed to own guns either.


>Ken Berg
>go...@inreach.com

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:IGvL2.601$fb4...@news2.giganews.com...

>Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message <7dlt6i$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mUtL2.519$fb4....@news2.giganews.com...
>>>Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message <7dlnbh$c4n$1...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net>...

>>>
>>>>Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun dealer?
>>>
>>>Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what
>>>then. Ant the citizens would have given up an advantage.

>>>
>>>Does that help?
>>>TR
>>
>>Somewhat, but as I said:
>>>>I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
>>>>argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
>>>>militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
>>>>me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the
>>>>well-regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.
>>
>>So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
>>refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not entail
>>some sort of listing of its members.

Hope you don't mind if I move your comments into context.

>One should not have to belong to a "militia" to own a gun. Where is that
>required?

Even though it is the only reason set forth in in the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
...I do agree that it's a stretch to say that militia membership is
required, however, I don't think gun registration infringes on the
right to own guns, either.

> Second, where did the weapons that fought the Revolutionary War
>come from? Where did the cannons come from? besides those supplied by the
>French, who were responsible for, as I recall appx 40% of the cannon and 10%
>of the guns.

That's a whole 'nother road to go down. In a revolution, you have to assume
that the government's authority is disregarded anyway, so I have little doubt
that the French would probably sell unregistered cannons today :)

>>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
>>etc... should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>

>Convicted criminals and felons should serve long sentences in prison and
>then be released (if released at all) with a prohibition against any type of
>weapon ownership. Hence they would not be eligible for any type of "legal"
>ownership.
>
>The have already demonstrated their inability to follow the law, and should
>not be entrusted with weapons.

I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be infringed",
are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the enumerated
rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?

>With regard to the "militia only" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
>militia membership is not a requirement.

Well no, but it is the only justification mentioned defining the right.

>
>TR

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote in message
<7dmin1$7oo$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...

Here is the crux of the argument, and a subject that has been debated
exrensively. From a purely grammatic point of view, the 2nd amendment does
link the militia with the right to bears arms -- which obviously preceeds
the Constitution.

>...I do agree that it's a stretch to say that militia membership is
>required, however, I don't think gun registration infringes on the
>right to own guns, either.

Does the registration constitute infringement? I would say it does, on the
Federal level. Many would disagree with you.

>> Second, where did the weapons that fought the Revolutionary War
>>come from? Where did the cannons come from? besides those supplied by
the
>>French, who were responsible for, as I recall appx 40% of the cannon and
10%
>>of the guns.
>
>That's a whole 'nother road to go down. In a revolution, you have to assume
>that the government's authority is disregarded anyway, so I have little
doubt
>that the French would probably sell unregistered cannons today :)

I was talking about the guns and cannon NOT provided by the French. Where
did they come from? Who owned them. And why?

Here's an interesting aside -- at the time of the Constitution where ther
classes of "citizens" denied the right to own guns?

>>>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
>>>etc... should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>>
>>Convicted criminals and felons should serve long sentences in prison and
>>then be released (if released at all) with a prohibition against any type
of
>>weapon ownership. Hence they would not be eligible for any type of
"legal"
>>ownership.
>>
>>The have already demonstrated their inability to follow the law, and
should
>>not be entrusted with weapons.
>
>I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
>inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be infringed",
>are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the enumerated
>rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?

Criminal felony conviction includes the surrender of many rights. Gun
ownership, voting, and others.

>>With regard to the "militia only" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
>>militia membership is not a requirement.
>
>Well no, but it is the only justification mentioned defining the right.

I do not understand this statement.

>>TR
>
>

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to

Zepp wrote in message <36febb15...@news.snowcrest.net>...

>On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 09:41:18 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Zepp wrote in message <36fdd61f...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:46:13 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>All the genocides of this century were preceded with gun control laws.
>>>
>>>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
>>>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
>>>Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.
>>
>>Here's the Leftist propaganda I was looking for. These are false
>>assertations. Proof?
>
>Easily given. In the case of Germany, the Treaty of Versaille
>stipulated the disarmenment of the German citizenry. When Hitler took
>power, he hardly had to enact any gun control measures. Indeed, he
>made it easier for members of the party to have weapons--"for
>protection", of course. Vietnam and Cambodia both went through
>protracted conflicts, with weapons lavishly donated by the US, the
>USSR, and China. Both had subsequent genocides. A cursory review of
>history of both countries since about 1962 will bear that out. China,
>of course, had no gun control because historically, the citizenry
>never had weapons, China being more or less a feudal state up until
>about 1922. Oddly enough, the first wave of victims of the cultural
>revolution probably DID own guns--the counter-revolutionaries who
>fought for Chaing.

1. This is not proof, as it is only you word, which isn't worth shit.
See below.

>>>>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot up.
>>>
>>>Numbers?
>>
>>Do your own homework, asswipe.
>>
>Kissy, kissy, little gun loon. So you don't have anything to back
>that up.

Try this, asswipe. There is a lot of info available, this is only one
little piece. Have your boyfriend show you how to use a search engine.
And, knowing that it it the practise of the Klintonistas to smear anyone who
says something they do not agree with (especially when it is the truth),
I'll let you find out who Lyall Johnson is. Again, have you boyfriend show
you how to use a search engine.

Victoria to extend gun amnesty
By LYALL JOHNSON

The Victorian Government plans to extend its gun amnesty by more than a year
to stem increasing violent crime involving firearms.
Between Sunday morning and lunchtime yesterday there had been eight shooting
incidents in three states causing the deaths of four people and the wounding
of 16 others, including two policemen.
State Government and Victoria Police sources yesterday told The Age that
talks on extending the amnesty, which runs out on Friday, had been taking
place for more than a month.
An announcement is expected by the Police Minister, Mr Bill McGrath, and the
Victoria Police chief commissioner, Mr Neil Comrie, later this week.
The extended amnesty will not be a buyback operation and no compensation
will be offered to people handing in illegal firearms.
The extension will come at a time of great concern for both the Government
and the police force at the rate of crime involving firearms.
Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for such crimes in 1998 are not
expected to be available until April but sources believe they are likely to
show an increase over 1997, which showed that murders in Victoria increased
by about 18per cent over 1996 and that murders involving firearms rose in
the same period from seven to 19.
All Australian states and the ACT experienced increases in murders in 1997.
The Northern Territory was alone in recording a decline.
``Of course we're concerned, we wouldn't be talking about retaining the
amnesty if we weren't,'' a Government source said.
``But we are looking at a number of things, a number of measures, that will
be part of a wider scheme of things.
``It's not a concession that things have failed, I think the success of
these things has to be judged over a longer period of time. But, in the
meantime, we have to keep these initiatives in place to allow anyone who has
not already taken the opportunity to surrender their firearms to do so - or
to register or licence them, if that's what they want.''
Neither Mr McGrath nor the Victoria Police were willing to comment
yesterday.
As with the previous amnesty, the extension will apply to people who
surrender firearms to police or sell them to licensed dealers, and to those
who leave their guns with the police or a licensed dealer while they apply
for registration or a licence.
The national gun buyback ended on 30 September 1997. In Victoria, 207,348
guns were handed in, almost a third of the national total of 643,600. In
Victoria, $101,846,199 was paid in compensation. Nationally, the figure was
$316,074,882.
Handguns were used in at least five of this week's eight shooting incidents
and a .22 rifle in another. The exception was the Wollongong incident where
a sawn-off shotgun was used. The national amnesty included mainly
semi-automatic weapons.
The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia gave cautious support to the
extension of the Victorian amnesty but said it was unlikely to reduce
violent crime involving guns.

Now I hope you won't take this wrong, but I'll not do your homework any
more. Do it yourself, and stop showing your ignorance in public places.

TR

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington :

Here is an interesting article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment"
by Professor Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas at Austin - School
of Law, from the Yale Law Journal, Volume 99, pp. 637-659

http://dilligaf.net/embarassing_2nd.htm

You may find it of interest, Levinson is a Liberal professor and
intellectual. A type unseen in this neck of the woods.

There are other strictly grammatic analyses of the second, based on both
contemporary and contemperaneous language.

I guess it meant what they intended it to mean. And since there was so
little written at the time, we have to rely upon what it says.

TR

>...I do agree that it's a stretch to say that militia membership is
>required, however, I don't think gun registration infringes on the
>right to own guns, either.
>

>> Second, where did the weapons that fought the Revolutionary War
>>come from? Where did the cannons come from? besides those supplied by
the
>>French, who were responsible for, as I recall appx 40% of the cannon and
10%
>>of the guns.
>
>That's a whole 'nother road to go down. In a revolution, you have to assume
>that the government's authority is disregarded anyway, so I have little
doubt
>that the French would probably sell unregistered cannons today :)
>

>>>Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
>>>etc... should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.
>>
>>Convicted criminals and felons should serve long sentences in prison and
>>then be released (if released at all) with a prohibition against any type
of
>>weapon ownership. Hence they would not be eligible for any type of
"legal"
>>ownership.
>>
>>The have already demonstrated their inability to follow the law, and
should
>>not be entrusted with weapons.
>
>I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
>inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be infringed",
>are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the enumerated
>rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?
>

>>With regard to the "militia only" interpretation of the Second Amendment,
>>militia membership is not a requirement.
>
>Well no, but it is the only justification mentioned defining the right.
>
>>

>>TR
>
>

lvaughn

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Hmmm Seems Milosevic and Tito decided to police up all the guns
in Kosovo that is except for the Serbian police.

Its a dam good policy for anyone planning on getting rid of their oposition.

Maybe that is why our forfathers drafted the Bill of Rights.

Larry
Van wrote in message <36fd406f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...


>
>
>
>I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were

>attacking Charles Schume -- he must be their current big boogey man.


>They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
>their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
>thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
>against the government. And they wonder why their membership is

>flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in

Michael Richmann

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Van wrote:
>
> On 28 Mar 1999 16:44:22 PST, Michael Richmann
> Yeh, well, if guns and the NRA aren't a political issue then why can't
> the NRA-ILA pull off a 501 tax exempt status? And besides, if posts
> only went where they belonged, there'd be a lot of gun loons walking
> with limps.

Free hint: in t.p.g, the word between talk and guns is politics. Keep
digging, Blindstein...

--
Mike

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/28/99
to
Unwilling to accept his own burden of proof, and ignoring the facts, Zippy
signs off.

Typical Liberal double standard.

Nothing new here, with these leftists.

Zepp wrote in message <36fef71e...@news.snowcrest.net>...

>Ah. Well, if you are trying to deny that there was a Treaty of
>Verseilles, or that there were wars in Cambodia and Vietnam, then
>talking with you is a waste of time. Come back when you're a bit
>older.

Van

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to

Van

Zepp

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to

Ah. Well, if you are trying to deny that there was a Treaty of


Verseilles, or that there were wars in Cambodia and Vietnam, then
talking with you is a waste of time. Come back when you're a bit
older.
>

ken berg

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
Very interesting. Levinson points out some very interesting facts regarding
the Second Amendment, and his analysis seems thoughtful enough.

Ken
go...@inreach.com

tcrpe wrote in message ...

Duane K. Kelly

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
Danforth Wolfgang Worthlington wrote:
>
> >One should not have to belong to a "militia" to own a gun. Where is that
> >required?
>
> Even though it is the only reason set forth in in the 2nd Amendment:
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> ...I do agree that it's a stretch to say that militia membership is
> required, however, I don't think gun registration infringes on the
> right to own guns, either.

I guess you missed it. There are two separate categories of people set
forth in the second amendment, not just one distinguished by the usage
of the commas. This has also been verified by the author of the second
amendment, Patrick Henry.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free

State" defines the first category, and why

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" defines the second
category and what.

Often it has been inferred as you have that the two categories are the
same, however, if so the usage of the commas would be completely
incorrect and the mention of "the people" would be redundant, and it
would have read "state" not people.

Therefore, the rights to keep and bear arms is for both individuals, and
the militia.

Cordially,

Duane K. Kelly
--
========================================================
========================================================
I do not refer to myself as a "spam hater", but an internet lover who
has no desire to see it destroyed out of greed, be it in the name of
business, charity, or any other so called "public interest".

The Big Lie | http://www.kellyfreehold.com/spam/
Join the fight against Spam! | http://www.cauce.org
Join the fight for ethical internet business! |
http://spam.abuse.net/spam
To reply directly to this post: http://www.kellyfreehold.com/usenet.html
========================================================

ken berg

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply put,
the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)
the right to keep and bear arms.

In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
their persons".

"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.

Ken Berg
go...@inreach.com


Duane K. Kelly wrote in message <36FF1D47...@dev.null>...

Watcher

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
> I'm not going to go deeply into the whole 2nd Amendment interpretation
> argument, but its wording does speak to the need for a well-regulated
> militia as it defines the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. To
> me, that would tend to support gun registration in the context of the
well-
> regulated militia which the 2nd Amendment mentions.

You need to because it is critical. If you read it you will find that the
part about well regulated is a clause not related to the right to keep and
bear arms. IOW, you can remove the words between the commas and the
statement doesn’t change. It doesn’t link the militia to bearing arms.

Also if you go back and look at what the ‘militia’ was at the time, as well
as the founder’s fear of a ‘standing army’, you will see that they wanted
to make sure that the government never had complete control of arms.


Watcher

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
> >Why not simply buy your gun(s) now, legally, from a legitimate gun
dealer?
>
>
> Right, a "registered" weapon. The government would know who has what
then.
> Ant the citizens would have given up an advantage.
>
> Does that help?

Why not buy a legal firearm from another private citizen. In most places
this legal and not tracable.


Watcher

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
> So, in my opinion, any 'well-regulated militia' which the 2nd Amendment
> refers to would not be 'well-regulated' in any regard if it did not
entail
> some sort of listing of its members.
>
> Also, let me ask you whether or not you feel convicted criminals, felons
etc
> should be prohibited from legally obtaining firearms.

This wasn’t aimed at me but I want to answer. And my answer is yes. Is a
former criminal’s life worth less than yours? If this person is a proven
danger to society why has he been freed to prey on society? If he hasn’t
been proven to be a danger why should he not be free to protect himself and
his family from danger?

Should we force the secretary who embezzled $1,000 to be a rape victim by
not allowing her to own a firearm to protect herself?

Should we force a middle aged man to watch his wife be raped and his
children killed before being killed himself because he did something stupid
when he was 18 and therefore can not have a firearm to save them?

Also what crimes do we add to the list of the ones that prevent ownership
of weapons?

What if the federal government keeps adding more and more new felonies to
the books? It could soon be illegal to own a weapon because you failed to
have your seatbelt fastened while on a federally supported road.

Watcher

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
> >>Hitler LIBERALIZED gun laws, making it EASIER for Germans--certain
> >>Germans, that is--to get guns. The Chinese never were armed.
> >>Vietnamese and Cambodians had tons of guns, and still got slaughtered.
> >
> >Here's the Leftist propaganda I was looking for. These are false
> >assertations. Proof?
>
> Easily given. In the case of Germany, the Treaty of Versaille
> stipulated the disarmenment of the German citizenry. When Hitler took
> power, he hardly had to enact any gun control measures. Indeed, he

Wrong. The Treaty of Versailles disarmed, or rather TRIED to disarm, the
German GOVERNMENT. German citizens were mostly free to own all types of
firearms. Hitler put full registration, i.e. required ALL firearms
(rifles, shotguns and handguns) to be registered with the government. Then
he used the registration papers to make sure all the weapons were turned in
when private ownership of firearms was banned.


> >>>After collecting the guns in Australia, the gun crime rate has shot
up.
> >>
> >>Numbers?
> >
> >Do your own homework, asswipe.
> >
> Kissy, kissy, little gun loon. So you don't have anything to back
> that up.

Give me a few and I’ll find you a couple. BTW, the worse gun crime in
their history happened, if memory doesn’t fail me, after they banned the
ownership of the weapon used. Seems criminals have this little habit of
not following the law. imagine that!


Watcher

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
> >Even though it is the only reason set forth in in the 2nd Amendment:
> >"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State,
> >the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> Here is the crux of the argument, and a subject that has been debated
> exrensively. From a purely grammatic point of view, the 2nd amendment
does
> link the militia with the right to bears arms -- which obviously preceeds
> the Constitution.

How?

Also how can you say that the right to bear arms is not a individual right
when it says “the right of the PEOPLE (emphasis mine)”? Are you willing to
apply this same thinking to the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 17th amendments?


> >I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
> >inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be
infringed",
> >are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the
enumerated
> >rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?
>

> Criminal felony conviction includes the surrender of many rights. Gun
> ownership, voting, and others.

So convicted criminals are second class citizens?

tcrpe

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to

Watcher wrote in message <01be79f9$66b04c00$223230d1@default>...

>> >Even though it is the only reason set forth in in the 2nd Amendment:
>> >"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>State,
>> >the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>
>> Here is the crux of the argument, and a subject that has been debated
>> exrensively. From a purely grammatic point of view, the 2nd amendment
>does
>> link the militia with the right to bears arms -- which obviously preceeds
>> the Constitution.
>
>How?
>
>Also how can you say that the right to bear arms is not a individual right

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the the right to bear arms preceeds the
Constitution. The people have the right to stockpile weapons. Whether they
belong to a ilitia or not.

>when it says “the right of the PEOPLE (emphasis mine)”? Are you willing to
>apply this same thinking to the 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th and 17th amendments?

No.

>> >I agree that criminals should not be allowed to own guns, but it seems
>> >inconsistent that rights which specifically say "shall not be
>infringed",
>> >are denied to some Americans. That would seem to leave all the
>enumerated
>> >rights vulnerable to revocation. Where do you draw the line?
>>
>> Criminal felony conviction includes the surrender of many rights. Gun
>> ownership, voting, and others.
>
>So convicted criminals are second class citizens?

Yes.

TR

Michael Zarlenga

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
: >: You're about ignorant. No I take that back...

: >I wonder how many times you "Cancel"ed this one and re-edited it
: >only to miss the fact that the first sentence makes no sense at all.

: You fit the above sentence too, Zarlenga. I take the "about" back,
: though (sheesh....this should not have to be explained!).

Try Phonics, Idiot. When you can write a complete sentence
that makes sense. let me know.

(I find it hilarious being insulted by an illiterate moron
in broken English - especially since English is his first
language)

You're about ignorant, Vanny.

--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key

Bill Clinton's legacy: "The President after bush."

Duane K. Kelly

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to

Then why is it that they don't lose their rights to the 1st, 4th, 9th,
10th and 17th amendments after serving their prison terms?

At one time in Arizona, when a convict was released from prison, he/she
was given a horse, a $20 gold piece, and a rifle to assure their ability
to what begin a new life. (It is also true that a 10 year sentence in an
Arizona prison at that time was as good as a death sentence so very few
violent criminals were ever granted the above mentioned). A horse for
transportation to an from work, as well as the ability to preform most
job functions, as ranching and mining were the main industries. A $20
gold piece gave the same a means of support until such a job could be
secured. A rifle so they could protect themselves from being victimized,
and also a means of support by hunting.

It is true that a debt paid is a debt forgiven. If we feel that a
convict is not to be trusted with the ability to defend themselves, then
maybe the sentence was a bit too short, or not harsh enough.

Cordially,

Duane K. Kelly

Van

unread,
Mar 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/29/99
to
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:33:52 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael
Zarlenga) wrote:

>Van (jv...@usa.net) wrote:
>: >: You're about ignorant. No I take that back...
>
>: >I wonder how many times you "Cancel"ed this one and re-edited it
>: >only to miss the fact that the first sentence makes no sense at all.
>
>: You fit the above sentence too, Zarlenga. I take the "about" back,
>: though (sheesh....this should not have to be explained!).
>
>Try Phonics, Idiot. When you can write a complete sentence
>that makes sense. let me know.
>
>(I find it hilarious being insulted by an illiterate moron
>in broken English - especially since English is his first
>language)
>
>You're about ignorant, Vanny.

If you want to see real ignorance, wheel around and look in a mirror,
"Zingy" (fine exemplar to subject title, that's fer sure).

gdy52150

unread,
Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99
to
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:07:38 -0800, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
Ejercito) wrote:

>In article <36ff5fa...@news.mindspring.com>, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:


>
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:48:20 GMT, jv...@usa.net (Van) wrote:
>>
>> >I thought I was watching a SNL skit on a Saturday afternoon. Turns
>> >out is was an NRA infomercial hawking their memberships. Evidently
>> >they want to get some money to stuff in the coffers of their favorite
>> >politicians like Ron Paul or Helen Chenoweth. They specifically were

>> >attacking Charles Schumer -- he must be their current big boogey man.


>> >They were probably attacking others, but they were giving Schumer
>> >their double dose -- must be his anti-gun runner stance. Their big
>> >thrust is to try and convince people they need to arm themselves
>> >against the government. And they wonder why their membership is

>> >flagging. The funny part, though, was watching someone dressed up in


>> >a goofy eagle costume dancing around like Bozo the Clown with a group
>> >of elementary students. Guns are such hoot!
>>

>> That's Eddie the Eagle.
>>
>> He teaches kids how to go for the head shot on their classmates after
>> they pull the fire alarm at school.
>>
>> Jim
> You are wrong again,Jimmy. Eddie Eagle teaches kids that guns are
>hazardous. I know;I am a graduate of the program.

the sandbox brigade squawks

>
>
> Michael
>
>
> Member,CSULB College Republicans
>
>
> For Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way

====================================================
For those seeking Enlightenment
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm

home of "The Mr. Sam Memorial Blithering Idiot Of
The Month Award"

Do your patriotic duty and reward your favorite
cackling loon by voting today
at http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/award.html

GDY Weasel

======================================================

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:16:03 GMT, "ken berg" <go...@inreach.com>
wrote:

>I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply put,
>the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
>organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)

>the right to keep and bear arms.
>

>In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
>individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
>example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
>their persons".
>
>"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.

Not even close. That argument has been shot down in court over and
over and over again. Even the NRA knows better than to make it any
more -- except in fundraising letters to gullible gun nuts.

ken berg

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to
Well then genious, what's your take on it?

Ken
go...@inreach.com

Dan Kimmel wrote in message <37035a84...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...

Michael Beck

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99
to
On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 11:38:25 GMT, Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan
Kimmel) wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:16:03 GMT, "ken berg" <go...@inreach.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I will not go into all the intricacies of the Constitution, but simply put,
>>the Second Amendment grants to the states the right to form and keep
>>organized militias, and it also grants the people (i.e. individual citizens)
>>the right to keep and bear arms.
>>
>>In the Second Amendment, "the people" means individuals, just as it means
>>individuals when "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution, for
>>example, when it reads "the people shall be secure in their property and in
>>their persons".
>>
>>"The people" means individual citizens - end of story gentlemen.
>
>Not even close. That argument has been shot down in court over and
>over and over again. Even the NRA knows better than to make it any
>more -- except in fundraising letters to gullible gun nuts.


That argument has never been shot down in court.
The current chief justice and Scalia have also written that it is
inconceivable that the "people" would mean one thing in the second
amendment and something else in the rest of the document.

Michael Ejercito

unread,
Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99