Yes America, there really is a theocrat in the White House
Dennis McGee
Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office
Bush Emerges as Movement's Leader After Robertson Leaves Christian Coalition
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 24, 2001; Page A02
Pat Robertson's resignation this month as president of the Christian
Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right
in America: George W. Bush.
For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political
movement, the president of the United States has become the movement's de
facto leader -- a status even Ronald Reagan, though admired by religious
conservatives, never earned. Christian publications, radio and television
shower Bush with praise, while preachers from the pulpit treat his
leadership as an act of providence. A procession of religious leaders who
have met with him testify to his faith, while Web sites encourage people to
fast and pray for the president.
There are several reasons for the adulation. Religious conservatives have
regarded Bush as one of their own since the presidential campaign, when he
spoke during a debate of the guidance of Jesus. At the same time, key
figures in the religious right -- Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson,
Billy Graham and Franklin Graham -- have receded in political prominence or
influence, in part because they are no longer mobilized by their opposition
to a president. Bush's handling of the anti-terrorism campaign since Sept.
11 has solidified his standing by painting him in stark terms as the leader
in a fight of good against evil.
"I think Robertson stepped down because the position has already been
filled," said Gary Bauer, a religious conservative who challenged Bush in
the Republican primary. Bush "is that leader right now. There was already a
great deal of identification with the president before 9-11 in the world of
the Christian right, and the nature of this war is such that it's
heightened the sense that a man of God is in the White House."
Ralph Reed, who once led the Christian Coalition and now is chairman of the
Georgia GOP, notes that the religious conservative movement "no longer
plays the institutional role it once did," in part because it succeeded in
electing Bush and other friendly leaders. "You're no longer throwing rocks
at the building; you're in the building."
Conservative Christians tend to view Bush's recent success as part of a
divine plan. "I've heard a lot of 'God knew something we didn't,' " Reed
said. "In the evangelical mind, the notion of an omniscient God is central
to their theology. He had a knowledge nobody else had: He knew George Bush
had the ability to lead in this compelling way."
Bush himself dismisses the notion that he is part of some divine plan. "He
does not believe he was chosen for this moment," a senior aide said. "He
just views himself as governing on his beliefs and his promises. He doesn't
look at himself as a leader of any particular movement."
Still, some of those around Bush say they have a sense that a higher
purpose is involved. "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and
I say this with a great sense of humility," Bush aide Tim Goeglein,
described as a "strong evangelical," told World magazine, a Christian
publication.
Partially a victim of their own success, groups such as the Christian
Coalition are finding fundraising difficult. Some leaders, such as Focus on
the Family's Dobson, have retreated from political involvement.
Some religious conservative leaders have inflicted wounds on themselves.
Falwell was roundly criticized, even by supporters, for saying on
television, with Robertson's agreement, that "abortionists and the
feminists, and the gays and lesbians" and civil libertarians were to blame
in part for the Sept. 11 attacks. Franklin Graham produced a furor by
declaring Islam a "very evil and wicked religion."
Voting patterns also show a declining religious right. Karl Rove, Bush's
top political strategist, said that only 15 million of the 19 million
religious conservatives who should have voted went to the polls in 2000.
"We may be seeing to some degree some return to the sidelines of previously
involved religious conservatives," he said.
And Bush, his advisers acknowledge, deliberately circumvented the power of
the leaders of the religious right, appealing to conservatives himself
rather than paying homage to the Christian Coalition during the campaign.
"In the old days, Republican presidential candidates went to religious
conservative leaders to seek their imprimatur," said a Bush adviser.
"George W. Bush was able to go directly to those who sat in the pews."
Bush's effort succeeded. "He is the leader of the Christian right," said
Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition figure now with the Hudson
Institute, a think tank. "As their institutions peel away, he can go over
the heads" of religious conservative leaders.
Bush, aided by speechwriter Michael Gerson, himself a religious
conservative, speaks the language of religion better than any president
since Jimmy Carter, religious leaders say, and Bush's policies appeal more
to conservatives. To many outside the religious conservative movement,
Bush's faith-infused words may sound sanctimonious; to those within it, the
words sound familiar and comforting. Across the country, churchgoers share
Bush's "testimony," his discovery of God 15 years ago with the help of
Billy Graham. "Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed
that grew over the next year," Bush's memoir recounts. "He led me to the
path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life."
As Bush had embraced religious conservatism, religious conservatives have
openly embraced him. The Internet has several sites offering prayers for
the president's success. One example: "Call on the name of the Lord to
hedge him in from terrorists and violent people. Psalm 91:11-12; 1
Corinthians 1:10-11."
World magazine, which is edited by one-time Bush adviser Marvin Olasky,
named Bush's attorney general, John D. Ashcroft, its "Daniel of the Year."
Ashcroft himself considered running for president in 2000 as the candidate
of the religious right. "Just as the biblical Daniel faced an established
idol-worshiping religion in Babylon, so our Dans must not back down in the
face of deadly persecution abroad or the scorn and harassment that comes
domestically from the academic and media high priests of our established
religion, secular liberalism," Olasky wrote.
The top Daniel, of course, is Bush himself, a view liberally offered by the
many religious figures who pass through the White House. In an account of
one such meeting, Jean Bethke Elshtain, a professor at the University of
Chicago Divinity School, wrote of a "powerful and moving moment" with Bush
and an ecumenical group of religious leaders. "One of our group asked, 'Mr.
President, what can we do for you?' He indicated that we could 'pray for
me, for our country, for my family.' He believes in the efficacy of prayer
and needs wisdom and guidance and grace, he said. A Greek Orthodox
archbishop was invited to lead us in prayer. We all joined hands in a
prayer circle, including the president."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
groupiegirl
taught to believe in the separation of church and state!
"Dennis McGee" <den...@InfoAveNoSpam.Net> wrote in message
news:dennmac-ya0240800...@NNTP.InfoAve.Net...
citizen
"groupiegirl" <group...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a07i8k$nli$1...@grendel.conectiv.net...
> Oh yes - next he will be Sainted - pretty scary to those of us who were
> taught to believe in the separation of church and state!
The "First Amendment" not in any way says there is to be separation of
church and state.
It says that congress shall make no laws!
So they instructed the SC to do it:>))
Clinton On Integrity
"Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American people, time
and time again, and betrayed their trust. He is no longer an effective
leader. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American
people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in
finishing out his term. The only possible solution is for the president to
save some dignity and resign."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, 1974 on President Nixon
Clinton's big mistake is that he didn't
have Teddy Kennedy drive her home.:>))
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?
LET THEM TAKE ARMS"
- Thomas Jefferson -US Ambassador to France.
God Bless America!
Stew
http://www.civicsandpolitics.com/#Cool
http://www.davehitt.com/dec00/green1.html
http://americanfreedomnews.com
http://www.libertystory.net/
http://www.sas-aim.org/
john q public
"citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u2ek56n...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "groupiegirl" <group...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a07i8k$nli$1...@grendel.conectiv.net...
> > Oh yes - next he will be Sainted - pretty scary to those of us who were
> > taught to believe in the separation of church and state!
>
>
> The "First Amendment" not in any way says there is to be separation of
> church and state.
>
> It says that congress shall make no laws!
Well shit son, since making laws IS what congress does, that line certainly
separates the church and the state!
Or would you like to read it literally, kind of like the 2nd, where there is
NO individual right?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>
> So they instructed the SC to do it:>))
Yes they did instruct the SC to be the final arbiter on
constitutionality.
>
> Clinton On Integrity
> "Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American people,
time
> and time again, and betrayed their trust. He is no longer an effective
> leader. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the
American
> people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in
> finishing out his term. The only possible solution is for the president to
> save some dignity and resign."
> -- William Jefferson Clinton, 1974 on President Nixon
Billy Jeff's term expired!
Tempest
"Still, some of those around Bush say they have a sense that a higher
purpose is involved. "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour,
and
I say this with a great sense of humility," Bush aide Tim Goeglein,
described as a "strong evangelical," told World magazine, a Christian
publication."
Always remember that Satan is God to some.
And IMHO, this is one of those times.
--
"It should not be lost to history that Bush is going after the Taliban
in the name of democracy when he worked so hard a year ago to ban the
tally."
- Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe
Zepp the Weasel
> news:a07i8k$nli$1...@grendel.conectiv.net...
> > Oh yes - next he will be Sainted - pretty scary to those of us who were
> > taught to believe in the separation of church and state!
>
>
> The "First Amendment" not in any way says there is to be separation of
> church and state.
>
> It says that congress shall make no laws!
>
> So they instructed the SC to do it:>))
I bet you don't know that the Constitution mandates that no religious
test ever be required for any office or position of public trust in
the United States. In other words, it is unconstitutional to demand
to know the religion of any candidate for office.
Does that sound like a group of people founding a country to praise
Jesus?
Chris Morton
He just hates the way that Bush "coddles" feminists....
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
citizen
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
news:a085d9$58l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u2ek56n...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "groupiegirl" <group...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a07i8k$nli$1...@grendel.conectiv.net...
> > > Oh yes - next he will be Sainted - pretty scary to those of us who
were
> > > taught to believe in the separation of church and state!
> >
> >
> > The "First Amendment" not in any way says there is to be separation of
> > church and state.
> >
> > It says that congress shall make no laws!
So they instructed the SC to do it:>))
Now what was you saying Mr. Pubic?
Start from the beginning and don't get carried away:>))
Clinton On Integrity
"Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American people, time
and time again, and betrayed their trust. He is no longer an effective
leader. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American
people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in
finishing out his term. The only possible solution is for the president to
save some dignity and resign."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, 1974 on President Nixon
Clinton's big mistake is that he didn't
citizen
"Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
news:ca9332ae.01122...@posting.google.com...
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<u2ek56n...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "groupiegirl" <group...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a07i8k$nli$1...@grendel.conectiv.net...
> > > Oh yes - next he will be Sainted - pretty scary to those of us who
were
> > > taught to believe in the separation of church and state!
> >
> >
> > The "First Amendment" not in any way says there is to be separation of
> > church and state.
> >
> > It says that congress shall make no laws!
> >
> > So they instructed the SC to do it:>))
>
> I bet you don't know that the Constitution mandates that no religious
> test ever be required for any office or position of public trust in
> the United States. In other words, it is unconstitutional to demand
> to know the religion of any candidate for office.
What the hell are you rambling on about?
This is about the "First Amendment" not some formula for a congressional
appointment format!
Krow
Hope you've been good this year. Maybe Santa will leave you a clue. But, by
all means, keep burning that straw until you get one. I know, it's all ya
got.
Krow
"Chris Morton" <cmo...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a08hf...@drn.newsguy.com...
Wester
8 weeks later he couldn't find his head
john q public
>
> "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
> news:ca9332ae.01122...@posting.google.com...
> > "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<u2ek56n...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "groupiegirl" <group...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a07i8k$nli$1...@grendel.conectiv.net...
> > > > Oh yes - next he will be Sainted - pretty scary to those of us who
> were
> > > > taught to believe in the separation of church and state!
> > >
> > >
> > > The "First Amendment" not in any way says there is to be separation of
> > > church and state.
> > >
> > > It says that congress shall make no laws!
> > >
> > > So they instructed the SC to do it:>))
> >
> > I bet you don't know that the Constitution mandates that no religious
> > test ever be required for any office or position of public trust in
> > the United States. In other words, it is unconstitutional to demand
> > to know the religion of any candidate for office.
>
>
> What the hell are you rambling on about?
>
> This is about the "First Amendment" not some formula for a congressional
> appointment format!
You're the fool that is brought up the 1st, the original poster simply made
a statement about Seperation of church and state!
BTW You haven't answered my question. Would you like the constitution to be
read literally?
>
--
Bush Lied To "The Dallas Morning News", 1998
"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning News reporter
Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He
said, 'After 1968? No.'" Dallas Morning News, 11/03/2000 [Before 1968, Bush
was arrested for theft and vandalism in college.]
D"W"LIE was ARRESTED IN 1976 for a OUI.
citizen
And what Amendment does that statement apply too?
And I responded to that poster!
Then this nitwit came along and injected the Second Amendment and the
Constitution!
> BTW You haven't answered my question.
Would you like the constitution to be
> read literally?
Be my guest if you don't know the Constitution by now you will never know.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
You show ME where the "First Amendment" says there is a seperation between
church a state!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
citizen
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in
2nd, where there is
> NO individual right?
> 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.
Professor Roy Copperud!
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
"Second Amendment" !
If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
Show me where the SC ruled that the Second Amendment was not a individual
right.
And don't waste my time with Miller!
Clinton On Integrity
"Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American people, time
and time again, and betrayed their trust. He is no longer an effective
leader. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American
people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in
finishing out his term. The only possible solution is for the president to
save some dignity and resign."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, 1974 on President Nixon
Clinton's big mistake is that he didn't
Ayn R Keey
wthinnews:u2fv83k...@corp.supernews.com:
> "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are
> not warned from time to time that the people preserve the
> spirit of resistance? LET THEM TAKE ARMS"
> - Thomas Jefferson -US Ambassador to France.
>
>
>
> God Bless America!
>
>
> Stew
>
let me begin with some jefferson of my own:
"Believing with you that religion
is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government
reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with sovereign reverence
that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature
should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'
thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
--Thomas Jefferson
to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802
+++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++
not in the constitution explicitly
as the "separation between church and State"
but certainly implied within the first,
and within many of their writings.
here are some more:
"If I could conceive that the general government might ever be
so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure,
I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous
than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors
of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious
persecution."
-- George Washington
letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
======================
"God is an essence that we know nothing of.
Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of,
there never will be any liberal science in the world."
-- John Adams
fromf"What Great Men Think of Religion" Ira D. Cardif
======================
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,
is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson
Statute for Religious Freedom , 1779
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson
edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:545
======================
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion
of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism,
and really see nothing but the latter
in the being worshipped by many who think themselves
Christians."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
======================
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed,
as every past one has done,
in shewing that religion and Govt
will both exist in greater purity,
the less they are mixed together."
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
======================
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself;
and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care
to support it
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power,
'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-- Benjamin Franklin
letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
quoted from
The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American
Experiment and a Free Society
Adrienne Koch, ed., New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 93.
======================
"The study of theology,
as it stands in Christian churches,
is the study of nothing;
it is founded on nothing;
it rests on nothing;
it proceeds by no authorities;
it has no data;
it can demonstrate nothing
and admits of no conclusion."
-- Thomas Paine
The Age of Reason (1793-5),
Zepp the Weasel
> "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
> news:ca9332ae.01122...@posting.google.com...
> > "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<u2ek56n...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "groupiegirl" <group...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a07i8k$nli$1...@grendel.conectiv.net...
> > > > Oh yes - next he will be Sainted - pretty scary to those of us who
> were
> > > > taught to believe in the separation of church and state!
> > >
> > >
> > > The "First Amendment" not in any way says there is to be separation of
> > > church and state.
> > >
> > > It says that congress shall make no laws!
> > >
> > > So they instructed the SC to do it:>))
> >
> > I bet you don't know that the Constitution mandates that no religious
> > test ever be required for any office or position of public trust in
> > the United States. In other words, it is unconstitutional to demand
> > to know the religion of any candidate for office.
>
>
> What the hell are you rambling on about?
>
> This is about the "First Amendment" not some formula for a congressional
> appointment format!
I hate to tell you this, Stewie, but that's straight from the
Constitution, and it isn't "a congressional appointment format" --
it's an inalterable law governing the election and/or appointment of
any official or employee of the United States or state and local
governments.
Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
United States."
The Constitution was designed to be amended: all but that one phrase.
The Founders clearly wanted to be sure that no religion ever took
over the government under this constitution.
>
>
[Snip Stewie's pathetic "but Clinton but Clinton but Clinton "
blather]
Zepp the Weasel
It's from the main body of the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of
it. It's the part that assigns powers and duties to Congress, says
what the Executive can and cannot do, how the court is to be set up,
and a few other odds and ends. It's what most amendments amend,
although after 213 years, it's amazingly intact.
The last sentence prior to the clause about ratification is the only
one that, by it's own language, cannot be changed. It came last, and
it's inalterable. They obviously thought it was important.
No religious test. Ever. Not for the President, not for the guy who
works on the trails in the national parks. Their religion is not a
part of their job. They can go home and believe whatever the hell
they want, but when they are on duty, they uphold the Constitution,
not some church.
That's the law. It's the reason America has lasted as long as she
has.
>
> And I responded to that poster!
Not exactly. You seemed to think I was talking about congressional
appointments. (That's done by state governors, and THEY can't base
their decision on the religion of the applicant, either!).
john q public
Did she mention an Amendment, I don't think soo!
>
> And I responded to that poster!
>
> Then this nitwit came along and injected the Second Amendment and the
> Constitution!
Actually a nitwit injected his personal interpretation of the 1st and I
asked that nitwit if it would like its
literal interpretation applied to the second. Which is a perfectly logical
question asked in order to ascertain if the nitwits
opinion would pass the hypocrisy shoe on the other foot test!
>
> > BTW You haven't answered my question.
> Would you like the constitution to be
> > read literally?
>
> Be my guest if you don't know the Constitution by now you will never know.
>
> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
Are you afraid to answer?
>
> You show ME where the "First Amendment" says there is a seperation between
> church a state!
>
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Shall make no law! Congress has one major function, to make laws.
The area of religion has been separated from other areas that congress has
the power to pass laws on.
Now I have answered your question twice, how about you suck it up and answer
mine.
Come on soldier, you can do it.
(That's a hint)
--
Bush Lied To "The Dallas Morning News", 1998
"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning News reporter
Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He
said, 'After 1968? No.'" Dallas Morning News, 11/03/2000 [Before 1968, Bush
was arrested for theft and vandalism in college.]
D"W"LIE was ARRESTED IN 1976 for a OUI.
>
>
citizen
Hip hip hara still it has nothing to do with the "First Amendment"or the
seperation of church and state!
>
> Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
> qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
> United States."
>
Article VI:-is not the First!
> The Constitution was designed to be amended: all but that one phrase.
> The Founders clearly wanted to be sure that no religion ever took
> over the government under this constitution.
Your are still rambling on like some incoherent moron who thinks that it's
in control of it's faculties.
December 15, 1791
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
institution.
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
citizen
And you were designed to be stupid:>))
all but that one phrase.
> The Founders clearly wanted to be sure that no religion ever took
You got to stop smoking that stuff already your brains are coming out of
your ears like green puss:>))
Just read-December 15, 1791
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
institution.
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
john q public
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in
>
> 2nd, where there is
> > NO individual right?
> > 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.
>
> Professor Roy Copperud!
>
>
> [Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
> security of a free state,constitutes a present participle, rather than a
> clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
> followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
> 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
> maintaining a militia.
>
> Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
> the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
> "Second Amendment" !
> If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
> well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the
> right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
>
> Show me where the SC ruled that the Second Amendment was not a individual
> right.
LOL show me where copperud was either a founding father or a member
of the SCOTUS!
Boy his explaination sure sounds like and interpritation as opposed to a
literal reading!
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.
>
> And don't waste my time with Miller!
Unless miller has been overturned it stands!
U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007
(1997)
U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926
(1978)
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918
(1976)
U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641
(2001)
U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 833
(2001)
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996)
U.S. v. Lewis,, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001)
U.S . Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997
(1993)
U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972)
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404
U.S. 1009 (1972)
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000)
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983)
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807
(1997)
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414
U.S. 839 (1973)
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S.
463 (1943)
U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom.
Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000)
U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff'd, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th
Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999)
U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999)
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996)
Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F.Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993)
Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987)
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 842
(1984)
Vietmanese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982)
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds,
451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
STATE COURTS
Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)
State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)
U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987)
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)
Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983)
City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio App. 1983)
State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)
In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)
State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)
Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812
(1969)
Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)
--
Bush Lied To "The Dallas Morning News", 1998
"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning News reporter
Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He
said, 'After 1968? No.'" Dallas Morning News, 11/03/2000 [Before 1968, Bush
was arrested for theft and vandalism in college.]
D"W"LIE was ARRESTED IN 1976 for a OUI.
>
>
john q public
Has everything to do with the seperation of Church and state. You were the
nitwit that brought up the 1st!
> >
> > Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
> > qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
> > United States."
> >
>
> Article VI:-is not the First!
You were the nitwit that brought up the 1st!
You were the nitwit that brought up the 1st!
arguing with yourself and you still can't win, jeez!
john q public
You didn't give credit for the opinion that you post immediately above? Is
it yours?
Is it some other RWing freaks. Why should anyone pay that personal opinion
any mind?
citizen
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
news:a0agp7$ejl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Why?
> Boy his explaination sure sounds like and interpritation as opposed to a
> literal reading!
Professor Roy Copperud did a literal reading!
> 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.
> >
> > And don't waste my time with Miller!
> Unless miller has been overturned it stands!
> U.S. SUPREME COURT
> U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Miller vs. US was not even a Second Amendment case if Miller or Layton had p
aid the tax on the shotgun there would not have even been a charge!
Seems you and I have been here before.
You lost then!
How is anything go to be deferent now?
citizen
Come on show me where?
> > >
> > > Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
> > > qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
> > > United States."
> > >
> >
> > Article VI:-is not the First!
> You were the nitwit that brought up the 1st!
You tell me why the SC ruled the -Separation of Church and State?
You explain why that ruling has nothing to do with the First Amendment?
citizen
The truth needs no introduction:>))
Here are few more quotes!
Zepp the Weasel
I didn't say it was the First Amendment. You don't read so well, do
you?
As for not having anything to do with seperation of church and state,
tell us something, Stewie: if the state is supposed to be providing
religious guidance, how can it do so if it is forbidden from having
religious tests of any kind?
> >
> > Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
> > qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
> > United States."
> >
>
> Article VI:-is not the First!
>
Well, duh.
> > The Constitution was designed to be amended: all but that one phrase.
> > The Founders clearly wanted to be sure that no religion ever took
> > over the government under this constitution.
>
> Your are still rambling on like some incoherent moron who thinks that it's
> in control of it's faculties.
You really aren't here to discuss at all, are you?
>
> December 15, 1791
>
> The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
> adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
> misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
> restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
> confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
> institution.
>
Are you under the impression that the Bill of Rights in some way
supersedes the constitution's main text?
>
>
> The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
> means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
> powers of our Constitution.
>
You ARE! Now, there's a unique interpretation. So you are claiming
that the First Amendment means that we don't have to pay any attention
to any of that stuff about coining money, declaring war, any of that,
right?
> There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
> sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
> copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
> their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
> this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
> changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
> are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
> is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
> of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
> restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
> government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
> the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
> Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
>
> End the deception.
Wow! Hidden phrases in the Constitution! This is earth shattering
stuff, Stewie! Actually, whoever wrote this (and who did is a real
nut) got it wrong: the BoR restricts the powers of government over
individuals. It doesn't restrict the constitution at all.
Zepp the Weasel
> > > > > > church and state." -- Your words, right?
> > > >
> > > > Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
> > > > qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
> > > > United States."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Article VI:-is not the First!
> > You were the nitwit that brought up the 1st!
>
>
> You tell me why the SC ruled the -Separation of Church and State?
The phrase comes from Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
You'll be interested to know that he was REASSURING the Baptists, who
in those days feared religious types controlling the government.
>
> You explain why that ruling has nothing to do with the First Amendment?
Which ruling? You seem to be the only one here talking about any
ruling.
Zepp the Weasel
Are you now trying to claim the Constitution wasn't designed to be amended?
>
> all but that one phrase.
> > The Founders clearly wanted to be sure that no religion ever took
>
>
> You got to stop smoking that stuff already your brains are coming out of
> your ears like green puss:>))
>
Hmmm. Fancy yourself a spokesperson for the Religious Right, do you?
citizen
"Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>Are you now trying to claim the >Constitution wasn't designed to be
>amended?
Here we go back on the Constitution!
See how the word constitution is spelled.
Now look how the "Bill of Rights" it is spelled with all deferent
letters:>))
>Hmmm. Fancy yourself a >spokesperson for the Religious Right, >do you?
Nope
Now read very slow.
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
One more time to make sure you get it!
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
citizen
"Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>
Are you under the impression that the Bill of Rights in some way
supersedes the constitution's main text?
>
Bingo!
After 8 posts it finally got in:>))
December 15, 1791
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
institution.
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
Clinton On Integrity
"Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American people, time
and time again, and betrayed their trust. He is no longer an effective
leader. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American
people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in
finishing out his term. The only possible solution is for the president to
save some dignity and resign."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, 1974 on President Nixon
Clinton's big mistake is that he didn't
john q public
In the words of a person that you seem to be afraid to respond to!
"It's from the main body of the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of
it. It's the part that assigns powers and duties to Congress, says
what the Executive can and cannot do, how the court is to be set up,
and a few other odds and ends. It's what most amendments amend,
although after 213 years, it's amazingly intact."
>
> And I responded to that poster!
>
> Then this nitwit came along and injected the Second Amendment and the
> Constitution!
>
> > BTW You haven't answered my question.
> Would you like the constitution to be
> > read literally?
>
> Be my guest if you don't know the Constitution by now you will never know.
>
Perhaps you would prefer the word, literatim or precisely, perhaps the
phrase word for word would suit your fancy.
It matters not as all are synonyms or related words and suit the point that
I was making!
citizen
"Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>Wow! Hidden phrases in the Constitution! This is earth shattering
>stuff, Stewie! Actually, whoever wrote this (and who did is a real
>nut) got it wrong: the BoR restricts the powers of government over
>individuals. It doesn't restrict the constitution at all.
What cranial void you have:>))
http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/constitution_of_the_united_states.htm#PREAMBLE
From the original draft of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights
Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of
the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original
Constitution.
PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order
to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory
and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the government, will best insure the beneficent ends of
its institution.
Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]
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.
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
As I said before!!
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
Clinton On Integrity
"Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American people, time
and time again, and betrayed their trust. He is no longer an effective
leader. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American
people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in
finishing out his term. The only possible solution is for the president to
save some dignity and resign."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, 1974 on President Nixon
Clinton's big mistake is that he didn't
john q public
Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
United States."
>
> Come on show me where?
> > > >
> > > > Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
> > > > qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
> > > > United States."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Article VI:-is not the First!
> > You were the nitwit that brought up the 1st!
>
>
> You tell me why the SC ruled the -Separation of Church and State?
Why, I wasn't consulted on that decision but i assume that there are records
hell there might even be a dissent or two!
>
> You explain why that ruling has nothing to do with the First Amendment?
Why should I explain your opinion that I might or might not agree with?
john q public
Afraid to take and or give credit eh? No problem the rant will be given the
consideration that it deserves, NONE!
>
>
> Here are few more quotes!
>
--
john q public
>
> > Boy his explaination sure sounds like and interpritation as opposed to a
> > literal reading!
>
> Professor Roy Copperud did a literal reading!
>
>
> > 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.
> > >
> > > And don't waste my time with Miller!
> > Unless miller has been overturned it stands!
> > U.S. SUPREME COURT
> > U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
>
> Miller vs. US was not even a Second Amendment case if Miller or Layton had
p
> aid the tax on the shotgun there would not have even been a charge!
>
> Seems you and I have been here before.
>
> You lost then!
I doub't that, since for that to be true you would have to be a shapeshifter
who
posts under different identities or perhaps you are lying!
>
> How is anything go to be deferent now?
Well since this is the only thread that myself and the shape AKA
stu...@hotmail.com
have both been involved in, either you're a shifter or a liar, which is it?
citizen
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message news:a0bcjl$3m3
In the words of a person that you seem to be afraid to respond to!
"It's from the main body of the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of
it. It's the part that assigns powers and duties to Congress, says
what the Executive can and cannot do, how the court is to be set up,
and a few other odds and ends. It's what most amendments amend,
although after 213 years, it's amazingly intact."
Not even close!
The political mood of 1963 do you remember it?
Do you remember the SC decision the "Separation of Church and state?
1963 when the Democrats became Socialist's.
This was the beginning of the liberal lefts assault on the "Bill of Rights"!
http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/constitution_of_the_united_states.htm#PREAMBLE
The Bill of Rights
Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of
the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original
Constitution.
PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order
to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory
and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the government, will best insure the beneficent ends of
its institution.
Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]
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.
As I said before!!
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
citizen
>
> The truth needs no introduction:>))
>Afraid to take and or give credit eh? >No problem the rant will be given
the
>consideration that it deserves, NONE!
>
(Afraid)-you really over use the word!
http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/constitution_of_the_united_states.htm#PREAMBLE
PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order
to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory
and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the government, will best insure the beneficent ends of
its institution.
How would you explain the fact that the preamble has been conveinuntly left
out of the Constitution for 30 years and for what reason?
From a Wise and Noble "OWL"
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
Clinton On Integrity
citizen
Have fun:>))
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan,
right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call
would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you
call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the
meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the
Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at
Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as
the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system.
Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired
professor journalism at the University of Southern California and the
author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor
Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three
decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching
journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column
dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and
Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam
Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert.
Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The
Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold
since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's
Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I
sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert
in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with
respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the
sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be
restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent.
Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of
litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask
that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would
be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to
testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second
Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and
task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe
it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second
Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the
political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of
that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms
for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either
of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any
other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis
(into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your
letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to
keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and
bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere
or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with
respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'
granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second
Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear
arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its
existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right
shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms
conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact
necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not
existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right
to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the
existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the
relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a
well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire
sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the
government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and
bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the
entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional,
as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of
the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated
militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,'
'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior
authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian
control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account
the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written
200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of
the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly
separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also
appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the
Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way
the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's
sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the
people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' --
for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels
the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies
the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in
his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some
speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was
unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage
what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States
unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging
that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in
the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people
in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger
than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed
officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United
States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment
routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying
arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic
requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of
which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep
and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of
the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear
arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will
we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and
continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue
obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it
says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian
doublespeak ?
Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the
Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we
will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred
honor ?
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized
provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation
are credited. All other rights reserved.
About the Author
J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by
Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the
CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents
the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ
Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books"
via personal computers and modems.
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second
Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right
to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to
those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
amendments.
J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless
Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address:
PO Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV
Zepp the Weasel
> "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>
> >Are you now trying to claim the >Constitution wasn't designed to be
> >amended?
>
> Here we go back on the Constitution!
>
> See how the word constitution is spelled.
>
> Now look how the "Bill of Rights" it is spelled with all deferent
> letters:>))
Do you know what else the Bill of Rights is known as, Stewie? They're
known as the original ten amendments to the constitution. In other
words, the BoR are a part of the Constitution, and themselves subject
to the amendment process.
You really didn't know that, did you?
>
>
> >Hmmm. Fancy yourself a >spokesperson for the Religious Right, >do you?
>
> Nope
>
> Now read very slow.
>
> The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
> means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
> powers of our Constitution.
>
No, they do not supersede all other parts of the Constitution.
Despite your nutty efforts to foist of the preamble to the bill which
appeared before Congress as being a part of the Constitution -- Bill
of Rights or the whole thing -- they don't even significantly alter or
amend the contents of the main body. They do assert SOME of the
rights we hold, and limits the power and authority of government in
relation to those rights. But they do not negate the main body of the
constitution.
> One more time to make sure you get it!
Any competant psychiatrist will tell you that obsessive reiteration of
nuttiness in hopes that repeating it will make it true is not a good
sign.
>
> The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
> means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
> powers of our Constitution.
They do not.
>
Zepp the Weasel
Gosh, Stewie, I wonder if you'll ever get around to realizing that I'm
not talking about the first amendment. Only you are. But I AM talking
about the injuction on government from involving itself in affairs
religious of any kind.
> >
> > Article VI: "...but no Religious test shall ever be Required as a
> > qualification for any Office or position of Public Trust under these
> > United States."
> >
>
> Article VI:-is not the First!
Yes, yes, we've been over that, Stewie. The Sixth Article is not the
First Amendment. I've very glad that you've figured that out.
>
> > The Constitution was designed to be amended: all but that one phrase.
> > The Founders clearly wanted to be sure that no religion ever took
> > over the government under this constitution.
>
> Your are still rambling on like some incoherent moron who thinks that it's
> in control of it's faculties.
>
Are you still trying to pretend that the Constitution cannot be
amended?
Zepp the Weasel
> "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>
> >
> Are you under the impression that the Bill of Rights in some way
> supersedes the constitution's main text?
> >
>
> Bingo!
>
> After 8 posts it finally got in:>))
You really are proposing that the main text of the Constitution is
null and void because of a preamble on the Congressional bill.
Truly amazing. You never know what you'll run into on Usenet next.
>
> December 15, 1791
>
> The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
> adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
> misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
> restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
> confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
> institution.
>
>
>
> The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
> means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
> powers of our Constitution.
>
> There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
> sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
> copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
> their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
> this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
> changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
> are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
> is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
> of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
> restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
> government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
> the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
> Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
>
> End the deception.
>
Xanax might help.
Zepp the Weasel
> "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
>
> >Wow! Hidden phrases in the Constitution! This is earth shattering
> >stuff, Stewie! Actually, whoever wrote this (and who did is a real
> >nut) got it wrong: the BoR restricts the powers of government over
> >individuals. It doesn't restrict the constitution at all.
>
>
> What cranial void you have:>))
>
> http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/constitution_of_the_united_states.htm#PREAMBLE
>
>
> From the original draft of the Constitution.
Hmmm. Yes. The Constitution, with some drivel added at the start of
the BOR.
The "kamron.com" website is interesting. I really wanted a look at
"Creation: A better science", but it seems to be offline. When do you
plan to put it back up?
citizen
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<u2i67ee...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > Are you under the impression that the Bill of Rights in some way
> > supersedes the constitution's main text?
> > >
> >
> > Bingo!
> >
> > After 8 posts it finally got in:>))
>
> You really are proposing that the main text of the Constitution is
> null and void because of a preamble on the Congressional bill.
Thomas Jefferson said "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid
on this ground; That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States
or to the people. To take a step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn
around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of
power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
The Founding Fathers were concerned about the inevitable growth of
government and insisted that there be some additional amendments to the
Constitution. Their concern was expressed in the Preamble of the Bill of
Rights. It is noteworthy that we hardly ever see the Preamble to the Bill of
Rights in print. The clarity of the authors worry of Government over
expansion is expressed in this preamble. The limitation of federal and State
duties is further enforced by the Tenth amendment.
>Truly amazing. You never know what you'll run into on Usenet next
And your the proof:>))
>Xanax might help.
Is that what your doctor said?
December 15, 1791
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
institution.
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
citizen
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<u2idhhr...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >Wow! Hidden phrases in the Constitution! This is earth shattering
> > >stuff, Stewie! Actually, whoever wrote this (and who did is a real
> > >nut) got it wrong: the BoR restricts the powers of government over
> > >individuals. It doesn't restrict the constitution at all.
> >
> >
> > What cranial void you have:>))
> >
> >
http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/constitution_of_the_united_states.htm#PREAMBLE
> >
> >
> > From the original draft of the Constitution.
>
> Hmmm. Yes. The Constitution, with some drivel added at the start of
> the BOR.
>
> The "kamron.com" website is interesting. I really wanted a look at
> "Creation: A better science", but it seems to be offline. When do you
> plan to put it back up?
Reboot or scan disc?
Or get a real browser IE6!
john q public
>
The man might be considered an expert but not the only expert.
Perhaps if there were a consensus, which there isn't.
Or perhaps if he was in a position where his personal opinion
mattered(SCOTUS)
But alas, there is none of the above.
When I did a search on roy, I found MAINLY NRA Gunnutz sights but with a
little bit of
patcience I found a few other references, the most telling was an article
about the use of the words irritate and aggravate!
Bill Bryson
Kenneth Wilson
Theodore Bernstein
F. G. Fowler
Harry Shaw
Six opinions and only one of the six agree's with your boy roy, go figure!
http://www.hfac.uh.edu/English/classes/GU4322/items/aggravate.html
>
> (C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
> Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized
> provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation
> are credited. All other rights reserved.
>
This pretty much says it all!
john q public
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message news:a0bcjl$3m3
>
> In the words of a person that you seem to be afraid to respond to!
> "It's from the main body of the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of
> it. It's the part that assigns powers and duties to Congress, says
> what the Executive can and cannot do, how the court is to be set up,
> and a few other odds and ends. It's what most amendments amend,
> although after 213 years, it's amazingly intact."
>
>
> Not even close!
>
> The political mood of 1963 do you remember it?
Non responsive!
>
> Do you remember the SC decision the "Separation of Church and state?
A sad attempt to re-direct the discussion!
>
> 1963 when the Democrats became Socialist's.
>
> This was the beginning of the liberal lefts assault on the "Bill of
Rights"!
>
> As I said before!!
>
>
> The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
> means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
> powers of our Constitution.
>
> There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these
two
> sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
> copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
> their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version
of
> this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can
be
> changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the
amendments
> are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
> is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
> of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
> restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
> government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
> the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
> Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
So this is nothing more than your personal opinion based on personal bias?
Whatever!
Zepp the Weasel
> "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
> news:ca9332ae.01122...@posting.google.com...
> > "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<u2idhhr...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > "Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >Wow! Hidden phrases in the Constitution! This is earth shattering
> > > >stuff, Stewie! Actually, whoever wrote this (and who did is a real
> > > >nut) got it wrong: the BoR restricts the powers of government over
> > > >individuals. It doesn't restrict the constitution at all.
> > >
> > >
> > > What cranial void you have:>))
> > >
> > >
> http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/constitution_of_the_united_states.htm#PREAMBLE
> > >
> > >
> > > From the original draft of the Constitution.
> >
> > Hmmm. Yes. The Constitution, with some drivel added at the start of
> > the BOR.
> >
> > The "kamron.com" website is interesting. I really wanted a look at
> > "Creation: A better science", but it seems to be offline. When do you
> > plan to put it back up?
>
>
> Reboot or scan disc?
>
> Or get a real browser IE6!
Hate to tell you this, but 404 errors aren't browser-related.
citizen
Well then it is your ISP because I have no problem with the link!
Use Netscape!
Do you want me to post the whole content of the web page?
citizen
>
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u2ifld2...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
news:a0bcjl$3m3
> >
> > In the words of a person that you seem to be afraid to respond to!
> > "It's from the main body of the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of
> > it. It's the part that assigns powers and duties to Congress, says
> > what the Executive can and cannot do, how the court is to be set up,
> > and a few other odds and ends. It's what most amendments amend,
> > although after 213 years, it's amazingly intact."
> >
> >
> > Not even close!
> >
> > The political mood of 1963 do you remember it?
>
> Non responsive!
Un-realistic or to young to remember!
> >
> > Do you remember the SC decision the "Separation of Church and state?
>
> A sad attempt to re-direct the discussion!
You are the one who has re-derected from my point!
Which happens to your unsubstantiated opinion:>))
http://www.kamron.com/Liberty/constitution_of_the_united_states.htm#PREAMBLE
The Bill of Rights
Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of
the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original
Constitution.
PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order
to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory
and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the government, will best insure the beneficent ends of
its institution.
Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]
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.
As I said before!!
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
powers of our Constitution.
There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based
their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of
this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be
changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments
are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights
is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration
of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights
restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of
government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of
the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the
Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.
citizen
(IS) an expert Who happened to be a (Liberal)!
I suppose Webster is on your "might" list also?
> Perhaps if there were a consensus, which there isn't.
> Or perhaps if he was in a position where his personal opinion
> mattered(SCOTUS)
> But alas, there is none of the above.
> When I did a search on roy, I found MAINLY NRA Gunnutz sights but with a
> little bit of
> patcience I found a few other references, the most telling was an article
> about the use of the words irritate and aggravate!
> Bill Bryson
> Kenneth Wilson
> Theodore Bernstein
> F. G. Fowler
> Harry Shaw
> Six opinions and only one of the six agree's with your boy roy, go figure!
> http://www.hfac.uh.edu/English/classes/GU4322/items/aggravate.html
>
How petty!
Is this all you could come up with to counter Copperud?
> >
> > (C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
> > Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized
> > provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation
> > are credited. All other rights reserved.
> >
> This pretty much says it all!
That your a blind as a bat one sided tiny-minded-liberal does it for me
also:>))
You lost again!
Remember the Wise and Noble "OWL"!
December 15, 1791
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public
confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
institution.
The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
Zepp the Weasel
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> news:a0cqv9$r4k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:u2ifld2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> news:a0bcjl$3m3
> > >
> > > In the words of a person that you seem to be afraid to respond to!
> > > "It's from the main body of the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of
> > > it. It's the part that assigns powers and duties to Congress, says
> > > what the Executive can and cannot do, how the court is to be set up,
> > > and a few other odds and ends. It's what most amendments amend,
> > > although after 213 years, it's amazingly intact."
> > >
> > >
> > > Not even close!
> > >
> > > The political mood of 1963 do you remember it?
> >
> > Non responsive!
>
> Un-realistic or to young to remember!
John Q., it doesn't look like "citizen" is interested in making a
direct response. I've been trying to get in to say whether or not he
thinks the main body of the Constitution is legally valid or not, and
I don't think he even knows what's in it. I had a few more questions
lined up for him, but it looks like we aren't going to get to those.
> > >
> > > Do you remember the SC decision the "Separation of Church and state?
> >
> > A sad attempt to re-direct the discussion!
>
> You are the one who has re-derected from my point!
> > >
> > > 1963 when the Democrats became Socialist's.
I guess he doesn't know that Engle vs. Vitale was 1962, not 1963.
Zepp the Weasel
I did. Didn't help.
http://www.kamron.com/Geology/IntroToCreationism.htm
There's several other 404s on that site.
>
>
> Do you want me to post the whole content of the web page?
If you want anyone to read it, that might be a good idea, since you
don't seem to have the hang of links.
john q public
"Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in message
news:ca9332ae.01122...@posting.google.com...
news:<u2ju7dc...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> > news:a0cqv9$r4k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > >
> > > "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:u2ifld2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> > news:a0bcjl$3m3
> > > >
> > > > In the words of a person that you seem to be afraid to respond to!
> > > > "It's from the main body of the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard
of
> > > > it. It's the part that assigns powers and duties to Congress, says
> > > > what the Executive can and cannot do, how the court is to be set up,
> > > > and a few other odds and ends. It's what most amendments amend,
> > > > although after 213 years, it's amazingly intact."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not even close!
> > > >
> > > > The political mood of 1963 do you remember it?
> > >
> > > Non responsive!
> >
> > Un-realistic or to young to remember!
>
> John Q., it doesn't look like "citizen" is interested in making a
> direct response. I've been trying to get in to say whether or not he
> thinks the main body of the Constitution is legally valid or not, and
> I don't think he even knows what's in it. I had a few more questions
> lined up for him, but it looks like we aren't going to get to those.
Nah I asked him a long time ago for a credit on the rant that he keeps
repeating
but for some reason(Wink) he doesn't want to provide the information.
Would you happen to know where he got the rant that he keeps repeating?
"There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these
two
sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from
copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have
based......."
john q public
No the SCOTUS has countered your buddy copper!
> > >
> > > (C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
> > > Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized
> > > provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation
> > > are credited. All other rights reserved.
> > >
> > This pretty much says it all!
>
> That your a blind as a bat one sided tiny-minded-liberal does it for me
> also:>))
Blind, nah 20-20 in one eye 20-30 in the other!
>
> You lost again!
Wrong again, as I stated earlier and you refused to reply to
This is the only thread that both myself and your present shape
have posted to. Would you like to tell me who you shifted from most
recently?
john q public
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> news:a0cqv9$r4k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:u2ifld2...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> news:a0bcjl$3m3
> > >
> > > In the words of a person that you seem to be afraid to respond to!
> > > "It's from the main body of the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of
> > > it. It's the part that assigns powers and duties to Congress, says
> > > what the Executive can and cannot do, how the court is to be set up,
> > > and a few other odds and ends. It's what most amendments amend,
> > > although after 213 years, it's amazingly intact."
> > >
> > >
> > > Not even close!
> > >
> > > The political mood of 1963 do you remember it?
> >
> > Non responsive!
>
> Un-realistic or to young to remember!
> > >
> > > Do you remember the SC decision the "Separation of Church and state?
> >
> > A sad attempt to re-direct the discussion!
>
> You are the one who has re-derected from my point!
and nothing more than a re-direction in and of itself!
> > >
> > > 1963 when the Democrats became Socialist's.
Hey fool, I don't puntuate for shit but even I know that this little
dohicky(?)
means that a question has been asked!
You sure seem to be awfully afraid of answering that question, I wonder
why....?
BTW I'm still waiting for you to credit your rant!
Are you this kirkconnel person?
citizen
"Zepp the Weasel" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in
>John Q., it doesn't look like "citizen" is interested in making a
>direct response. I've been trying to get in to say whether or not he
>thinks the main body of the Constitution is legally valid or not,
Why would it not be?
and
>I don't think he even knows what's in it.
You don't think ,I agree:>))
>I had a few more questions
>lined up for him, but it looks like we aren't going to get to those.
Questions?
Coming from you could not be much!
Go for it.
By the way you get your order?
Tempest
Unless he has other, more subversive, reasons:
"By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make
people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the
lie, the more readily it will be believed." Mein Kampf
> >
> > The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This
> > means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the
> > powers of our Constitution.
>
> They do not.
> >
--
"It should not be lost to history that Bush is going after the Taliban
in the name of democracy when he worked so hard a year ago to ban the
tally."
- Derrick Z. Jackson, Boston Globe
citizen
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
Aggravate or Irritate?
This is your response to the-
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
That the-
2nd, where there is
NO individual right?
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.
You LOSE!
BTW I'm still waiting for you to credit your rant!
I already said who keyed the magic logic.
A Wise and Noble "Owl"
Are you this kirkconnel person?
Nope:>))
john q public
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
>
> Aggravate or Irritate?
>
> This is your response to the-
>
> THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
>
>
>
> So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
>
>
> That the-
>
> 2nd, where there is
> NO individual right?
> 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.
>
> You LOSE!
LOFL You're the one taking coments out of context and actually adding your
own words to attempt ans resurect your failing whine!
Here is what I said and the statement that I was replying to!
***> It says that congress shall make no laws!
Well shit son, since making laws IS what congress does, that line certainly
separates the church and the state!
Or would you like to read it literally, kind of like the 2nd, where there is
NO individual right?*****
Saying quite clearly that since you expect the First not to include a
"seperation of church and state" because those words are not "literaly" part
of the Amendment.
That applying your own twisted logic to the Second, would mandate that there
is NO individual right and asking you IF that is your goal.
So sitzen, it seems that you have in truth lost, as you are the one having
to falsify the statements of others!
>
>
>
> BTW I'm still waiting for you to credit your rant!
>
> I already said who keyed the magic logic.
>
> A Wise and Noble "Owl"
So it's just the rant of an idiot? Or would you like to grow up and provide
a link to the rant so it can be read in context and
perhaps gain some credibility?
>
> Are you this kirkconnel person?
>
> Nope:>))
Good because he looks like a decent guy with a nice family!
citizen
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
>Well shit son, since making laws IS >what congress does
True in everything but one of the Bill of Rights!
, >that line certainly
>separates the church and the state!
No congress did not make a law the politically motivated Liberal SC made a
ruling.
Which gave the government control over where religion can be practiced in
clear violation of the "First Amendment"!
>Or would you like to read it literally, >kind of like the2nd, where there
is
>NO individual right?*****
The First is not the Second!
Just like the Second Amendment is not a collective Right!
>Saying quite clearly that since you >expect the First not to include a
>"separation of church and state"
The First does not state a "separation of church and state" the SC did it in
it's political attack on the First!
>because >those words are not >"literally" part
>of the Amendment.
>That applying your own twisted logic
No that is your twisted logic:>))
>to the Second, would mandate that >there
>is NO individual right and asking you >IF that is your goal.
I would not want to steal your goal:>))
>So sitzen, it seems that you have in >truth lost, as you are the one having
>to falsify the statements of others!
Not really "ploy boy":>))
Aggravate or Irritate?
This is your response to the-
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
That the-
>2nd, where there is
>NO individual right?
>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.
The Right to Keep and Bear arms is a individual Right not a collective one!
You LOSE!
john q public
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
>
> >Well shit son, since making laws IS >what congress does
>
> True in everything but one of the Bill of Rights!
>
> , >that line certainly
> >separates the church and the state!
>
> No congress did not make a law the politically motivated Liberal SC made a
> ruling.
No the constitutional congress decided that when they wrote the constitution
and the Bill of Rights!
>
> Which gave the government control over where religion can be practiced in
> clear violation of the "First Amendment"!
What a stretch this is, enforcing the constitution violates the
constitution.
Wow you are twisted!
>
>
> >Or would you like to read it literally, >kind of like the2nd, where there
> is
> >NO individual right?*****
>
> The First is not the Second!
> Just like the Second Amendment is not a collective Right!
Is that your final answer? You do not believe that the First should be read
the same as the Second?
>
>
> >Saying quite clearly that since you >expect the First not to include a
> >"separation of church and state"
>
> The First does not state a "separation of church and state" the SC did it
in
> it's political attack on the First!
And the Second does not state "Individual"
>
>
> >because >those words are not >"literally" part
> >of the Amendment.
> >That applying your own twisted logic
>
> No that is your twisted logic:>))
No actually it is yours
"
>
> >to the Second, would mandate that >there
> >is NO individual right and asking you >IF that is your goal.
>
> I would not want to steal your goal:>))
>
>
> >So sitzen, it seems that you have in >truth lost, as you are the one
having
> >to falsify the statements of others!
>
>
> Not really "ploy boy":>))
>
> Aggravate or Irritate?
>
> This is your response to the-
>
No fool that is the response that totally proves that cooper was giving
nothing more than his personal opinion
and that many other "so called experts" often think that he is full of it!
the other "English usage" experts don't weigh in on gunnutz debates because
it isn't a debate over the proper usage of a word but some bloody
gunutz paid opinion. Get it? RQ!
You lose once again, shapeshifter!
citizen
>
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u2l6phb...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >Well shit son, since making laws IS >what congress does
> >
> > True in everything but one of the Bill of Rights!
> Were you aware that the above sentence makes NO sense?
Read it again and stop the posturing!
Congress shall make no laws!
> >
> > , >that line certainly
> > >separates the church and the state!
> >
> > No congress did not make a law the politically motivated Liberal SC made
a
> > ruling.
>
> No the constitutional congress decided that when they wrote the
constitution
> and the Bill of Rights!
> >
> > Which gave the government control over where religion can be practiced
in
> > clear violation of the "First Amendment"!
>
> What a stretch this is, enforcing the constitution violates the
> constitution.
> Wow you are twisted!
You don't know what surrounded the SC decission!
> >
> >
> > >Or would you like to read it literally, >kind of like the2nd, where
there
> > is
> > >NO individual right?*****
> >
> > The First is not the Second!
> > Just like the Second Amendment is not a collective Right!
You can debate back in forth all you want!
You lost!
Your a tiny-minded-liberal that made a statement that was incorrect
concerning the Second Amendment!
You are also not aware about how and why SC made there decision the
"Separation between Church and State"!
Its like having ten cessions to the contrary and over looking them all in
the name of partisan politics that is what the SC did in its ruling
the"Separation between Church and State"!
Look it up or shut up:>))
Its something like how you liberals see the Nov.2000 SC decision a stacked
deck!
When it comes to Copperud he was a liberal who called it how it was!
Aggravate or Irritate?
This is your response to the-
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
That the-
>2nd, where there is
john q public
You don't know shit from shinola, hell you don't even know what shape
you shifted from most recently!
> > >
> > >
> > > >Or would you like to read it literally, >kind of like the2nd, where
> there
> > > is
> > > >NO individual right?*****
> > >
> > > The First is not the Second!
> > > Just like the Second Amendment is not a collective Right!
>
>
> You can debate back in forth all you want!
>
> You lost!
No you shapeshifted and that IS not the same thing!
>
> Your a tiny-minded-liberal that made a statement that was incorrect
> concerning the Second Amendment!
>
> You are also not aware about how and why SC made there decision the
> "Separation between Church and State"!
You have no awareness of anything, at all!
>
> Its like having ten cessions to the contrary and over looking them all in
> the name of partisan politics that is what the SC did in its ruling
> the"Separation between Church and State"!
You really shouldn't post on crack!
>
> Look it up or shut up:>))
LOL!
>
> Its something like how you liberals see the Nov.2000 SC decision a stacked
> deck!
Well shit, if you can show that the majority reversed long standing beliefs,
stated that their decision should not be used as a precedent of
Shit on states rights, I'll listen!
>
> When it comes to Copperud he was a liberal who called it how it was!
LOL, you wouldn't happen to have anything to back this wild claim up with,
would you?
You lie!
john q public
>
>
> Not really "ploy boy":>))
>
> Aggravate or Irritate?
>
> This is your response to the-
>
> THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
Yes I respond to your "Expert" on usage with other "Experts" on usage!
When you provide a article from a gun magazine, as some sort of unbiased
proof
of something, I provide solid evidence that your "Expert" can't even agree
on the usage of
aggravate and irritate!
Is it the fact that you can't refute the discordance between the "Experts"
that aggravates
you or the FACT that the pages of your gun magazine keep sticking together
that irritates you?
>
>
>
> So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
I have!
>
>
> That the-
>
> >2nd, where there is
> >NO individual right?
> >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.
>
> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is a individual Right not a collective
one!
Cite?
U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007
(1997)
U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926
(1978)
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918
(1976)
U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641
(2001)
U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 833
(2001)
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996)
U.S. v. Lewis,, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001)
U.S . Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997
(1993)
U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972)
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404
U.S. 1009 (1972)
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 1116 (2000)
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983)
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807
(1997)
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414
U.S. 839 (1973)
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S.
463 (1943)
U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom.
Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S. 770 (1943)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000)
U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff'd, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th
Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999)
U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999)
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996)
Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F.Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993)
Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987)
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 842
(1984)
Vietmanese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982)
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds,
451 F.2d 1355 (7th Cir. 1971)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
STATE COURTS
Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)
State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)
U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987)
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)
Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983)
City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio App. 1983)
State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)
In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)
State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)
Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812
(1969)
Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)
That can refute those?
citizen
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> cried a in message news:a0f73r$793
Loser's always seem to cry fowl when they themselves realize they have
lost:>))
You can debate back in forth all you want!
You lost!
Your a tiny-minded-liberal that made a statement that was incorrect
concerning the Second Amendment!
When it comes to Copperud he was a liberal who called it how it was!
Aggravate or Irritate?
This is your only response to the-
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
That the-
>2nd, where there is
citizen
"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
The is no SC case that has ruled that the "Second Amendment" is any thing
but an indivigual Right:>))
Take these over to tpg James Mayer has every one of your lower court cases
scoped out!
john q public
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
>
>
> The is no SC case that has ruled that the "Second Amendment" is any thing
> but an indivigual Right:>))
>
> Take these over to tpg James Mayer has every one of your lower court cases
> scoped out!
Didn't I ask you not to post while on crack, your rant above, again makes no
sense!
john q public
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> cried a in message
news:a0f73r$793
>
> Loser's always seem to cry fowl when they themselves realize they have
> lost:>))
that they have won.
Apparently hoping to convince themselves!
>
> You can debate back in forth all you want!
>
> You lost!
Stomp your feet when you say that!
>
> Your a tiny-minded-liberal that made a statement that was incorrect
> concerning the Second Amendment!
Post that statement, not a question that you need to take out of context and
rephrase as a statement
but an actual statement. Go Ahead, I dare you!
>
>
> Aggravate or Irritate?
>
> This is your response to the-
>
> THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
Yes I respond to your "Expert" on usage with other "Experts" on usage!
When you provide a article from a gun magazine, as some sort of unbiased
proof
of something, I provide solid evidence that your "Expert" can't even agree
on the usage of
aggravate and irritate!
Is it the fact that you can't refute the discordance between the "Experts"
that aggravates
you or the FACT that the pages of your gun magazine keep sticking together
that irritates you?
>
>
>
> So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
I have!
>
>
> That the-
>
> >2nd, where there is
> >NO individual right?
> >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.
>
> The Right to Keep and Bear arms is a individual Right not a collective
one!
Cite?
U.S. COURT
Keynes
>
>"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
>
>Aggravate or Irritate?
>
>This is your response to the-
>
>THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
>
>
>
>So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
>
>
>That the-
>
>2nd, where there is
>NO individual right?
>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.
>
>You LOSE!
>
Those founding fathers, being illiterate and politically childlike, must have
made a typo. They probably meant -
A =well regulated militia=, being necessary to the security of a free =state=,
*to protect us from indian attacks and adventures of the european colonial
powers*,
the right of *every person* to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,
*and they shall all register and serve in the = well regulated militia =
for the protection of the =free state=.*
I couldn't find a constitutional amendment for the keeping
of a perpetual standing army. It will probably have to go now. LOL
***************************************************
'Christian right' is a contradiction of terms.
as is 'compassionate conservatism'.
Jesus was clearly a leftist, a socialist in fact.
Giving one of your two coats to the man who has
none is not on the agenda of the high holy hypocrites.
They have given christianity a bad beating from which
it may be impossible to recover.
I have never seen any 'christianity' in the right.
"By their fruits you shall know them."
"Many will cry, Lord, Lord, but I will answer
'I never knew you'."
Do they "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?
Do they have compassion on the "least of these"?
Do they love their enemies? Bless those who curse them?
Do they 'behold the plank in their own eye,
rather than the mote in the eye of their brother?'
Do they make any effort to be fair and truthful?
Or do they twist the truth and stand it on it's
head for simple political advantage?
They are actually sanctimonious militants whose
idea of 'christianity' is to impose their prejudices
on absolutely everybody by any means necessary.
They are fascists, pure and simple. (Accent on 'simple'.)
And they believe, like the taliban does, that God
Almighty is leading them on a holy war against
enemies who are un-human devils who must
be conquored and destroyed. There is not
a trace of christianity in any of them.
john q public
"Keynes" <Key...@spam.newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:aqtm2ugci17d4nu38...@4ax.com...
But did you find an amendment that mentioned a individual right to keep and
bear?
citizen
>
> "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u2mkqdi...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > The is no SC case that has ruled that the "Second Amendment" is any
thing
> > but an indivigual Right:>))
> >
> > Take these over to tpg James Mayer has every one of your lower court
cases
> > scoped out!
>
> Didn't I ask you not to post while on crack, your rant above, again makes
no
> sense!
> >
Product of a public school system and kind of slow?
I Meant go over to talk.politics.guns ,over there James Mayer will show you
where the bear shits in the buckweat on your lower court cases ,concerning
the "Second Amenment" and all will laugh and have fun:>))
citizen
>
> >
> >"john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> >
> >Aggravate or Irritate?
> >
> >This is your response to the-
> >
> >THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
> >
> >
> >
> >So you can not back up your statement about the "Second Amendment"
> >
> >
> >That the-
> >
> >2nd, where there is
> >NO individual right?
> >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.
> >
> >You LOSE!
> >
>
> A =well regulated militia=, being necessary to the security of a free
=state=,
> *to protect us from indian attacks and adventures of the european colonial
> powers*,
> the right of *every person* to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,
> *and they shall all register and serve in the = well regulated militia =
> for the protection of the =free state=.*
>
Hey John here's your crack smoker:>))
john q public
>
> "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> news:a0flgc$sbo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > "citizen" <stu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:u2mkqdi...@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "john q public" <kysd...@putermail.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > >
> > > The is no SC case that has ruled that the "Second Amendment" is any
> thing
> > > but an indivigual Right:>))
> > >
> > > Take these over to tpg James Mayer has every one of your lower court
> cases
> > > scoped out!
> >
> > Didn't I ask you not to post while on crack, your rant above, again
makes
> no
> > sense!
> > >
>
> Product of a public school system and kind of slow?
Come on guy, time to take responsibility for your own life, teachers can't
teach
those who refuse to learn.
>
> I Meant go over to talk.politics.guns ,over there James Mayer will show
you
> where the bear shits in the buckweat on your lower court cases ,concerning
> the "Second Amenment" and all will laugh and have fun:>))
Why would I want to go to a gunutz group, I own guns but my life doesn't
revolve around
them.
Keynes
wrote:
No. I was saying that if the founders wanted to say
'every person', they could have said it.
They were against a large standing army, believing
that a 'well regulated militia' was sufficient for emergencies,
and that an army could be raised if it ever became
necessary. An individual who is not in a 'well regulated
militia' appears to be left out of the amendment. IMHO.
But gun culture is rooted deep in the American psyche.
It will never go away.
john q public
Just checking, not that I thought that you could have found anything.