Once again, America shows how its citizens do not enjoy true freedom
Dave Proctor
and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools less
safe than schools in other countries.
It truely is a backward country.
Dave
St.George
Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
firearms,
> and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
> the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
less
> safe than schools in other countries.
The astonishing thing, Dave, is that you'll get flamed, BECAUSE MOST
AMERICANS JUST DON'T GET THIS!
These people honestly don't think that there is any sort of link between
their astonishing murder rates and gun ownership rates!
It's not that they are lying, or 'doing a Sharpjfa' - they JUST DON'T
BELIEVE IT!!
I'm afraid nothing can be done in the face of such astonishing blindness to
reality - and hence the cycle of violence will continue....
Dave Proctor
How many replies do you think it will get?
Dave
Dave Proctor wrote in message <82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au>...
>The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their firearms,
>and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
>the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
less
>safe than schools in other countries.
>
Mike Thompson
some time to decide whether I wanted to respond to it or not. But after
a little thought and after reading the usual post by atwood I decided to
give it a shot.
Dave, the issue isn't as cut and dry as you make. Now I am not a
eloquent man but I will try to express what I feel and maybe we can
understand each better.
I have always wondered about both Americas and British love for
alcohol. Nearly half of the traffic deaths in America is due to
alcohol. I was amused by the British banning of firearms since there
are few deaths in which a firearm was involved. Now I have wondered how
many people (adults and children) are killed by drunk drivers. I am
sure that it is many times the number that is killed by firearms.
How many people could be saved if alcohol was banned? How many people
could be saved if a permit was required to purchase alcohol? How many
people could be saved if records of alcohol consumption for each person
each day in a nationwide database to prevent drunks from getting on the
roads or maybe even to prevent a person from becoming a drunk?
Would people accept such restrictions? But these restrictions is what
atwood calls gunnuts must accept. (BTW, I am always surprised by his
continual insults by people the enjoy shooting or collecting guns. Oh,
atwood, for the record I own no firearms and never have. So please
spare me the usual insults. They don't apply to me.)
Now there is the usual comments that guns cause murder. This argument
for me has certain problems. I was reading recently that of the 200
million firearms in America something around 68 million are here in
Texas. That means that 1/3 of all firearms are in one state. If the
gun causes murder argument is true than 1/3 of all firearm related
deaths would be in Texas. While I don't have the numbers I feel safe in
saying that the number of deaths is more aligned to the number of people
not the number of guns.
I have read the anti-gun sites comments that 13 children per day are
killed by firearms. But if you check the cdc.org statistics web site
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/usmort.htm the numbers change a bit. It is
less than 2 a day, mind you that 2 is way to high but the deaths due to
traffic accidents is 8 a day. Keep in mind that half of all traffic
deaths are alcohol related. Now I am looking at overall deaths and not
jumping into a lower category to more precisely define the cause of the
death.
I do admit that there is a jump in gun deaths in the 15-19 category but
this is due to gang violence and their drug involvement, IMHO.
Now you make a comment about "the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
the second amendment". This is interesting since I was under the
impression that the SC has passed any decisions since 1934. In fact I
wish they would get off their duffs and get involved in this issue and
put it to rest once for for all. Recently a constitutional scholar,
Lawrence Tribe, did confirm the individual right to own a firearm. Many
on this forum have quotes from our founding fathers that do confirm this
right as well. It is a protection against a government that is taking
itself way to seriously.
About school safety, being a 47 year old and with no children, I can
only say that kids today are much safer in school than at home. Crime
in schools is supposed to be way down. I did read one interesting
detail. Last year something like 6000 kids and young adults were found
to have taken a firearm to school, and damn that number is scary. But
the interesting bit is that out of that 6000 less than a dozen were take
to court by Federal officials for violating a federal law. Our Justice
Department for some reason seems reluctant to prosecute criminals that
commit crimes with guns.
Now in closing a final comment. At
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/pages/rcsjune99
there is the crime report for New South Wales. They have very
restrictive laws about firearms but the interesting thing to note is
that these laws have not reduced the murder rate. They did reduce the
number of crimes commit with a firearm but made no dent in the number of
murders. Again this contradicts the claims that guns cause murder.
Dave, I really do wish that this was a simple as the presence of
firearms. But I am unconvinced.
Take care and good luck
Mike Thompson
Jeff the Gun Nut
firearms,
> It truely is a backward country.
>
If that is truly the case, then what you have to say is of no import because
as a non American you cannot truly understand what civil liberties really
mean. I could no more inteligently comment about the British house of
commons daily business than you can about our freedoms. You see, we
Americans are really a truly unique group of people, we want our leaders to
be moral and forthright, our environment to be clean, our schools to be
safe havens of learning and most importantly, our constitutional rights
un-dilluted. We do not always get what we want but we continue to fight for
our beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds simply because it is the right
thing to do. Those of you who do not understand true freedom can only stand
by and watch as our democratic process asserts itself time and time again.
Britain has COMPLETE gun control (as much as can ever truly be achieved)
and censorship, and socialist medicine, and one of the highest unemployment
rates of any of the "first world" countries. Poverty and violent crime
makes her city streets unsafe after dark, and yet there are a lot of Brits
who cast a chary eye across the Atlantic, sniff down their noses, and
comment on what a bunch of loons we are. You see it makes them feel somehow
superior if they can look down on their "colonial upstart colonies" and say
that they were right, those ignorant savages weren't ready for home rule.
The same argument that held South Africa in apartheid for over a century.
And we are the backward ones [:o!
Edward L. Patrick
>
> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their firearms,
> the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools less
> safe than schools in other countries.
>
>
I don't know. Dusseldorf Class of '39, or Columbine Class of '99.
In which would you rather be enrolled?
Who has the greater odds of reaching age 25?
Despite our "crazed love" for our firearms, how is it that we have a
lower suicide rate than countries like Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland,
Japan, and Sweden? [Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997]
Are we less self-destructive around guns than the Japanese are around katanas?
Ed
--
Edward L. Patrick, Co-Founder
Maryland Citizens Defense League (MCDL)
45...@iamdigex.net or pat...@mcdl.org
MCDL
P.O. Box 2035
Columbia, MD 21045
http://www.mcdl.org bo...@mcdl.org
Bumper Stickers For Sale($1.00) White print on Navy Blue vinyl:
"MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME"
"2.5 Million Defensive Uses Each Year"
All proceeds go to support CCW reform in the so-called "Free" State.
Dave Proctor
>
>Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
>news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
>firearms,
>> It truely is a backward country.
>>
That is correct.
>If that is truly the case, then what you have to say is of no import
because
>as a non American you cannot truly understand what civil liberties really
>mean.
Why do American citizens have a world monopoly on understanding civil
liberties?
>I could no more inteligently comment about the British house of
>commons daily business than you can about our freedoms.
Apart from the fact that I lived there for an extended period. And apart
from the fact that whilst living there, I was the victim of violent crime on
more than one occasion. And apart from the fact that I can walk through the
sleaziest part of Sydney, Australia, at 2 in the morning, in total safety.
And apart from the fact that we do not have to have metal detectors in our
schools.
>You see, we
>Americans are really a truly unique group of people, we want our leaders
to
>be moral and forthright, our environment to be clean, our schools to be
>safe havens of learning and most importantly, our constitutional rights
>un-dilluted. We do not always get what we want but we continue to fight
for
>our beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds simply because it is the right
>thing to do. Those of you who do not understand true freedom can only
stand
>by and watch as our democratic process asserts itself time and time again.
>Britain has COMPLETE gun control (as much as can ever truly be achieved)
>and censorship, and socialist medicine, and one of the highest
unemployment
>rates of any of the "first world" countries. Poverty and violent crime
>makes her city streets unsafe after dark, and yet there are a lot of Brits
>who cast a chary eye across the Atlantic, sniff down their noses, and
>comment on what a bunch of loons we are. You see it makes them feel
somehow
>superior if they can look down on their "colonial upstart colonies" and say
>that they were right, those ignorant savages weren't ready for home rule.
>The same argument that held South Africa in apartheid for over a century.
>And we are the backward ones [:o!
Ummm, why the rant towards Britain?
Dave
George of the Jungle
Jeff the Gun Nut wrote in message ...
>
>Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
>news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
>> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
>firearms,
>snip
>> It truely is a backward country.
>>
>This statement is to assume that you are not a U.S. citizen Dave?
He's posting from Australia, Jeff.
>
>If that is truly the case, then what you have to say is of no import
because
>as a non American you cannot truly understand what civil liberties really
>mean. I could no more inteligently comment about the British house of
>commons daily business than you can about our freedoms. You see, we
Darren McElroy
> > The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
> firearms,
misinterpret
> > the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
> less
> > safe than schools in other countries.
>
>
> AMERICANS JUST DON'T GET THIS!
>
It's a worry when you post a troll & ya get replies like this ain't it
--
Cheers,
Darren!................................................DUH#15 (Y1)
Dar...@McElroy.net
http://www.Darren.McElroy.net
"When someone annoys you, it takes 42 muscles to frown, but only takes 4
muscles to extend your arm and smack them in the head."
Redcloak
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
firearms,
> and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to
misinterpret
> the second amendment, have combined to once again make American
schools less
> safe than schools in other countries.
>
BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!
I just love it. For years we've heard that the Supreme Court
has "interpreted" the 2nd Amendment to mean that the right of the
National Guard shall not be infringed. Now that we are on the verge of
having that same Court rule it to be an individual right, they are
suddenly "misinterpreting" the text.
So which is it? Are the Supremes correct or incorrect?
And why can't you gun-grabbers manage to keep your stories straight?
-Redcloak
--
Fighting to protect freedom in LaLa Land...
The San Fernando Valley NRA Members' Council
http://valley-nra.freeservers.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mal P
--
Cheers,
Mal
"Darren McElroy" <Dar...@McElroy.net> wrote in message
news:Wy334.324$JX....@ozemail.com.au...
>
> > > The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
> > firearms,
> > > and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to
> misinterpret
> > > the second amendment, have combined to once again make American
schools
> > less
> > > safe than schools in other countries.
> >
> >
Robert Frenchu
>The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their firearms,
>and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
>the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools less
>safe than schools in other countries.
Uh, Dave, how has the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Second
Amendment, exactly?
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Dave Proctor
>Indeed, an American with common sense? :-)
Scary, isn't it.
Dave
St.George
firearms,
> and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
> the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
less
> safe than schools in other countries.
>
Heh. There's nothing like a crosspost to talk.politics.guns to get a thread
going is there Dave?
:-)
Trinity
> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their firearms,
> and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
> the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools less
> safe than schools in other countries.
>
> It truely is a backward country.
Yeah, well, you might of had a point right up until you decided to take
the low road and make yourself look like a complete and utter asshole.
I'll make ya a deal, Dave. Shut up about our country and I won't
insult yours. No, wait... I ALREADY don't insult yours. So how about
this: Just shut up.
Trinity
<st_ge...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
> news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
> > The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
> firearms,
> > and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
> > the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
> less
> > safe than schools in other countries.
>
>
> The astonishing thing, Dave, is that you'll get flamed, BECAUSE MOST
> AMERICANS JUST DON'T GET THIS!
No Mark, he'll get flamed for including the pointless and purposely
inflammatory insult that you failed to include when you quoted his
message. I could agree (and have agreed many times) with the
sentiments expressed above. But that wasn't enough for Dave. Nooooo,
he just couldn't resist tossing out a gratuitous attack.
Åndrew R
> If that is truly the case, then what you have to say is of no import because
> as a non American you cannot truly understand what civil liberties really
> mean.
It honestly amazes me that so many Americans actually believe that their country
is the best and only free country on Earth.
> I could no more inteligently comment about the British house of
> commons daily business than you can about our freedoms.
That argument should go "I could no more intelligently comment about the British
house of commons daily business than you can about the daily business of the US
senate."
> You see, we
> Americans are really a truly unique group of people, we want our leaders to
> be moral and forthright,
Ahh, the scandals. So do the rest of the world.
> our environment to be clean,
ditto and why then does the USA want to buy "carbon credits" from other
countries?
> our schools to be
> safe havens of learning and most importantly,
The school I attend (I am 16) is a safe haven of learning. I think you will
find that (a) schools around the world are like that and (b) the USA has many
more cases of a student going on the rampage with a gun in their school the the
UK, for example.
> our constitutional rights
> un-dilluted.
I love the reasoning behind the "We need guns to protect ourselves" argument.
You need your guns to protect yourselves from other people protecting themselves
from YOU.
> We do not always get what we want but we continue to fight for
> our beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds simply because it is the right
> thing to do. Those of you who do not understand true freedom can only stand
> by and watch as our democratic process asserts itself time and time again.
Ahh, the USA, where in 1994, 62% of people didn't bother to vote (source:
http://www.igc.org/cvd/library/turnout/turnout.htm )
>
> Britain has COMPLETE gun control (as much as can ever truly be achieved)
I like the safety
>
> and censorship,
WHAT?
> and socialist medicine,
The NHS is a brilliant principle. Or do you think that only the rich should be
able to have access to health care?
> and one of the highest unemployment
> rates of any of the "first world" countries. Poverty and violent crime
> makes her city streets unsafe after dark,
Whereas every street is safe to walk down in the USA?
> and yet there are a lot of Brits
> who cast a chary eye across the Atlantic, sniff down their noses, and
> comment on what a bunch of loons we are.
Because you lot *are* loony ;-)
> You see it makes them feel somehow
> superior if they can look down on their "colonial upstart colonies" and say
> that they were right, those ignorant savages weren't ready for home rule.
Sources please.
>
> The same argument that held South Africa in apartheid for over a century.
> And we are the backward ones [:o!
The USA is backward and barbaric in it's use of the death penalty.
I am not saying that the UK is perfect, but it is a much better place that the
USA.
Andrew
--
"It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." -
Voltaire
http://qbandvb.cjb.net Andrew's QBASIC and Visual BASIC page.
http://qbandvb.cjb.net/ace/ ACE - The Active Clipboard Editor for Windows.
ICQ 53186881
Steve
> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their firearms,
I do sometimes grow strangely attached to inanimate objects, like
my motorcycle, my guns, etc... but in my case, I cannot honestly
say that my attachment achieves a status I would refer to as
'crazed love'.
> and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
> the second amendment,
I agree here. Our constitution clearly says that we, the people, have the
right to keep and bear arms, yet the Supreme Court promotes massive
confusion by not supporting this fact.
> have combined to once again make American schools less
> safe than schools in other countries.
Statistically, the number of school children who die as a result of
being shot is already approaching 0. The expense of trying to drive
the number even closer to 0 ( by depriving us of our constitutional
rights), cannot be rationally justified, except by those who conclude
that firearms ownership has a value approaching 0. Many people
wish the value of firearms ownership was 0, but as long as the
world is inhabited by humans, this will never be true. Just because
many adults have been lulled into a childish belief that tyrants and
criminals are no longer are a threat, doesn't make it so.
> It truely is a backward country.
In some ways, but soon we will get back all of the gun rights
that were illegally stolen from us, and things will fall back into
reasonable alignment.
> Dave
Cheers
Steve
TMK
gathering storm" and "their finest hour" by Churchill..the UK was damn near
extinguished while the pols tried to rearm the populace they disarmed some
years earlier...too bad the Brits don't learn by their own
mistakes...distrust the government that distrusts armed civilians!!!
TMK
Jeff the Gun Nut wrote in message ...
>
>Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
>news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
>> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
>firearms,
>snip
>> It truely is a backward country.
>>
>This statement is to assume that you are not a U.S. citizen Dave?
>
>If that is truly the case, then what you have to say is of no import
because
>as a non American you cannot truly understand what civil liberties really
>mean. I could no more inteligently comment about the British house of
>commons daily business than you can about our freedoms. You see, we
>Americans are really a truly unique group of people, we want our leaders
to
>be moral and forthright, our environment to be clean, our schools to be
>safe havens of learning and most importantly, our constitutional rights
>un-dilluted. We do not always get what we want but we continue to fight
for
>our beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds simply because it is the right
>thing to do. Those of you who do not understand true freedom can only
stand
>by and watch as our democratic process asserts itself time and time again.
>Britain has COMPLETE gun control (as much as can ever truly be achieved)
>and censorship, and socialist medicine, and one of the highest
unemployment
>rates of any of the "first world" countries. Poverty and violent crime
>makes her city streets unsafe after dark, and yet there are a lot of Brits
>who cast a chary eye across the Atlantic, sniff down their noses, and
>comment on what a bunch of loons we are. You see it makes them feel
somehow
>superior if they can look down on their "colonial upstart colonies" and say
>that they were right, those ignorant savages weren't ready for home rule.
Russ Simons
no respect for anyone or anything, including human life. Reality is that the
guns have always been here, but in the past, we taught children to respect
both the weapon and the life it could stop.
St.George wrote in message <82hsbk$nii$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>
>Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
>news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
>> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
>firearms,
misinterpret
>less
>> safe than schools in other countries.
>
>
>AMERICANS JUST DON'T GET THIS!
>
St.George
Mike Thompson <sea...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:384C8C2F...@flash.net...
> Dave, I read you init post and did a little thinking about it and took
> some time to decide whether I wanted to respond to it or not. But after
> a little thought and after reading the usual post by atwood I decided to
> give it a shot.
>
> Dave, the issue isn't as cut and dry as you make. Now I am not a
> eloquent man but I will try to express what I feel and maybe we can
> understand each better.
>
> I have always wondered about both Americas and British love for
> alcohol. Nearly half of the traffic deaths in America is due to
> alcohol. I was amused by the British banning of firearms since there
> are few deaths in which a firearm was involved. Now I have wondered how
> many people (adults and children) are killed by drunk drivers. I am
> sure that it is many times the number that is killed by firearms.
Is this true?
Can anyone post stats for the number of U.S. citizens killed by guns Vs
number killed by drunk drivers in any recent year?
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
>>How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
>>
>>>The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
>firearms,
>>>and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to misinterpret
>>>the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
>less
>>>safe than schools in other countries.
>>
>>Uh, Dave, how has the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Second
>>Amendment, exactly?
>
>A strict reading of the second amendment is that "the right of the people to
>keep and bear arms" is in relation to "A well regulated militia" and is not
>to be taken in isolation. If it was, it would be in either a new sentence or
>a new paragraph.
No, a strict reading is that *the right* to keep and bear arms (that
is, the pre-existing right, i.e. not created by the government) shall
not be infringed. The reason? Because a well regulated militia is
necessary for the security of a free state. That's why it shall not be
infringed- not why it exists.
Now, answer the question- how has the Supreme COurt misinterpreted the
Second Amendment?
St.George
Jeff the Gun Nut <sm...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:E4034.18910$KV.1...@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
> news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
> firearms,
> > It truely is a backward country.
> >
> This statement is to assume that you are not a U.S. citizen Dave?
>
> If that is truly the case, then what you have to say is of no import
because
> as a non American you cannot truly understand what civil liberties really
> mean. I could no more inteligently comment about the British house of
> commons daily business than you can about our freedoms.
Firstly, Dave is an Australian. However, I can already see from the rest of
your post that facts mean little to you.
You see, we
> Americans are really a truly unique group of people, we want our leaders
to
> be moral and forthright,
Yet you elected Clinton....
> our environment to be clean,
Yet you pollute more per capita than any other country on the planet....
our schools to be
> safe havens of learning
Yet you ban the teaching of Darwinian theory.....
and most importantly, our constitutional rights
> un-dilluted. We do not always get what we want but we continue to fight
for
> our beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds simply because it is the
right
> thing to do. Those of you who do not understand true freedom
You appear to be referring to Great Britain, which, in fact, is the most
free country on the planet.
Next time you get into your car, don't forget to take your documents,
otherwise you'll be breaking the law, unlike in GB.
Fancy a bet? Stroll into a betting shop in GB - will your masters trust you
to do that in Utah, or in any other of 48 or so states?
20 and fancy a beer? Not likely in U.S.
25 and fancy a beer but forgotten your I.D.? Not likely in U.S.
Filled in your lengthy tax return yet this year?
Fancy having certain types of consensual sex and live in one of 20 states
which forbid it?
Like to have the freedom to walk in cities at night without fearing meeting
a nutter with a gun around the next corner?
Don't fancy being FORCED by your government to register for the Selective
Service System at age 18?
Then move to Great Britain - the ONLY country on the planet where citizens
are not compelled by their government to perform ANY action whatsoever,
unless they consent to such compulsion.
THAT is "true freedom", my friend.
can only stand
> by and watch as our democratic process asserts itself time and time again.
> Britain has COMPLETE gun control (as much as can ever truly be achieved)
Not true - shotguns are widely owned by those who reasonably require them,
such as farmers, hunters or other sportsmen.
As for handgun control - the British population completely supports this.
> and censorship,
Bullshit.
Unless you are referring to porn or something - but tried renting a dirty
video in the bible belt lately?
> and socialist medicine,
And this is a BAD thing? The very idea that people should be left to die if
ill just because they cannot afford treatment is disgusting.
Besides, in fact the U.S. has socialised medicine too - you checked out your
local county hospital lately?
and one of the highest unemployment
> rates of any of the "first world" countries.
LOL! What a load of made up bullshit!
Prove it. Go on, can we see some stats that back this up?
[BTW, this is what is called a rhetorical question. Of course, if 'Jeff'
bothers to look this up, he will find out he is taliking crap and of course
he will not be replying to THIS point. ROTFL!! Is he a liar or is he just
stupid? ]
Poverty and violent crime
> makes her city streets unsafe after dark,
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The word 'hypocrisy' hardly seems to suffice.
That's right - the U.S. has the world's safest streets - honest!!
Last figures I saw, Los Angeles had THREE times more murders than the whole
of Great Britain, but OUR streets are unsafe?!?
Well, thank you for a good laugh, anyway.
Heh heh heh!
Mark
St.George
TMK <kravi...@snip.net> wrote in message
news:s4qvoja...@corp.supernews.com...
> as an aside...you want to know the real danger of gun bans...read "the
> gathering storm" and "their finest hour" by Churchill..the UK was damn
near
> extinguished
"...damn near extinguished..."?
An interesting turn of phrase for a country who didn't even suffer an
invasion.
Mike Thompson
George, I went to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I checked the stats
section and OK I got it slightly wrong. The overall is 40%, it is 50%
here in Texas. The URL is
http://www.madd.org/stats/
Mike T
Dave Proctor
>How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
>
firearms,
>>the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
less
>>safe than schools in other countries.
>
>Uh, Dave, how has the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Second
>Amendment, exactly?
A strict reading of the second amendment is that "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms" is in relation to "A well regulated militia" and is not
to be taken in isolation. If it was, it would be in either a new sentence or
a new paragraph.
Dave
Dave Proctor
>> news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
>> firearms,
>> > and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to
misinterpret
>> > the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
>> less
>> > safe than schools in other countries.
>>
>>
>> AMERICANS JUST DON'T GET THIS!
>
>
>inflammatory insult that you failed to include when you quoted his
>message. I could agree (and have agreed many times) with the
>sentiments expressed above. But that wasn't enough for Dave. Nooooo,
>he just couldn't resist tossing out a gratuitous attack.
Nope - having lived there, for an extended period of time, I know full well
that it is a strange place.
Dave
Jeff the Gun Nut
Åndrew R <andy...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:384D56C7...@geocities.com...
> The USA is backward and barbaric in it's use of the death penalty.
> I am not saying that the UK is perfect, but it is a much better place that
the
> USA.
>
> Andrew
>
prime example. Last week the govt. of Britain decided that Pornography
sites from the U.S. do not conform to their standards and were seeking ways
to effectively block them. Look at the News on any given day and you can
see evidence of Britsh censorship esp. if it involves the royals. Like I
said, I may not always like the dark side of freedom but i will take that
to the sunny side of oppression any day!
Jason O'Rourke
>Is this true?
>
>Can anyone post stats for the number of U.S. citizens killed by guns Vs
>number killed by drunk drivers in any recent year?
Of the 40some thousand vehicle deaths, about 18000 involve
alcohol. Remove suicides and guns are already behind. Remove cop
shootings, gangster shootouts and righteous kills (ie, self defense) and
alcohol is way out in front.
www.nhtsa.dot.gov will have the traffic figures for you.
--
Jason O'Rourke j...@best.com www.jor.com
We need more snow!
Jason O'Rourke
>Firstly, Dave is an Australian. However, I can already see from the rest of
>your post that facts mean little to you.
Funny, I was thinking the same of you.
>Yet you ban the teaching of Darwinian theory.....
To describe a single school board as national policy is a tad dishonest.
>Next time you get into your car, don't forget to take your documents,
>otherwise you'll be breaking the law, unlike in GB.
The driver, yes. Passengers, no. And you're not going to get hauled away
for it.
>Fancy a bet? Stroll into a betting shop in GB - will your masters trust you
>to do that in Utah, or in any other of 48 or so states?
There are a number of casinos within miles of my house North of San
Francisco. There are restrictions on the type of gaming allowed in
California (no slots, and 21 becomes 22), but it certainly is readily
available. Plus we have the stock market, the greatest new thing for
gamblers.
>20 and fancy a beer? Not likely in U.S.
>25 and fancy a beer but forgotten your I.D.? Not likely in U.S.
You might find reality to be a bit different. But it's odd that you trust
your younger citizens with alcohol but none of them with guns,
particularly in light of the other post where you asked if its true that
alcohol kills more than guns (it does).
>Filled in your lengthy tax return yet this year?
Paid your 18.5% VAT lately? You trade one form of taxation for
another. And software makes that 1040 relatively easy.
>Fancy having certain types of consensual sex and live in one of 20 states
>which forbid it?
Know any convictions in the past 20 years for it?
>Like to have the freedom to walk in cities at night without fearing meeting
>a nutter with a gun around the next corner?
No fear here, bub. Unlike you, I have the option to defend myself as
well.
>Don't fancy being FORCED by your government to register for the Selective
>Service System at age 18?
Again, meaningless. There is virtually no conceivable situation that
could lead to the need for the draft. (Perhaps saving more European
nations from themselves since you pussies won't do a damn thing)
>Then move to Great Britain - the ONLY country on the planet where citizens
>are not compelled by their government to perform ANY action whatsoever,
>unless they consent to such compulsion.
>
>THAT is "true freedom", my friend.
Of course you lose trial rights, publishing rights...a fair exchange you
would say. I certainly would not.
>Not true - shotguns are widely owned by those who reasonably require them,
>such as farmers, hunters or other sportsmen.
So your freedom requires that you individual justify your
needs. Certainly a different definition.
>Unless you are referring to porn or something - but tried renting a dirty
>video in the bible belt lately?
Care to be more specific? And again you're trying to generalize with a
small portion of the country. In San Francisco they have a parade for
people in leather.
>Last figures I saw, Los Angeles had THREE times more murders than the whole
>of Great Britain, but OUR streets are unsafe?!?
And how many of those were not gangsters shooting gangsters?
Dave Proctor
>How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
>
>>Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
>>>How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
>>>
>>firearms,
>>>>and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to
misinterpret
>>>>the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
>>less
>>>>safe than schools in other countries.
>>>
>>>Amendment, exactly?
>>
>>A strict reading of the second amendment is that "the right of the people
to
>>keep and bear arms" is in relation to "A well regulated militia" and is
not
>>to be taken in isolation. If it was, it would be in either a new sentence
or
>>a new paragraph.
>
>is, the pre-existing right, i.e. not created by the government) shall
>not be infringed. The reason? Because a well regulated militia is
>necessary for the security of a free state. That's why it shall not be
>infringed- not why it exists.
>
>Now, answer the question- how has the Supreme COurt misinterpreted the
>Second Amendment?
I said so before. A strict reading of the amendment has the right to bear
arms in relation to a well regulated militia, not on its own. You have the
right to bear arms when a member of and on duty with a well regulated
militia, not in your own home.
Dave
antisdolie
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
> I said so before. A strict reading of the amendment has the right to
> bear arms in relation to a well regulated militia, not on its own. You
> have the right to bear arms when a member of and on duty with a well
> regulated militia, not in your own home.
That's funny. I just did a strict reading of the amendment and the
following words do not appear, as you say they do:
1. relation
2. member or membership
3. on duty
4. not in your own home
5. not of its own
How does one do a strict reading and add a bunch of words at the same
time?
Jim
Dave Proctor
>Hi Dave,
>
>On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:41:04 +1100, Dave Proctor (or one of their many
>personalities) said....
>
>
>>How was this for a troll?
>
>Pretty fricking good it appears!
LOL - I agree, although I meant every word of what I wrote.
Dave
J.A. James
dap...@spambait.umpires.com says...
> arms in relation to a well regulated militia, not on its own. You have the
> right to bear arms when a member of and on duty with a well regulated
> militia, not in your own home.
The Amendment doesn't mention anything about where and when your
rights can't be infringed. It mentions that the militia is necessary
for the security of the state. In order to fulfill that necessity and
preclude the national security from being degraded, the right to keep
and bear arms can't be infringed. All the Second Amendment does is
ensures that the Federal Government will have a ready body of armed
individuals to perform the necessary militia duties and to ensure that
nobody can create a situation where those armed individuals aren't
available.
Dave Proctor
> The Amendment doesn't mention anything about where and when your
>rights can't be infringed.
It doesn't mention anything about being able to keep a firearm in your home
either.
>It mentions that the militia is necessary
>for the security of the state.
It says nothing of the sort. "A well regulated militia, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Where does it say
that it is necessary for the security of the state?
> In order to fulfill that necessity and
>preclude the national security from being degraded, the right to keep
>and bear arms can't be infringed.
No - a strict and literal interpretation of the wording of the amendment is
that the people have the right to form "well regulated" militias, with the
right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.
Given that we have murderers escaping death sentences and being released
purely upon the strict and literal wording of various laws and judgements,
why does SCOTUS adopt a strict and literal interpretation in some cases, but
on this particular issue they apply a broad brush interpretation (allright,
I know they have not ruled on it in over 50 years, but the last ruling still
stands).
>All the Second Amendment does is
>ensures that the Federal Government will have a ready body of armed
>individuals to perform the necessary militia duties and to ensure that
>nobody can create a situation where those armed individuals aren't
>available.
And all of that can be achieved without having guns available to any adult
who wants them. It does, after all, say "a well regulated militia" - why
can't those militias have armoury's. and those armoury's be the only place
where members of the militias have access to weapons? It would make your
communities a lot safer.
Dave
Panhead
Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
> >How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
> >
> >>Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
> >>>How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
> >>>
> >>>>The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
> >>firearms,
> >>>>and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to
> misinterpret
> >>>>the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
> >>less
> >>>>safe than schools in other countries.
> >>>
> >>>Uh, Dave, how has the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Second
> >>>Amendment, exactly?
> >>
> >>A strict reading of the second amendment is that "the right of the people
> to
> >>keep and bear arms" is in relation to "A well regulated militia" and is
> not
> >>to be taken in isolation. If it was, it would be in either a new sentence
> or
> >>a new paragraph.
> >
> >No, a strict reading is that *the right* to keep and bear arms (that
> >is, the pre-existing right, i.e. not created by the government) shall
> >not be infringed. The reason? Because a well regulated militia is
> >necessary for the security of a free state. That's why it shall not be
> >infringed- not why it exists.
> >
> >Now, answer the question- how has the Supreme COurt misinterpreted the
> >Second Amendment?
>
> I said so before. A strict reading of the amendment has the right to bear
> arms in relation to a well regulated militia, not on its own. You have the
> right to bear arms when a member of and on duty with a well regulated
> militia, not in your own home.
Then I should be in jail, along with some senators from
California, right?
Oh wait! I _am_ the militia!
Robert Frenchu
Dave, one more time - how has the SUPREME COURT misinterpreted the
Second Amendment?
Like, give us an example, a "fer instance," a cite, something like
that. OK?
Robert Frenchu
>J.A. James wrote in message <82l9q2$d7n$j...@216.39.163.74>...
>
>> The Amendment doesn't mention anything about where and when your
>>rights can't be infringed.
>
>It doesn't mention anything about being able to keep a firearm in your home
>either.
>
>>It mentions that the militia is necessary
>>for the security of the state.
>
>It says nothing of the sort. "A well regulated militia, the right of the
>people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Where does it say
>that it is necessary for the security of the state?
Ahem.
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.
Maybe you're talking about some other Constitution?
--
How many children have to die before
YOU do something? Join M.I.L.T. today!
http://www.frenchu.com/tpg/drill.html
Our motto- "It feels GOOD to give up a little freedom for a LOT of safety!"
Visit our new on-line book store!
Åndrew R
> St.George <st_ge...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >Firstly, Dave is an Australian. However, I can already see from the rest of
> >your post that facts mean little to you.
>
> Funny, I was thinking the same of you.
>
*Everyone* uses the facts that support their argument and ignore (or in some
cases try to rubbish) the ones against their opinion.
>
> >Yet you ban the teaching of Darwinian theory.....
>
> To describe a single school board as national policy is a tad dishonest.
>
Agreed. But that this can happen is in itself appalling, and shows a flaw in
what was posted.
>
> >Next time you get into your car, don't forget to take your documents,
> >otherwise you'll be breaking the law, unlike in GB.
>
> The driver, yes. Passengers, no. And you're not going to get hauled away
> for it.
>
> >Fancy a bet? Stroll into a betting shop in GB - will your masters trust you
> >to do that in Utah, or in any other of 48 or so states?
>
> There are a number of casinos within miles of my house North of San
> Francisco. There are restrictions on the type of gaming allowed in
> California (no slots, and 21 becomes 22), but it certainly is readily
> available. Plus we have the stock market, the greatest new thing for
> gamblers.
>
Believe it o not, there are stock markets in most major countries.
>
> >20 and fancy a beer? Not likely in U.S.
> >25 and fancy a beer but forgotten your I.D.? Not likely in U.S.
>
> You might find reality to be a bit different. But it's odd that you trust
> your younger citizens with alcohol but none of them with guns,
> particularly in light of the other post where you asked if its true that
> alcohol kills more than guns (it does).
>
Why is it odd that we do not let anyone carry a device designed for firing a
projectile at a VERY high speed, in short a killing device?
>
> >Filled in your lengthy tax return yet this year?
>
> Paid your 18.5% VAT lately? You trade one form of taxation for
> another. And software makes that 1040 relatively easy.
>
It's actually 17.5% on most non essential items. The 12.5% on fuel is a stupid
tory policy that should be removed as soon as possible.
>
> >Fancy having certain types of consensual sex and live in one of 20 states
> >which forbid it?
>
> Know any convictions in the past 20 years for it?
>
Is that the point? Those actions between consenting adults are still illegal.
>
> >Like to have the freedom to walk in cities at night without fearing meeting
> >a nutter with a gun around the next corner?
>
> No fear here, bub. Unlike you, I have the option to defend myself as
> well.
>
Fortunately, in the UK we do not have the _need_ to be able to defend ourselves
in the same way as it is required in the USA.
>
> >Don't fancy being FORCED by your government to register for the Selective
> >Service System at age 18?
>
> Again, meaningless. There is virtually no conceivable situation that
> could lead to the need for the draft. (Perhaps saving more European
> nations from themselves since you pussies won't do a damn thing)
>
Are you a racist, a xenophobe, or something else?
>
> >Then move to Great Britain - the ONLY country on the planet where citizens
> >are not compelled by their government to perform ANY action whatsoever,
> >unless they consent to such compulsion.
> >
> >THAT is "true freedom", my friend.
>
> Of course you lose trial rights, publishing rights...a fair exchange you
> would say. I certainly would not.
>
Where do you Americans get the idea that you have a monopoly on rights?
>
> >Not true - shotguns are widely owned by those who reasonably require them,
> >such as farmers, hunters or other sportsmen.
>
> So your freedom requires that you individual justify your
> needs. Certainly a different definition.
>
It ensures safety. If only those who need firearms have them, it make for a much
safer country.
>
> >Unless you are referring to porn or something - but tried renting a dirty
> >video in the bible belt lately?
>
> Care to be more specific? And again you're trying to generalize with a
> small portion of the country. In San Francisco they have a parade for
> people in leather.
>
> >Last figures I saw, Los Angeles had THREE times more murders than the whole
> >of Great Britain, but OUR streets are unsafe?!?
>
> And how many of those were not gangsters shooting gangsters?
The point is that the UK is MUCH safer than the USA.
Snake
Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> J.A. James wrote in message <82l9q2$d7n$j...@216.39.163.74>...
>
> > The Amendment doesn't mention anything about where and when your
> >rights can't be infringed.
>
> It doesn't mention anything about being able to keep a firearm in your home
> either.
How do you "keep and bear" if you can not "keep" were you
live?
>
> >It mentions that the militia is necessary
> >for the security of the state.
>
> It says nothing of the sort. "A well regulated militia, the right of the
> people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Where does it say
> that it is necessary for the security of the state?
You need to read the entire Constitution and Bill of
Rights. You have just removed a portion of the Second
Amendment, what else have you removed in your selective
reading?
>
> > In order to fulfill that necessity and
> >preclude the national security from being degraded, the right to keep
> >and bear arms can't be infringed.
>
> No - a strict and literal interpretation of the wording of the amendment is
> that the people have the right to form "well regulated" militias, with the
> right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.
>
A strict reading would be: a well regulated militia is
needed to sucure freedom, and the right OF THE PEOPLE should
never be infringed.
> Given that we have murderers escaping death sentences and being released
> purely upon the strict and literal wording of various laws and judgements,
> why does SCOTUS adopt a strict and literal interpretation in some cases, but
> on this particular issue they apply a broad brush interpretation (allright,
> I know they have not ruled on it in over 50 years, but the last ruling still
> stands).
>
> >All the Second Amendment does is
> >ensures that the Federal Government will have a ready body of armed
> >individuals to perform the necessary militia duties and to ensure that
> >nobody can create a situation where those armed individuals aren't
> >available.
>
> And all of that can be achieved without having guns available to any adult
> who wants them. It does, after all, say "a well regulated militia" - why
> can't those militias have armoury's. and those armoury's be the only place
> where members of the militias have access to weapons? It would make your
> communities a lot safer.
If you are required to keep your weapon at the armory then
you are no longer able to "keep and bear" that weapon.
Further what happens during a emergincy, is there time to
drive 20 or 30 miles to retrieve YOUR weapon?
>
> Dave
Snake
--
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the
Constitution: neither is it in any manner
dependent on that instrument for it's existence. The second
amendment means no more than that
it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other
effect than to restrict the powers of the
national government"
92 U. S. 542, U. S. v. Curishank
(U. S. la. 1875)
Trinity
<dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
> Nope - having lived there, for an extended period of time, I know full well
> that it is a strange place.
>
> Dave
There's a quantitive difference between "Strange" and "backwards" or
"barbaric". =) "Strange" can even be a positive thing, at least in
Northern California.
BTW Dave, it must seem like I have a split personality when responding
to you. =) Most of the time, I really like your posts. But I have
this knee-jerk response whenever people attack America: I instantly
respond in kind.
Anyway, it's not you that I was flaming. It was the "backwards"
comment. Folks flaming my country is a real sore spot with me, as it
should be with anyone that loves the land in which they live.
Now that we're over THAT, let me say that I love Kangaroos, Fosters,
and boomerangs. =) (Uh, you're from Australia, right? Boy, am I
gonna feel silly if you're not!) I don't want to flame you. I just
don't want to hear invective about my country. Complain about our
military, bitch about Clinton's policies, protest against our nukes...
that's all fine and dandy. But don't call us "barbaric" or "backwards"
or any other epitath meant soley to insult, because obviously it'll
have just that effect: Many of us will be insulted.
One's native country is a lot like... their family. Yes, my nephew
Ollie might be a little odd, but dammit, nobody outside of the family
better call him odd, because I'll defend him to the death. =)
Peace;
Trin
Jason O'Rourke
>> >Yet you ban the teaching of Darwinian theory.....
>> To describe a single school board as national policy is a tad dishonest.
>Agreed. But that this can happen is in itself appalling, and shows a flaw in
>what was posted.
It is unfortunate, but true that the Christian Right has found it can
easily gain power within the school boards. However, the actions
mentioned (which, as pointed out, do not in fact ban the teaching) will
resolve itself soon enough. They don't hold office forever.
>> There are a number of casinos within miles of my house North of San
>> Francisco. There are restrictions on the type of gaming allowed in
>> California (no slots, and 21 becomes 22), but it certainly is readily
>> available. Plus we have the stock market, the greatest new thing for
>> gamblers.
>Believe it o not, there are stock markets in most major countries.
We both come from English speaking countries, so I ask you to show where I
indicate that the US stock market is unique. It is currently the greatest
gambling event on earth with the dotcom equities.
>> You might find reality to be a bit different. But it's odd that you trust
>> your younger citizens with alcohol but none of them with guns,
>> particularly in light of the other post where you asked if its true that
>> alcohol kills more than guns (it does).
>Why is it odd that we do not let anyone carry a device designed for firing a
>projectile at a VERY high speed, in short a killing device?
Because an 18 year old drunk in a minivan is essentially a killing
device. Youngsters are so accident prone that California (along with
many other states) has had to resort to a graduated licensing system where
carrying other teens or driving at night is not permitted. The federal
mandate for each state to raise its drinking age to 21 was directly
related to the problems of immature drinkers.
I believe England does something similar with motorcycles, requiring new
riders to use a smaller motor for a period of time. Yet at no point will
you let them have a gun. So how many vehicle deaths per year do you have,
and what portion are caused by alcohol? (Here it is 4x,000 and 40%)
>> Paid your 18.5% VAT lately? You trade one form of taxation for
>> another. And software makes that 1040 relatively easy.
>>
>It's actually 17.5% on most non essential items. The 12.5% on fuel is a stupid
>tory policy that should be removed as soon as possible.
12.5% plus 17.5%? Actually, at least in California we're paying 36cents
per gallon plus the local 8% sales tax so the percentages work out to a
pretty high rate.
>> >Fancy having certain types of consensual sex and live in one of 20 states
>> >which forbid it?
>> Know any convictions in the past 20 years for it?
>Is that the point? Those actions between consenting adults are still illegal.
Yes, I agree it is wrong. There is a lot of dead code on the books from a
different era. But I'm not going to get up in arms over it when it is
completely ignored.
>Fortunately, in the UK we do not have the _need_ to be able to defend ourselves
>in the same way as it is required in the USA.
Not being there, how can I tell? Others here suggest that your rate of
robbery has been increasingly at quite a rate, along with invasion
burglaries.
>> Again, meaningless. There is virtually no conceivable situation that
>> could lead to the need for the draft. (Perhaps saving more European
>> nations from themselves since you pussies won't do a damn thing)
>Are you a racist, a xenophobe, or something else?
Wow - I'm not even sure where to start here. I'll point out again that
the draft is illusionary. The public would never support a draft for
actions in places like Yugoslavia. As it stands, people in the reserve
protested being called up for duty in Iraq, never once thinking they might
actually have to keep up their end of the bargain in exchange for some
monetary rewards.
>> >Then move to Great Britain - the ONLY country on the planet where citizens
>> >are not compelled by their government to perform ANY action whatsoever,
>> >unless they consent to such compulsion.
>> >THAT is "true freedom", my friend.
>> Of course you lose trial rights, publishing rights...a fair exchange you
>> would say. I certainly would not.
>Where do you Americans get the idea that you have a monopoly on rights?
Again, where do I claim said monopoly? The paragraph above regarding GB
does seem to suggest an English monopoly. What a joke.
>> So your freedom requires that you individual justify your
>> needs. Certainly a different definition.
>It ensures safety. If only those who need firearms have them, it make for a much
>safer country.
Any freedom that must be justified on need by every citizen is no freedom
at all.
>The point is that the UK is MUCH safer than the USA.
But when something bad happens, you just bend over and take it. I'm happy
with the freedom and responsibility of taking care of myself.
Since neither of us want to switch countries, it seems to work itself out
well.
TMK
war for a good number of years because their homesoil was left unprotected
as a result of the guns being grabbed...as I read Churchill, Dunkirk was an
outcropping of the problem...too few resources to commit on the continent
and still protect the country...these were dire times in the
UK...Churchill's take not mine...had the Nazi bastard had the guts to send
his troops over in 1940...the result could well have been disastrous for the
UK...again, Churchill's take...but it makes sense...anyway...enough of the
history recital.
TMK
St.George wrote in message <82k88b$2p5$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote in message <6ltOOL8zaOJiVk...@4ax.com>...
>>How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
>>
>>
>>>>Now, answer the question- how has the Supreme COurt misinterpreted the
>>>>Second Amendment?
>>>
>>>I said so before. A strict reading of the amendment has the right to bear
>>>arms in relation to a well regulated militia, not on its own. You have the
>>>right to bear arms when a member of and on duty with a well regulated
>>>militia, not in your own home.
>>
>>Dave, one more time - how has the SUPREME COURT misinterpreted the
>>Second Amendment?
>>
>>Like, give us an example, a "fer instance," a cite, something like
>>that. OK?
>
>I have already said how. I do not have the case, but SCOTUS ruled over 60
>years ago (unless the information I have been given is incorrect) that you
>have the right to bear arms.
I see, well- can't argue with that.
Panhead
Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> Snake wrote in message <384E9E55...@budsters.com>...
>
> > You need to read the entire Constitution and Bill of
> >Rights.
> I had read it, but not in the context of this duscussion.
What other context could one read or understand it?
> I was actually
> quoting from an article from a NY newspaper.
Well, who's fault is that?
St.George
Jason O'Rourke <j...@best.com> wrote in message
news:384dc530$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> St.George <st_ge...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >Firstly, Dave is an Australian. However, I can already see from the rest
of
> >your post that facts mean little to you.
>
> Funny, I was thinking the same of you.
Usenet etiquette mandates that you acknowledge snips.
Failure to do so marks you out as either a newbie or dishonest. I suspect
that you simply did not have an answer for my points.
> >Yet you ban the teaching of Darwinian theory.....
>
> To describe a single school board as national policy is a tad dishonest.
>
> >Next time you get into your car, don't forget to take your documents,
> >otherwise you'll be breaking the law, unlike in GB.
>
> The driver, yes. Passengers, no. And you're not going to get hauled away
> for it.
Are you not?
What, exactly are police powers in that situation if you have no ID? Is
arrest not one of them, or do they just accept that you are who you say you
are? <sarcasm>
> >Fancy a bet? Stroll into a betting shop in GB - will your masters trust
you
> >to do that in Utah, or in any other of 48 or so states?
>
> There are a number of casinos within miles of my house North of San
> Francisco.
California has cardrooms, which are NOT casinos in any normal sense of the
word.
There are restrictions on the type of gaming allowed in
> California (no slots, and 21 becomes 22), but it certainly is readily
> available.
Serious restrictions.
No roulette. No keno. No baccarat. No off-track horse betting. No sports
betting etc.etc.etc.
In fact, ALL that is available is poker, and player-banked 'Asian' and
'Californian' games. The house is not allowed to have any financial
interest in games, so what is permitted is analagous to a pair of golfers
betting with each other over a round in Utah, in that no organisation bets
against players in CA.
What is more, San Jose city council is currently trying to restrict Bay 101
and Garden City even further.
In GB, the gambling regulations are only slightly less liberal than Nevada.
[BTW, if you are wondering, unless you are a pro poker player I am almost
certain to have spent more time in California cardrooms than you :-]
Plus we have the stock market, the greatest new thing for
> gamblers.
It is statistically impossible to make money long-term
'bed-and-breakfasting' small share deals at individual trade sizes given the
commission charged even when reduced over the net.
> >20 and fancy a beer? Not likely in U.S.
> >25 and fancy a beer but forgotten your I.D.? Not likely in U.S.
>
> You might find reality to be a bit different. But it's odd that you trust
> your younger citizens with alcohol but none of them with guns,
> particularly in light of the other post where you asked if its true that
> alcohol kills more than guns (it does).
No, CARS kill more than guns.
> >Filled in your lengthy tax return yet this year?
>
> Paid your 18.5% VAT lately? You trade one form of taxation for
> another. And software makes that 1040 relatively easy.
British VAT is NOT 18.5%. Besides, you have sales taxes also.
My point, though, was that you are obliged to fill in this form. I do not
have to fill in similar forms.
> >Fancy having certain types of consensual sex and live in one of 20 states
> >which forbid it?
>
> Know any convictions in the past 20 years for it?
Irrelevant.
> >Like to have the freedom to walk in cities at night without fearing
meeting
> >a nutter with a gun around the next corner?
>
> No fear here, bub.
LOL! Stroll down to Candlestick Point tonight and see if you still feel
that way!
Unlike you, I have the option to defend myself as
> well.
Oh yeah? Got one of those coveted CA concealed carry permits have you?
> >Don't fancy being FORCED by your government to register for the Selective
> >Service System at age 18?
>
> Again, meaningless. There is virtually no conceivable situation that
> could lead to the need for the draft.
Except for any war.
Besides, totally not the point. My point is that your govt. compels you to
sign up for this.
(Perhaps saving more European
> nations from themselves since you pussies won't do a damn thing)
LOL! Pathetic, inaccurate ad homina - always the sign of an argument loser!
BTW, please DON't compare me with a Frenchman in your 'pussies' comment -
unless you would like to be lumped in with Bolivians, Mexicans and
Venezualans etc.
> >Then move to Great Britain - the ONLY country on the planet where
citizens
> >are not compelled by their government to perform ANY action whatsoever,
> >unless they consent to such compulsion.
> >
> >THAT is "true freedom", my friend.
>
> Of course you lose trial rights, publishing rights...a fair exchange you
> would say. I certainly would not.
Eh?
How about you actually include some facts rather than trivial blathering.
> >Not true - shotguns are widely owned by those who reasonably require
them,
> >such as farmers, hunters or other sportsmen.
>
> So your freedom requires that you individual justify your
> needs. Certainly a different definition.
Gun ownership is NOT a freedom.
Being free of the risk of being one of the tens of thousands blown away in
the U.S. each year is the freedom.
> >Unless you are referring to porn or something - but tried renting a dirty
> >video in the bible belt lately?
>
> Care to be more specific? And again you're trying to generalize with a
> small portion of the country. In San Francisco they have a parade for
> people in leather.
Alabama. Are your Californian smutty videos legal there?
> >Last figures I saw, Los Angeles had THREE times more murders than the
whole
> >of Great Britain, but OUR streets are unsafe?!?
>
> And how many of those were not gangsters shooting gangsters?
God knows. Perhaps YOU should know if you're trying to make a point.
Anyway, what difference does it make?
BTW, I was referring to murders in general. IIRC, L.A. has about TWENTY
times the number of gun murders than the whole of Great Britain.
But hey, I'm sure they were ALL gangsters shooting gangsters - which is why
YOU feel quite safe strolling aroung Inglewood or Watts with your wallet
hanging out of your pocket at night...
Panhead
>
> Robert Frenchu wrote in message <6ltOOL8zaOJiVk...@4ax.com>...
> >How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
> >
> >
> >>>Now, answer the question- how has the Supreme COurt misinterpreted the
> >>>Second Amendment?
> >>
> >>I said so before. A strict reading of the amendment has the right to bear
> >>arms in relation to a well regulated militia, not on its own. You have the
> >>right to bear arms when a member of and on duty with a well regulated
> >>militia, not in your own home.
> >
> >Dave, one more time - how has the SUPREME COURT misinterpreted the
> >Second Amendment?
> >
> >Like, give us an example, a "fer instance," a cite, something like
> >that. OK?
>
> I have already said how.
(ahem)
> I do not have the case, but SCOTUS ruled over 60
> years ago (unless the information I have been given is incorrect) that you
> have the right to bear arms.
We already KNOW that we, the people, have the right to keep and
bear arms.
Now, let's move on, shall we?.....
Truly I believe that that is EXACTLY what was asked of you to
provide, and yet failed to provide, when asked 3 times so far.
Let's sing together:
Lock N Load
<dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
>J.A. James wrote in message <82l9q2$d7n$j...@216.39.163.74>...
>
>> The Amendment doesn't mention anything about where and when your
>>rights can't be infringed.
>
>It doesn't mention anything about being able to keep a firearm in your home
>either.
>
>>It mentions that the militia is necessary
>>for the security of the state.
>
>It says nothing of the sort. "A well regulated militia, the right of the
>people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Where does it say
>that it is necessary for the security of the state?
Ref:http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii
Amendment II
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.
**emphasis mine**
Now go read some history, and find out what the Founding Fathers
thought about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and also
who the militia is and what "well regulated" of the 2nd Amendment
means.
I recommend these sites to start with for study:
http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffcont.htm
<mercy snip>
>
Don't toe the party line
Think for yourself
Do not be afraid
Lock N Load
jame...@my-deja.com
Robert Frenchu <Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How nice of "Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> to write:
>
> >
> >> The Amendment doesn't mention anything about where and when your
> >>rights can't be infringed.
> >
> >It doesn't mention anything about being able to keep a firearm in
your home
> >either.
> >
> >>It mentions that the militia is necessary
> >>for the security of the state.
> >
> >It says nothing of the sort. "A well regulated militia, the right of
the
> >people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Where does
it say
> >that it is necessary for the security of the state?
>
>
> 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.
>
> Maybe you're talking about some other Constitution?
Would you guys stop it with the comedy routine already? I can barely
breathe.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Omigod, you mean Dave's _serious_?
Ouch.
KoTM, my vote.
Dave Proctor
>>>Second Amendment?
>>
>>I said so before. A strict reading of the amendment has the right to bear
>>arms in relation to a well regulated militia, not on its own. You have the
>>right to bear arms when a member of and on duty with a well regulated
>>militia, not in your own home.
>
>Dave, one more time - how has the SUPREME COURT misinterpreted the
>Second Amendment?
>
>Like, give us an example, a "fer instance," a cite, something like
>that. OK?
I have already said how. I do not have the case, but SCOTUS ruled over 60
years ago (unless the information I have been given is incorrect) that you
have the right to bear arms.
Dave
Dave Proctor
> You need to read the entire Constitution and Bill of
>Rights. You have just removed a portion of the Second
>Amendment, what else have you removed in your selective
>reading?
I had read it, but not in the context of this duscussion. I was actually
quoting from an article from a NY newspaper. My apologies, it is as you say.
I still stand by my position that the section "keep and bear arms" has to be
taken in conjunction with the "well regulated militia" part, and not in
isolation.
>> > In order to fulfill that necessity and
>> >preclude the national security from being degraded, the right to keep
>> >and bear arms can't be infringed.
>>
>> No - a strict and literal interpretation of the wording of the amendment
is
>> that the people have the right to form "well regulated" militias, with
the
>> right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.
>>
> A strict reading would be: a well regulated militia is
>needed to sucure freedom, and the right OF THE PEOPLE should
>never be infringed.
Then you need to learn about English language construction. If it was meant
to be seperate, it would have been in a seperate sentence.
>> And all of that can be achieved without having guns available to any
adult
>> who wants them. It does, after all, say "a well regulated militia" - why
>> can't those militias have armoury's. and those armoury's be the only
place
>> where members of the militias have access to weapons? It would make your
>> communities a lot safer.
>
> If you are required to keep your weapon at the armory then
>you are no longer able to "keep and bear" that weapon.
>Further what happens during a emergincy, is there time to
>drive 20 or 30 miles to retrieve YOUR weapon?
Yes.
Dave
Ian Underwood
<dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
>> If you are required to keep your weapon at the armory then
>>you are no longer able to "keep and bear" that weapon.
>>Further what happens during a emergincy, is there time to
>>drive 20 or 30 miles to retrieve YOUR weapon?
>
>Yes.
Apparently Dave drives at just below the speed of light.
Jason O'Rourke
>Usenet etiquette mandates that you acknowledge snips.
>
>Failure to do so marks you out as either a newbie or dishonest. I suspect
>that you simply did not have an answer for my points.
Netiquette mandates nothing of the kind. Trimming shouldn't lose context,
but that's about it. My separations indicate the different snips. I have
noticed a tendency here to repost the entire post, even just to comment
with 2 lines at the bottom. Pretty lame.
You can either deal with it (the 'P' button is quite useful in trn) or
killfile me.
>> >Next time you get into your car, don't forget to take your documents,
>> >otherwise you'll be breaking the law, unlike in GB.
>> The driver, yes. Passengers, no. And you're not going to get hauled away
>> for it.
>Are you not?
>
>What, exactly are police powers in that situation if you have no ID? Is
>arrest not one of them, or do they just accept that you are who you say you
>are? <sarcasm>
Nothing happens to the passenger. The driver may get a fixit ticket; the
lack of insurance information is a bigger problem. People forget their
wallets all the time; we don't have a section in the jail for them. In a
more serious matter, yes, the lack of ID may result in detention rather
than a nasty ticket.
>> >Fancy a bet? Stroll into a betting shop in GB - will your masters trust
>> >you to do that in Utah, or in any other of 48 or so states?
>> There are a number of casinos within miles of my house North of San
>> Francisco.
>California has cardrooms, which are NOT casinos in any normal sense of the
>word.
You said betting shop, not "casino as I define it." You can certainly
gamble in California: at these "cardrooms," indian reservations, lotto, or
racetracks. You can drive to the state line in 3-4 hours if you're really
desparate for a fix.
>Serious restrictions.
>No roulette. No keno. No baccarat. No off-track horse betting. No sports
>betting etc.etc.etc.
baccarat (a boring game where plaeyer is passive) and several suckers
games. No loss there.
>[BTW, if you are wondering, unless you are a pro poker player I am almost
>certain to have spent more time in California cardrooms than you :-]
Good for you - I have other diversions. Shooting is a new one.
> Plus we have the stock market, the greatest new thing for
>> gamblers.
>It is statistically impossible to make money long-term
>'bed-and-breakfasting' small share deals at individual trade sizes given the
>commission charged even when reduced over the net.
$5-20 (or even free) makes it impossible to make money? Do explain! I
have a friend who is paying his downpayment (figure 500k for a loft in San
francisco) with this form of gaming. With the internet stocks, you can
make that commission back in hours, on the purchase of a single share.
And this is where the gamblers would be. The only people losing money
these past 5 years were ones committed entirely to the value sector.
>> You might find reality to be a bit different. But it's odd that you trust
>> your younger citizens with alcohol but none of them with guns,
>> particularly in light of the other post where you asked if its true that
>> alcohol kills more than guns (it does).
>No, CARS kill more than guns.
I'm not sure what to make of this one. And you didn't address the
point. Young men (mostly men) have proven that they are by and large not
mature enough to safely drink so the drinking age was raised to 21. Even
so with a big reduction in DUIs a good 18,000 vehicle deaths can be blamed
on alcohol. What are the figures like in the UK? And if you'll trust
your 18 year olds to drink responsibly, why can't anyone be trusted to own
a firearm, even though that is the only equalizer against the crooks? You
do have thugs in your country, do you not?
>British VAT is NOT 18.5%. Besides, you have sales taxes also.
>
>My point, though, was that you are obliged to fill in this form. I do not
>have to fill in similar forms.
I'll grant that the tax code is a pain, but I don't see the
significance. Do you not pay any taxes besides the VAT, or is it just
taken from your paycheck with no further revisions? We have the 1040
because we have so many exemptions and credits for various behavior, so
>> >Fancy having certain types of consensual sex and live in one of 20 states
>> >which forbid it?
>> Know any convictions in the past 20 years for it?
>Irrelevant.
Dead code is dead code. Quite relevent that no one actually makes use of
it. Times have changed.
>> Again, meaningless. There is virtually no conceivable situation that
>> could lead to the need for the draft.
>Except for any war.
>
>Besides, totally not the point. My point is that your govt. compels you to
>sign up for this.
There won't be any war. We're a nuclear power, the leading one at that,
and have wide oceans to protect us. South Park aside, I can't imagine the
Canadians have any reason to bump heads. The only need for troops are
these police actions and your country is about the only left that has any
interest in participation. We're close to become isolationist again.
So was military service voluntary in WWII? And what of the more recent,
ill fated adventure to the South Atlantic?
>> Of course you lose trial rights, publishing rights...a fair exchange you
>> would say. I certainly would not.
>How about you actually include some facts rather than trivial blathering.
That's pretty rich given your post.
>> So your freedom requires that you individual justify your
>> needs. Certainly a different definition.
>Gun ownership is NOT a freedom.
You forget that Bill of Rights? Or do you only think older code like that
prohibiting sodomy counts?
>Being free of the risk of being one of the tens of thousands blown away in
>the U.S. each year is the freedom.
Nothing called a freedom can require each individual to have to justify
a need to said freedom.
Out of curiousity, how many victims do you think there are? Actual
victims, not suicides or felons getting cleansed from the gene pool.
Earlier today someone pointed out that the number of children shot in the
schools represented a microfraction of the annual count, something not
evident in the amount of reporting given to it over others. Now people
are afraid to send their kids to school even though it remains safer than
their own home.
>> Care to be more specific? And again you're trying to generalize with a
>> small portion of the country. In San Francisco they have a parade for
>> people in leather.
>Alabama. Are your Californian smutty videos legal there?
As I said, you're generalizing with a small portion of the country. If
you live there, you could always move, or find a means of getting your
smut. Not having been there, I wouldn't be surprised if it's still
readily available in some form.
>BTW, I was referring to murders in general. IIRC, L.A. has about TWENTY
>times the number of gun murders than the whole of Great Britain.
>
>But hey, I'm sure they were ALL gangsters shooting gangsters - which is why
>YOU feel quite safe strolling aroung Inglewood or Watts with your wallet
>hanging out of your pocket at night...
Nope. Nor would I feel safe preaching the wrong version of Christianity
in the wrong part of Belfast. Are you going to try to tell us that you
feel equally safe anywhere in England?
Mark Gallagher
YOU in particular) views regarding gun-control are backward.
But you know us Aussies, can't resist a dig at a yank.
BTW kangaroos are pests, Forsters is weak piss, boomerangs don't fly proper
(at least not the touristy kind. And you don't want to know WHAT the PROPER
sort will do to you...ouch), and koalas will like as not defecate on you.
Watch out for those drop bears,
Mark
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Trinity" <dead_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:081219991047166517%dead_p...@hotmail.com...
Mark Gallagher
Censorship Bill. Tell me how effective they are. You can't? Okay. THEY
ARE NOT EFFECTIVE IN ANY WAY. (Source: APCMAG September 1998. Online is
www.apcmag.com.au I'm not sure if they've got anything posted there as I
just read the hardcopy edition).
We do not live in the Dark Ages of Freedom of Information just because Brian
Harridine managed to become a Senator.
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Jeff the Gun Nut" <sm...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_0j34.21623$KV.1...@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Åndrew R <andy...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:384D56C7...@geocities.com...
> > The USA is backward and barbaric in it's use of the death penalty.
> > I am not saying that the UK is perfect, but it is a much better place
that
> the
> > USA.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > -So Get the hell out! OH btw british censorship?, Look to the Net as a
> prime example. Last week the govt. of Britain decided that Pornography
> sites from the U.S. do not conform to their standards and were seeking
ways
> to effectively block them. Look at the News on any given day and you can
> see evidence of Britsh censorship esp. if it involves the royals. Like I
> said, I may not always like the dark side of freedom but i will take that
> to the sunny side of oppression any day!
>
>
>
Mark Gallagher
in fact, was the one country that suffered the least military casualties,
too.
SOURCE: A HISTORY CLASS WE DID ABOUT A MONTH AGO. Don't believe me? Go ask
Kate Sedgewick.
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"St.George" <st_ge...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:82k88b$2p5$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Mark Gallagher
assume your nose is above your eyes?...
In any case, is your constitution, which was made over 300 years ago (wasn't
it? backward colonial speaking here...) more important than safe schools,
'moral and forthright' politicians, and safe streets?
I would venture to claim that it is easier to list the amount of dangerous
streets in Britain than the amount of safe ones, as there are less of them.
The opposite would be in effect for America.
In the case of Australia, there are quite possibly less dangerous streets in
the entire country (say one in Canberra, about five in Sydney, four,
Melbourne, 54182460174, Adelaide, etc...lol)
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Jeff the Gun Nut" <sm...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:E4034.18910$KV.1...@typhoon1.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
> news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
> > The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
> firearms,
> snip
> > It truely is a backward country.
> >
> This statement is to assume that you are not a U.S. citizen Dave?
>
> If that is truly the case, then what you have to say is of no import
because
> as a non American you cannot truly understand what civil liberties really
> mean. I could no more inteligently comment about the British house of
> commons daily business than you can about our freedoms. You see, we
> Americans are really a truly unique group of people, we want our leaders
to
> be moral and forthright, our environment to be clean, our schools to be
> safe havens of learning and most importantly, our constitutional rights
> un-dilluted. We do not always get what we want but we continue to fight
for
> our beliefs in the face of overwhelming odds simply because it is the
right
> thing to do. Those of you who do not understand true freedom can only
stand
> by and watch as our democratic process asserts itself time and time again.
> Britain has COMPLETE gun control (as much as can ever truly be achieved)
> and censorship, and socialist medicine, and one of the highest
unemployment
> rates of any of the "first world" countries. Poverty and violent crime
> makes her city streets unsafe after dark, and yet there are a lot of
Brits
> who cast a chary eye across the Atlantic, sniff down their noses, and
> comment on what a bunch of loons we are. You see it makes them feel
somehow
> superior if they can look down on their "colonial upstart colonies" and
say
> that they were right, those ignorant savages weren't ready for home rule.
> The same argument that held South Africa in apartheid for over a century.
> And we are the backward ones [:o!
>
>
Mark Gallagher
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"George of the Jungle" <anti...@nospam.forme.edu> wrote in message
news:jiei28...@guido.flydsl.com...
>
> Jeff the Gun Nut wrote in message ...
> >
> >Dave Proctor <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote in message
> >news:82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au...
> >> The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
> >firearms,
> >snip
> >> It truely is a backward country.
> >>
> >This statement is to assume that you are not a U.S. citizen Dave?
>
> He's posting from Australia, Jeff.
Mark Gallagher
BTW could any of you good yanks tell me EXACTLY what appears in Section 58,
Paragraph I of the Australian Constitution? Thanks.
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Panhead" <Panmy...@intac.com> wrote in message
news:384EE974...@intac.com...
>
>
> Dave Proctor wrote:
> >
> > Snake wrote in message <384E9E55...@budsters.com>...
> >
> > > You need to read the entire Constitution and Bill of
> > >Rights.
>
> > I had read it, but not in the context of this duscussion.
>
> What other context could one read or understand it?
>
> > I was actually
> > quoting from an article from a NY newspaper.
>
Mark Gallagher
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Steve" <sre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:384D0A3F...@home.com...
> Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> > The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
firearms,
>
> I do sometimes grow strangely attached to inanimate objects, like
> my motorcycle, my guns, etc... but in my case, I cannot honestly
> say that my attachment achieves a status I would refer to as
> 'crazed love'.
>
> > and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to
misinterpret
> > the second amendment,
>
> I agree here. Our constitution clearly says that we, the people, have
the
> right to keep and bear arms, yet the Supreme Court promotes massive
> confusion by not supporting this fact.
>
> > have combined to once again make American schools less
> > safe than schools in other countries.
>
> Statistically, the number of school children who die as a result of
> being shot is already approaching 0. The expense of trying to drive
> the number even closer to 0 ( by depriving us of our constitutional
> rights), cannot be rationally justified, except by those who conclude
> that firearms ownership has a value approaching 0. Many people
> wish the value of firearms ownership was 0, but as long as the
> world is inhabited by humans, this will never be true. Just because
> many adults have been lulled into a childish belief that tyrants and
> criminals are no longer are a threat, doesn't make it so.
>
> > It truely is a backward country.
>
> In some ways, but soon we will get back all of the gun rights
> that were illegally stolen from us, and things will fall back into
> reasonable alignment.
>
> > Dave
>
> Cheers
> Steve
>
Mark Gallagher
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Ian Underwood" <sci...@home.com> wrote in message
news:t3tt4somoajdmahlh...@4ax.com...
Mark Gallagher
"As a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
the US Government shall not infringe on any American citizen's right to bear
arms"
I don't know where I'm going with this, but if anyone is confused by the
statement issued in Lock'n'load's post, there's an explanation above.
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Lock N Load" <gjl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:384ebe49...@news.netscape.com...
> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:18:42 +1100, "Dave Proctor"
> <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
>
> >J.A. James wrote in message <82l9q2$d7n$j...@216.39.163.74>...
> >
> >> The Amendment doesn't mention anything about where and when your
> >>rights can't be infringed.
> >
> >It doesn't mention anything about being able to keep a firearm in your
home
> >either.
> >
> >>It mentions that the militia is necessary
> >>for the security of the state.
> >
> >It says nothing of the sort. "A well regulated militia, the right of the
> >people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Where does it
say
> >that it is necessary for the security of the state?
>
>
Ref:http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#a
Mark Gallagher
security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Robert Frenchu" <Robert_Frenchu*REMOVE*@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:DNlOOPB0dcuWrH...@4ax.com...
Mark Gallagher
Seriously though, why don't you insult ours? If you can find some grounds
that we don't already bitch about to ourselves, go ahead...
AIA to Chris, Mal, and anyone else who didn't invite me to say this :o)
--
God's great plan for humanity could be likened to a game of cards, with a
blank deck in a darkened room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and
who smiles ALL OF THE TIME
- Terry Pratchett
Get my homepage at http://www.homestead.com/markgallagher/
Get my Star Trek page at http://marktrek.cjb.net
Mark Gallagher
ICQ#39285799
gal...@bigpond.com
"Trinity" <dead_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:071219990930510436%dead_p...@hotmail.com...
> In article <82hrsa$i9l$1...@news1.mpx.com.au>, Dave Proctor
> <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
>
> > The crazed love that citizens of the United States have for their
firearms,
> > and the almost criminal way that the Supreme Court manages to
misinterpret
> > the second amendment, have combined to once again make American schools
less
> > safe than schools in other countries.
> >
> > It truely is a backward country.
>
>
> Yeah, well, you might of had a point right up until you decided to take
> the low road and make yourself look like a complete and utter asshole.
> I'll make ya a deal, Dave. Shut up about our country and I won't
> insult yours. No, wait... I ALREADY don't insult yours. So how about
> this: Just shut up.
Kulthos
point: if guns are illegal then shops dont sell them, companies stop
making them, and smugglers have a harder time smuggling them. If Guns
were illegal in America then not only would legal owners loose their
guns it would eventually become impossible for criminals to own them. I
am not saying this is an overnight process but it is the start of a
large solution. In addition I do not drink and think to drink and drive
is stupid as these accidents can usually be prevented if the offender
was not drunk. Perhaps there could be stricter laws on drinking
enforced, I would like to see something to combat the problem.
Personally I belive all things proven to cause death not only of the
person partaking but others around them should be tighter restriceted
or banned. If you belive America cannot enforce these things then I
wonder how they manage to enforce a constant blokade on Cuba. Further
more I do not think Americans are as "Free" as they seem to be, this is
not the subject however so I will say no more.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Allen James
<christophert...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> I must add to this debate, it seems that people are missing one vital
> point: if guns are illegal then shops dont sell them, companies stop
> making them, and smugglers have a harder time smuggling them. If Guns
> were illegal in America then not only would legal owners loose their
> guns it would eventually become impossible for criminals to own them. I
> am not saying this is an overnight process but it is the start of a
> large solution. In addition I do not drink and think to drink and drive
> is stupid as these accidents can usually be prevented if the offender
> was not drunk. Perhaps there could be stricter laws on drinking
> enforced, I would like to see something to combat the problem.
> Personally I belive all things proven to cause death not only of the
> person partaking but others around them should be tighter restriceted
> or banned. If you belive America cannot enforce these things then I
> wonder how they manage to enforce a constant blokade on Cuba. Further
> more I do not think Americans are as "Free" as they seem to be, this is
> not the subject however so I will say no more.
Hilarious. "You need to give up your freedoms, and hand all
responsibility for your life over to the Government, in order to be
free."
You might want to grab a dictionary and look up the word 'freedom',
Christopher.
Robert Frenchu
>As a matter of fact, the US did not suffer ONE SINGLE CIVILIAN CASUALTY and,
>in fact, was the one country that suffered the least military casualties,
>too.
Absolutely false.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/jbb.htm
Robert Frenchu
>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
reasons being the security of a free state.
Note that it refers to "the right" because it already exists- the
Second Amendment doesn't create it.
Albert Isham
>
>How nice of "Mark Gallagher" <Gal...@icqmail.com> to write:
>
>>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
>>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
>
>IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
>reasons being the security of a free state.
>
not the Amendment guarantees a STATE the right to arm its militia or the
INDIVIDUAL the right to keep and bear arms. The NRA then asserts that since
the words of the Amendment grant the right to bear arms to "the people", the
Founders did not intend to confer a right on the states. But it is not that
the Amendment grants the right to bear arms to the states; rather, the right
granted to "the people" is limited to the people when serving in a "well
regulated" state militia and using guns for that purpose. Thus, the possession
of a gun by an individual is constitutionally protected only when his/her
possession relates to service in a "well regulated Militia," i.e. the National
Guard. Laws regulating guns invariably exempt the National Guard and therefore
do not interfere with the arming of state militia forces.
Albert Isham
States of America. You do NOT have an unbridled right to do whatever you damn
well please whenever you damn well choose to do it. We are a nation of laws.
Get used to it.
Ian Underwood
In other words,
1. The moon is _really_ made of Parmesan (not green) cheese.
2. All ducks who are dentists like to play golf, except on Thursdays,
unless it's raining.
3. Therefore, Virginia Woolf, although dead, is the queen of Italy,
although it doesn't have a queen.
Or, as Tom Cullen might say: "P-E-O-P-L-E, that spells _states_!"
antisdolie
ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) wrote:
Standard Al cut-and paste:
> The NRA
Funny, I haven't seen a single post from the NRA in tpg (or crossposted
elsewhere) yet Albert continues to talk about what the NRA says.
> likes to pose the Second Amendment issue as a debate over
> whether or not the Amendment guarantees a STATE the right to arm its
> militia or the INDIVIDUAL the right to keep and bear arms.
Let's see: Does the 2nd Amendment state, in part:
A: "...the right of a STATE to arms its militia..."
B: "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..."
If you answered A, then you allowed the gun grabbing monkey lobby hate
and fear propaganda, distributed all over USENET by "Cut&Paste" Al, to
brainwash you. If you answered b, then you are right.
But the GGM Lobby doesn't like the answer B, so they go to great lenghts
to confuse the issue. Below, Al's cut and paste is a GGM attempt to
say, in essense, the 2nd doesn't say what is says it says, but in fact,
it says what it doesn't say. BTW, for the "real" meaning of the 2nd
Amendment, the GGM Lobby says you cannot refer to the
Constitutional authors themselves - because that is NRA propaganda - but
that you must rely on the more contempory works of Hennigan - ignoring
the fact that HCI pays his salary.
> The NRA
"There he goes again"
> then asserts that since the words of the Amendment grant the right to
> bear arms to "the people", the Founders did not intend to confer a
> right on the states.
Else they would have said B: as shown above.
> But it is not that the Amendment grants the
> right to bear arms to the states; rather, the right granted to "the
> people" is limited to the people when serving in a "well regulated"
> state militia and using guns for that purpose.
Incredible. The GGM Lobby INVENTED the term "state militia" and said
that the founding fathers accidentally left this "active duty" clause
out of the 2nd Amendment. See folks, one must proof read your work.
Surely if Madison et al had proof read the Constitution, someone would
have caught that glaring error, and folks like Hennigan wouldn't have to
go to great lenghts to show that it was an honest ommission, and had it
not been ommitted, the 2nd Amendment would mean something entirely
different that what is says it says.
> Thus, the possession
> of a gun by an individual is constitutionally protected only when
> his/her possession relates to service in a "well regulated Militia,"
> i.e. the National Guard.
Of course, since the National Guard is NOT armed by the state, but
rather the Federal Government AND the National Guard was formed over 100
years AFTER the 2nd Amendment was written, the National Guard most
certainly NOT is the "well regulated militia."
> Laws regulating guns invariably exempt the
> National Guard and therefore do not interfere with the arming of state
> militia forces.
Oh, yes, why in New York City, a member of the National Guard may carry
his 1911 on his hip. And in DC, one can frequently see guardsman with
an M-16 slung over their shoulder. Sure, they are not in uniform, but
they are members of the NG, so the laws don't apply to them.
antisdolie
"Dave Proctor" <dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
> LOL
>
> I have been saying that for ages. Now we have to get it through to the
> redne.....oops, I mean gun-fre....oops, gun-fans.
Of course, you've also said:
It says nothing of the sort. "A well regulated militia,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not
be infringed." - Where does it say that it is necessary
for the security of the state?
Keep on laughing.
antisdolie
Ian Underwood
<dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
>>Note that it refers to "the right" because it already exists- the
>>Second Amendment doesn't create it.
>
>And how do we know that the framewrs of the Second Amendment were correct
>when they said the right existed?
From reading the Declaration of Independence.
Lock N Load
<Gal...@icqmail.com> wrote:
>the N.Y. newspaper's, for misquoting the Constitution.
>
>BTW could any of you good yanks tell me EXACTLY what appears in Section 58,
>Paragraph I of the Australian Constitution?
Ref:http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/constitution/ConstitutionAct.html
Section 58 [Royal Assent procedure for Bills]
When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is
presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall
declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this
Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he
withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's
pleasure.
>Thanks.
You're welcome.
Ian Underwood
>>Hilarious. "You need to give up your freedoms, and hand all
>>responsibility for your life over to the Government, in order to be
>>free."
>>
>That's EXACTLY what our Founding Fathers did when they formed the UNITED
>States of America. You do NOT have an unbridled right to do whatever you damn
>well please whenever you damn well choose to do it. We are a nation of laws.
>Get used to it.
No, Albert, we are a nation of people. People with rights, who have
ceded a strictly limited amount of power to a government that we
created in order to protect those rights. People who, should that
government become destructive of the rights that it was created to
protect, have the right to alter or abolish it.
It says so right there in the Declaration of Independence, and in the
9th and 10th Amendments.
Lock N Load
<dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
>Albert Isham wrote in message <82r23h$mp5$2...@nw003t.infi.net>...
>>
>>The NRA likes to pose the Second Amendment issue as a debate over whether
>or
>>not the Amendment guarantees a STATE the right to arm its militia or the
>>INDIVIDUAL the right to keep and bear arms. The NRA then asserts that
>since
>>the words of the Amendment grant the right to bear arms to "the people",
>the
>>Founders did not intend to confer a right on the states. But it is not
>that
>>the Amendment grants the right to bear arms to the states; rather, the
>right
>>granted to "the people" is limited to the people when serving in a "well
>>regulated" state militia and using guns for that purpose. Thus, the
>possession
>>of a gun by an individual is constitutionally protected only when his/her
>>possession relates to service in a "well regulated Militia," i.e. the
>National
>>Guard. Laws regulating guns invariably exempt the National Guard and
>therefore
>>do not interfere with the arming of state militia forces.
>
>LOL
>
>I have been saying that for ages.
And you're still wrong. The RKBA is an individual right and it is
protected by the 2nd Amendment.
<snip>
Lock N Load
>In article <jQhROCTZ28hEypDrC4J4MSfCG=k...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu says...
>>
>>How nice of "Mark Gallagher" <Gal...@icqmail.com> to write:
>>
>>>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
>>>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
>>
>>IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
>>reasons being the security of a free state.
>>
>The NRA likes to pose the Second Amendment issue as a debate over whether or
>not the Amendment guarantees a STATE the right to arm its militia or the
>INDIVIDUAL the right to keep and bear arms.
It is an individual right Aldork, that's why it states "the right of
the people"
>The NRA then asserts that since
>the words of the Amendment grant the right to bear arms to "the people", the
>Founders did not intend to confer a right on the states.
First, the BOR does NOT grant rights, it recognizes pre-existing
unalienable rights.
Second, through out the whole of the debates on the Amendments to the
Constitution, the Amendments were described as RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.
Not rights of the State.
>But it is not that
>the Amendment grants the right to bear arms to the states; rather, the right
>granted to "the people" is limited to the people when serving in a "well
>regulated" state militia and using guns for that purpose.
Come on Aldork, provide Constitutional cites to back up this asinine
statement.
>Thus, the possession
>of a gun by an individual is constitutionally protected only when his/her
>possession relates to service in a "well regulated Militia," i.e. the National
>Guard.
Wrong, But you're too stupid and or lazy to find out the truth.
>Laws regulating guns invariably exempt the National Guard and therefore
>do not interfere with the arming of state militia forces.
Wrong again, dumb ass.
Robert Frenchu
>In article <jQhROCTZ28hEypDrC4J4MSfCG=k...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu says...
>>
>>How nice of "Mark Gallagher" <Gal...@icqmail.com> to write:
>>
>>>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
>>>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
>>
>>IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
>>reasons being the security of a free state.
>>
>The NRA yadda yadda yadda
<SNIP>
ALbert, you've been on USENET long enough, I think, to know that IMHO
is shorthand for "In My Humble Opinion.
ITNRAHO would be "In the NRA's Humble Opinion."
There is a difference. Take note.
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
>>How nice of "Mark Gallagher" <Gal...@icqmail.com> to write:
>>
>>>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
>>>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
>>
>>IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
>>reasons being the security of a free state.
>>
>>Note that it refers to "the right" because it already exists- the
>>Second Amendment doesn't create it.
>
>And how do we know that the framewrs of the Second Amendment were correct
>when they said the right existed? You cannot confer a right unless it does
>exist. How and why did you get that right in the first place?
First, it doesn't confer the right- it confirms it.
Second, I suppose we can be as sure that they were right as we are
when they confirmed the freedoms of speech, press, etc.
Lock N Load
>In article <101219990757089462%shra...@LICEenteract.com>, Allen James says...
>>
>>In article <026faffc...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>, Kulthos
>><christophert...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I must add to this debate, it seems that people are missing one vital
>>> point: if guns are illegal then shops dont sell them, companies stop
>>> making them, and smugglers have a harder time smuggling them. If Guns
>>> were illegal in America then not only would legal owners loose their
>>> guns it would eventually become impossible for criminals to own them. I
>>> am not saying this is an overnight process but it is the start of a
>>> large solution. In addition I do not drink and think to drink and drive
>>> is stupid as these accidents can usually be prevented if the offender
>>> was not drunk. Perhaps there could be stricter laws on drinking
>>> enforced, I would like to see something to combat the problem.
>>> Personally I belive all things proven to cause death not only of the
>>> person partaking but others around them should be tighter restriceted
>>> or banned. If you belive America cannot enforce these things then I
>>> wonder how they manage to enforce a constant blokade on Cuba. Further
>>> more I do not think Americans are as "Free" as they seem to be, this is
>>> not the subject however so I will say no more.
>>
>>
>>Hilarious. "You need to give up your freedoms, and hand all
>>responsibility for your life over to the Government, in order to be
>>free."
>>
>That's EXACTLY what our Founding Fathers did when they formed the UNITED
>States of America.
Wrong, here is one quote from James Madison, on what he had to say
about the Amendments to the Constitution.
Ref:http://rs6.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/llac_browse.html
"In some instance they assert those **rights which are exercised by
the people** in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In
other instances, the specify those **rights which are retained** when
particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature."
**emphasis mine**
> You do NOT have an unbridled right to do whatever you damn
>well please whenever you damn well choose to do it.
And who has stated that???
>We are a nation of laws.
>Get used to it.
Correct, and the highest law of the land is the Constitution and it's
Amendments. Get used to it.
Panhead
Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
>
> >First, it doesn't confer the right- it confirms it.
> >
> >Second, I suppose we can be as sure that they were right as we are
> >when they confirmed the freedoms of speech, press, etc.
>
> You still have not said how the right was there in the first place.
>
> Dave
Being idiotic becomes you, Mr.Proctor, as it has been explained
62,376 times already.
Might I suggest that you use the pacifier you suckle from, for
it's intended use and design, before you ruin your teeth and
gather yet another vinyl/rubber fetish?
The-Trainers
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Dave Proctor wrote:
> Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
>
> >First, it doesn't confer the right- it confirms it.
> >
> >Second, I suppose we can be as sure that they were right as we are
> >when they confirmed the freedoms of speech, press, etc.
>
> You still have not said how the right was there in the first place.
>
> Dave
Being a born HUMAN being gives you those rights, living anywhere other
than the USA loses you most of your rights.
MT
Panhead
Dave Proctor wrote while obviously intoxicated:
>
> Ian Underwood wrote in message
> <8ub25ssg9hhgtd632...@4ax.com>...
> >On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:21:54 +1100, "Dave Proctor"
> ><dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Note that it refers to "the right" because it already exists- the
> >>>Second Amendment doesn't create it.
> >>
> >>And how do we know that the framewrs of the Second Amendment were correct
> >>when they said the right existed?
> >
> >From reading the Declaration of Independence.
>
> And if the DoI said that everyone had the right to go around killing each
> other, it would make it so? Just because they said so does not make it so.
That is why the Declaration Of Independence does NOT say the
things that you wish it did.
You need a "good" Doctor, Proctor.
Albert Isham
>
>How nice of ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) to write:
>
>>In article <jQhROCTZ28hEypDrC4J4MSfCG=k...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
>>>>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
>>>
>>>IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
>>>reasons being the security of a free state.
>>>
>
><SNIP>
>
>
>ITNRAHO would be "In the NRA's Humble Opinion."
>
As in, ITNRAHO our president is no good, our courts are no good, and the
Congress is good only to the extent that they can be bought or intimidated.
Furthermore, ITNRAHO, the Constitution means whatever the NRA says it means.
J. F. Mayer
> >
> >How nice of "Mark Gallagher" <Gal...@icqmail.com> to write:
> >
> >>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
> >>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
> >
> >IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
> >reasons being the security of a free state.
> >
> not the Amendment guarantees a STATE the right to arm its militia or the
States don't have rights, only powers granted to them by their constituents.
The NRA then asserts that since
> the words of the Amendment grant the right to bear arms to "the people", the
> Founders did not intend to confer a right on the states.
The Constitution grants no rights, only recogniozes pre-existing rights.
But it is not that
> the Amendment grants the right to bear arms to the states; rather, the right
> granted to "the people" is limited to the people when serving in a "well
> regulated" state militia and using guns for that purpose.
Show us whare the constitutiin says this specifically.
Thus, the possession
> of a gun by an individual is constitutionally protected only when his/her
> possession relates to service in a "well regulated Militia," i.e. the National
> Guard.
Since the National Guard was not in existance when the founders wrote the
Bill of Rights how could it be that it is only limited to such an organized
federal government military organizations.
Laws regulating guns invariably exempt the National Guard and therefore
> do not interfere with the arming of state militia forces.
>
But they do interfere with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
since the Second Amendment doesn't mention only allowing the federal government
to arm a branch of their own military.
J. F. Mayer
> >
> >In article <026faffc...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>, Kulthos
> ><christophert...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I must add to this debate, it seems that people are missing one vital
> >> point: if guns are illegal then shops dont sell them, companies stop
> >> making them, and smugglers have a harder time smuggling them. If Guns
> >> were illegal in America then not only would legal owners loose their
> >> guns it would eventually become impossible for criminals to own them. I
> >> am not saying this is an overnight process but it is the start of a
> >> large solution. In addition I do not drink and think to drink and drive
> >> is stupid as these accidents can usually be prevented if the offender
> >> was not drunk. Perhaps there could be stricter laws on drinking
> >> enforced, I would like to see something to combat the problem.
> >> Personally I belive all things proven to cause death not only of the
> >> person partaking but others around them should be tighter restriceted
> >> or banned. If you belive America cannot enforce these things then I
> >> wonder how they manage to enforce a constant blokade on Cuba. Further
> >> more I do not think Americans are as "Free" as they seem to be, this is
> >> not the subject however so I will say no more.
> >
> >
> >Hilarious. "You need to give up your freedoms, and hand all
> >responsibility for your life over to the Government, in order to be
> >free."
> >
> That's EXACTLY what our Founding Fathers did when they formed the UNITED
> States of America.
No they did NOT.
You do NOT have an unbridled right to do whatever you damn
> well please whenever you damn well choose to do it.
Yes we do.
We are a nation of laws.
> Get used to it.
>
Albert wants laws to govern every aspect of what a person can or cannot do
just like the military governs every aspect of what it's members are allowed
to do, right down to when you are allowed to get chow.
Robert Frenchu
>In article <kFNROORhDsuuXd...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu says...
>>How nice of ais...@ne.infi.net (Albert Isham) to write:
>>>In article <jQhROCTZ28hEypDrC4J4MSfCG=k...@4ax.com>, Robert Frenchu says...
>>>>How nice of "Mark Gallagher" <Gal...@icqmail.com> to write:
>>>>>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
>>>>>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
>>>>
>>>>IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
>>>>reasons being the security of a free state.
>>>>
>>>The NRA yadda yadda yadda
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>
>>
>>ITNRAHO would be "In the NRA's Humble Opinion."
>>
>As in, ITNRAHO our president is no good, our courts are no good, and the
>Congress is good only to the extent that they can be bought or intimidated.
>Furthermore, ITNRAHO, the Constitution means whatever the NRA says it means.
In other words, when Albert can't address the issues at hand, he'll
start bashing the NRA as a smokescreen to cover his escape.
Typical gun grabber.
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
>
>>First, it doesn't confer the right- it confirms it.
>>
>>Second, I suppose we can be as sure that they were right as we are
>>when they confirmed the freedoms of speech, press, etc.
>
>You still have not said how the right was there in the first place.
That's a good question Dave. I honestly don't know how to explain it.
Can you tell me where the right to free speech "comes from?"
Mobutu Sese Seko
wrote on 12/10/1999 5:17 PM:
>
>
> Dave Proctor wrote:
>>
>> Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
>>
>>> First, it doesn't confer the right- it confirms it.
>>>
>>> Second, I suppose we can be as sure that they were right as we are
>>> when they confirmed the freedoms of speech, press, etc.
>>
>> You still have not said how the right was there in the first place.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Being idiotic becomes you, Mr.Proctor, as it has been explained
> 62,376 times already.
How do you figure?
>
> Might I suggest that you use the pacifier you suckle from, for
> it's intended use and design, before you ruin your teeth and
> gather yet another vinyl/rubber fetish?
Yesterday, the EU banned Phthlates, chemical compounds the US produces for
use in softening vinyl for baby products. Apparently it causes liver cancer.
Mobutu Sese-Seko
***To respond, delete "Spamicide" from the email address.***
Panhead
Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> Panhead wrote in message <38517D7C...@intac.com>...
>
> > That is why the Declaration Of Independence does NOT say the
> >things that you wish it did.
> > You need a "good" Doctor, Proctor.
>
> And you have still not given a reason as to why you have the right just
> because the DoI says you do.
>
> Dave
Dave? The Declaration of Independence does not give people
rights.
You and I had them already, LONG before that and the Bill of
Rights was conceived.
Aren't you paying attention?
Panhead
Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
>
> >That's a good question Dave. I honestly don't know how to explain it.
> >Can you tell me where the right to free speech "comes from?"
>
> A very good question. As far as political matters go, I elected the
> politicians (scary, isn't it) so I therefore have a right to comment on
> their performance or anything else in the political arena.
Are you saying that "politically", you have the right to say
what you want because a politician said so? Yikes!
>
> For anything else, free speech does not really exist (even in the United
> States) - it has been held that free speech does not give you the right to
> yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Libel and defamation laws limit the right
> to free speech as well.
Heh.
You most certainly DO have the right to yell "fire" in a crowd.
Libel and defamation of character has nothing to do with free
speech.
Here's an example:
YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
See? No libel and, you have no character to "defame".
William Jefferson Clinton is a wife abusing, cheating, young
woman abuser! (no character either!)
See? No libel again!
Sue me.
In the mean time, you seem to have forgot to mention WHERE the
rights originally comes from, like was asked of you.
Panhead
Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> Panhead wrote in message <38517C12...@intac.com>...
>
> >Being idiotic becomes you, Mr.Proctor, as it has been explained
> >62,376 times already.
>
> You have not explained it at all.
Would the 62,377th time make it any clearer to you?
>
> Just because the Declaration of Independce says you have that right does not
> mean that you do.
Egads!
>
> The framers of the Declaration can only affirm a right that was already
> there. If you did not have the right to start with, nothing they put in the
> Declaration will give it to you.
You are ALMOST starting to understand!
Take your clean finger and stick it one ear, so as the
information about to enter the OPEN ear does not leak out!
Dave? You were BORN WITH ALL RIGHTS!
QUICK! Stick the other finger in your other ear before it leaks
out!
>
> > Might I suggest that you use the pacifier you suckle from, for
> >it's intended use and design, before you ruin your teeth and
> >gather yet another vinyl/rubber fetish?
>
> Is that the bets you can do? Pathetic really.
My "bets" on you that you still don't understand.
Where does it say that you have the right to tell me what I can
and can not own a particular thing?
Talk about pathetic, eh?
Allen James
<ais...@ne.infi.net> wrote:
> In article <101219990757089462%shra...@LICEenteract.com>, Allen James says...
> >
> >In article <026faffc...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>, Kulthos
> ><christophert...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I must add to this debate, it seems that people are missing one vital
> >> point: if guns are illegal then shops dont sell them, companies stop
> >> making them, and smugglers have a harder time smuggling them. If Guns
> >> were illegal in America then not only would legal owners loose their
> >> guns it would eventually become impossible for criminals to own them. I
> >> am not saying this is an overnight process but it is the start of a
> >> large solution. In addition I do not drink and think to drink and drive
> >> is stupid as these accidents can usually be prevented if the offender
> >> was not drunk. Perhaps there could be stricter laws on drinking
> >> enforced, I would like to see something to combat the problem.
> >> Personally I belive all things proven to cause death not only of the
> >> person partaking but others around them should be tighter restriceted
> >> or banned. If you belive America cannot enforce these things then I
> >> wonder how they manage to enforce a constant blokade on Cuba. Further
> >> more I do not think Americans are as "Free" as they seem to be, this is
> >> not the subject however so I will say no more.
> >
> >
> >Hilarious. "You need to give up your freedoms, and hand all
> >responsibility for your life over to the Government, in order to be
> >free."
> >
> That's EXACTLY what our Founding Fathers did when they formed the UNITED
> States of America. You do NOT have an unbridled right to do whatever you
> damn
> well please whenever you damn well choose to do it. We are a nation of laws.
> Get used to it.
and, if a law was passed tomorrow that made it illegal to be a
Unitarian, you'd support it. After all, "we are a nation of laws..."
By the way, your cheesy attempt at historical revisionism (..."That's
EXACTLY what our Founding Fathers did") is a deliberate
misrepresentation, and you know it, you totalitarian-wannabe. What,
precisely, is the meaning of "....Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness"? HINT- it's NOT "Life on the Government's terms, Liberty to
do as one is told by the Government, and the Pursuit of Happiness as a
vassal"......
Your claims of service in the armed forces make your vile beliefs even
more disgusting. You took an oath to UPHOLD the Constitution. That you
can so happily and easily piss on that oath is pathetic.
Allen James
<dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
> The-Trainers wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Dave Proctor wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Frenchu wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> >First, it doesn't confer the right- it confirms it.
> >> >
> >> >Second, I suppose we can be as sure that they were right as we are
> >> >when they confirmed the freedoms of speech, press, etc.
> >>
> >> You still have not said how the right was there in the first place.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >
> >Being a born HUMAN being gives you those rights, living anywhere other
> >than the USA loses you most of your rights.
>
> So, being born a human, you automatically have the right to possess a
> killing machine? Where does it stop? Not much difference between a pistol
> and a rifle. Not much difference between a rifle and an SLR. Not much
> difference between an SLR and a machine gun. Shall we stop there? Not much
> difference between a machine gun and a bazooka, is there? What is the
> difference, if you have the right to own a pistol, you have the right to own
> a bazooka, based on your reasoning.
>
> And why stop there, why not just go out and buy a swag of ICBM's.
>
> Dave
I'm sorry you have such a low and paranoid opinion of your fellow human
beings, Dave. MOST people are just fine, and can be trusted to not kill
other people for no good reason.
Perhaps you're projecting.....
Dave Proctor
>
>>IMHO the second amendment states that, so long as it is necessary for the
>>security of the good ol' U S of A, you have the right to bear arms.
>
>IMHO it states we have the right to keep and bear arms, among the
>reasons being the security of a free state.
>
>Second Amendment doesn't create it.
And how do we know that the framewrs of the Second Amendment were correct
when they said the right existed? You cannot confer a right unless it does
exist. How and why did you get that right in the first place?
Dave
Dave Proctor
or
>not the Amendment guarantees a STATE the right to arm its militia or the
since
>the words of the Amendment grant the right to bear arms to "the people",
the
that
>the Amendment grants the right to bear arms to the states; rather, the
right
>granted to "the people" is limited to the people when serving in a "well
possession
>of a gun by an individual is constitutionally protected only when his/her
>possession relates to service in a "well regulated Militia," i.e. the
National
therefore
>do not interfere with the arming of state militia forces.
LOL
I have been saying that for ages. Now we have to get it through to the
redne.....oops, I mean gun-fre....oops, gun-fans.
Dave
Dave Proctor
<8ub25ssg9hhgtd632...@4ax.com>...
>On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:21:54 +1100, "Dave Proctor"
><dap...@spambait.umpires.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Second Amendment doesn't create it.
>>
>>And how do we know that the framewrs of the Second Amendment were correct
>>when they said the right existed?
>
And if the DoI said that everyone had the right to go around killing each
other, it would make it so? Just because they said so does not make it so.
Dave
Dave Proctor
>First, it doesn't confer the right- it confirms it.