Questions About Joining the NRA
Glen Smith
1 - Neither original or 'cute'. Much too obvious an attempt. Try again.
--
Glenn in the Heart of the Ozarks says:
"Neville Purvis" <a...@mo.ram> wrote in message
news:9enm0b$iov$2...@m3t00.databasix.com...
> I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
> this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> plunge and join up.
> I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> distill my own hooch.
> I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> recognized by other NRA members.
> What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
> make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
> NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
> with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
> happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
> Thanks in advance,
> Neville
David Voth
kind enough to write:
>I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA...
<snip>
You can get a Junior membership for as little as $15 for a year. Once
you are old enough to read, you can upgrade and get one of our fine
magazines.
The online application is at:
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
>Thanks in advance,
>Neville
You're very welcome.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
William A. Levinson
Neville Purvis wrote:
> I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
> this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> plunge and join up.
> I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> distill my own hooch.
You don't want to join the NRA, you want to join "Americans Who Still
Think the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty is a Good Idea." By living in a
trailer with no electricity or running water you can do your part to
curtail greenhouse gas emissions by power plants. Same with doing without
heat in the winter. Holding your breath until you turn blue will help even
more.
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/kyoto.html
-Bill
BOYCOTT MAINLAND CHINA http://www.stentorian.com/politics/china.html
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend Second Amendment site
"Second Amendment Dollars"
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/sad.html
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/ Political site
(Libertarian-Republican)
http://www.stentorian.com/antispam/ Anti-spam resources
Bert Hyman
> I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> recognized by other NRA members.
> ...
That would be the British NRA you'd be interested in then.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Carman
Neville Purvis <a...@mo.ram> wrote in message news:9enm0b$iov$2...@m3t00.databasix.com...
> this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> plunge and join up.
Carman wrote:
As a member of the NRA perhaps I may be of some assistance.
> I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> distill my own hooch.
Carman wrote:
I'm sure you have your own reasons for wanting to join the National
Recluse Association, but there are some considerations prior to the
"Final Commitment".
How are you going to get your trailer into those hills? You will, as a
Recluse, wish to avoid being near roads. Unless your trailer is very
small indeed, you may need it airlifted into position prior to taking up
residence.
Should you genuinely desire to live without heat, you will need a
separate structure to house your distillery. Distillation is done with heat
(as you may or may not know), and if your desire is to exist without an
external heat source, running a still may not be the proper economic
endeavor.
> I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> recognized by other NRA members.
Carman wrote:
Please Sir! The National Recluse Association neither supports nor
condones poor oral hygiene. There is no need to let your teeth "rot
away", as you will never encounter another Recluse in the normal
course of events.
> What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
> make babies with my sister.
Carman wrote:
I wonder if you have made an error? You may be wishing to join the
NPA, (National Perverts Association). I believe they have an incest
requirement. The National Recluse Association has the precondition of
a genuine commitment to celibacy.
> My sister is sixteen years old, and the NRA application says that she
> must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck with my cousin instead?
> She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be happy to share her around with
> the rest of you guys. Thanks in advance,
> Neville
Carman wrote:
I see the problem now! You want the National Pedophiles Association!
I regret to inform you that the National Recluse Association cannot help
you with your reading comprehension problem as this is not our mission.
However, should you ever tire of the hustle and bustle of living in a
closed community, (those prisons are so terribly crowded), the National
Recluse Association stands ready to help you move away from those
temptations that make your life so complicated. "OAC", of course.
Kirk
You know, up until Clinton, many presidents (including JFK) were members of
the NRA.
Ah, but now that the organization isn't PC, they're all hillbillies.
Okay, JKF lived in a trailer. <eyeroll>
(BTW, 2/3rds of all police officers in the US are trained by NRA-trained
instructors. Not that it'll stop you from showing off your abject
stupidity...)
And the reason I'm top-posting is because you're not worth the
cut-and-paste.
-- Kirk
"The physician can bury his mistakes, but
the architect can only advise his client to
plant vines."
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
"Carman" <cae...@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:9epfi2$hg6$1...@news.chatlink.com...
Z
instead of at the top, I will consider not top posting.
--
**********************************************
Isn't randomly shooting your dumb mouth off
about international stuff you don't understand
and randomly changing foreign policy
and the international balance of power
grounds for impeachment?
**********************************************
Kirk <lone...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<uvZP6.24287$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Panhead
>
> If you can show me a newsreader that opens the message at the bottom
> instead of at the top, I will consider not top posting.
YOU use Microsoft Version 4.7.
YOU have a mouse.
YOU don't have a brain.
Any more clues needed?
Wassup
> Can I fuck
> with my cousin instead?
No. Go fuck yourself instead.
Z
--
**********************************************
Isn't randomly shooting your dumb mouth off
about international stuff you don't understand
and randomly changing foreign policy
and the international balance of power
grounds for impeachment?
**********************************************
Panhead <panmy...@intac.com> wrote in article
<3B10679F...@intac.com>...
Kirk
lately to give him the severe beatings he so desperately needs to achieve
enlightenment.
-- Kirk
"The physician can bury his mistakes, but
the architect can only advise his client to
plant vines."
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
"Panhead" <panmy...@intac.com> wrote in message
news:3B10679F...@intac.com...
Kirk
deserves to be beaten severely.
-- Kirk
"The physician can bury his mistakes, but
the architect can only advise his client to
plant vines."
-- Frank Lloyd Wright
"Z" <nob...@deja.com> wrote in message
news:01c0e652$bd281000$2a0c400c@ewootton...
Z
--
**********************************************
Isn't randomly shooting your dumb mouth off
about international stuff you don't understand
and randomly changing foreign policy
and the international balance of power
grounds for impeachment?
**********************************************
Kirk <lone...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<H3_P6.24335$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
William A. Levinson
Sally Anne Huckstepp wrote:
> Nope, he wants the NRA, if you weren't illiterate you would understand
> that. But if you were literate you wouldn't belong to the NRA, would
> you William dearie.
> HTH
> Sally Anne
Nice try, but I'd rate that only a 3 on a 0-10 scale.
0 = cold ashes on the floor of the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean
1 = "Your nose is rather large" (as said to Cyrano de Bergerac by a prospective
duellist)
7 = Thermite
10 = Ground Zero of a nuclear explosion.
I'm quite literate and I read exactly what he said. He wants to live in a
trailer with no heating (and presumably no electricity or running water).
Therefore he wants "Americans Who Still Think the Kyoto Protocol is a Good
Idea," because that is the group that is working to achieve his goals. The NRA
doesn't advocate (or officially oppose) the Kyoto Treaty.
ghost dancer
William A. Levinson wrote in message
<3B109071...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com>...
worthless piece of shit he is.
-*MORT*-
ralph
just to curry favor with the allpowerful special education lobby.
--
If you can't go down in history,
you can at least go down on me.
Hugh G.
>I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
>this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
>plunge and join up.
>I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
>distill my own hooch.
>I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
>recognized by other NRA members.
>What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
>make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
>NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
>with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
>happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
>Thanks in advance,
>Neville
The NRA is a 2nd Amendment rights group. I think you meant DNC. Check
in with NAMBLA too. You see, the Democrats are the party for the poor,
trailer folk who can't afford dental work. The Democrats and NAMBLA
also believe you should be able to fuck whoever you want, even your 14
year old daughter, cousin, or son.
Daniel T. Fahey
"Hugh G." <hu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3b13c25f...@news.earthlink.net...
Ahh Right Wing Bigotry out in the open again...
YoDa
HerrGlock
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:41:08 +1000, Neville Purvis <a...@mo.ram> wrote:
>
> >I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
> >this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> >plunge and join up.
> >I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> >distill my own hooch.
> >I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> >recognized by other NRA members.
> >What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
> >make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
> >NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
> >with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
> >happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
> >Thanks in advance,
> >Neville
>
> The NRA is a 2nd Amendment rights group.
The NRA is a firearms safety training group who has over 125 years of
safety training.
The NRA-ILA is a 2d Amendments rights group who only came along recently
in response to an extremist movement to restrict the rights of the
citizens of the US.
HerrGlock
--
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
NRA Life Member, thanks to the postings of gun control advocates on
talk.politics.guns
William "Dave" Thweatt
(piggyback)
> On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:41:08 +1000, Neville Purvis <a...@mo.ram> wrote:
>
> >I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
> >this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> >plunge and join up.
> >I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> >distill my own hooch.
> >I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> >recognized by other NRA members.
> >What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
> >make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
> >NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
> >with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
> >happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
> >Thanks in advance,
> >Neville
I guess you must be proud of yourself. You just insulted 4,300,000
law-abiding citizens and our families.
Maybe you should do what I did.
Put yourself through private college by joining the US Army as an
enlisten infantryman. get a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry.
Go to graduate school and get a PhD. In Theoretical Quantum Chemistry.
While in grad school, mary a beatuiful and highly intelligent woman who
likes shooting sports as much as you do (maybe more). Make sure you go
into the National Guard as a musician so you can keep up with your
artistic endeavors.
Along the way, join the NRA because it's only $30 per year, and you get
a magazine subscription, a bunch of discounts at hotels and stuff,
low-cost insurance, and you get to be a part of a group lobbying
Congress to protect our basic right to self-protection.
Until then, go away, troll.
--
"If you want to know God's thoughts, first learn His language."
Dr. William "Dave" Thweatt
Ph.D. Theoretical Quantum Chemistry
Postdoctoral Fellow
North Dakota State University
Fargo, ND 58105
Daniel T. Fahey
"HerrGlock" <herr...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:3B13D4A8...@usa.net...
> "Hugh G." wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:41:08 +1000, Neville Purvis <a...@mo.ram> wrote:
> >
> > >I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
> > >this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> > >plunge and join up.
> > >I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> > >distill my own hooch.
> > >I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> > >recognized by other NRA members.
> > >What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
> > >make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
> > >NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
> > >with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
> > >happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
> > >Thanks in advance,
> > >Neville
> >
> > The NRA is a 2nd Amendment rights group.
>
> The NRA is a firearms safety training group who has over 125 years of
> safety training.
>
> The NRA-ILA is a 2d Amendments rights group who only came along recently
> in response to an extremist movement to restrict the rights of the
> citizens of the US.
>
1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians to own
Firearms.
2-the NRA use to be a firearms safety training group. They are GOP Grass
Roots organization for campaaign collections. It is so ironic as it is the
Political Right Winger as a group that will want to confiscate a civilians
firearms. So interesting.....
YoDa
Daniel T. Fahey
"William "Dave" Thweatt" <thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in
message news:thweatt-DE462F...@news.ndsu.nodak.edu...
>
> (piggyback)
>
> > On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:41:08 +1000, Neville Purvis <a...@mo.ram> wrote:
> >
> > >I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
> > >this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> > >plunge and join up.
> > >I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> > >distill my own hooch.
> > >I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> > >recognized by other NRA members.
> > >What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
> > >make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
> > >NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
> > >with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
> > >happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
> > >Thanks in advance,
> > >Neville
> I guess you must be proud of yourself. You just insulted 4,300,000
> law-abiding citizens and our families.
Really Law Biding Citizens...!!! I do not seem to find whole lot out there
especially on the Highways!
In fact if there was anyone obeying the law they were parked at a stop light
waiting to speed again.
YoDa
The-Trainers
> Really Law Biding Citizens...!!!
> I do not seem to find whole lot out there especially on the Highways!
> In fact if there was anyone obeying the law they were parked at a stop
> light waiting to speed again.
> YoDa
Which just proves how utterly USELES license & registration laws
are for "safety" and for making people obey the laws.
People who speed and drive drunk don't stop speeding or drunk-driving
because of their license or for their car registration, they ONLY stop
when they get caught and punished!
Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
Gun-owner since the 1994 Clinton gun-ban, VOTER since Carter in 1976,
NRA member since Al Gore 51-50 in 1999, GOA member in 2001. Now voting
ONLY on the issue of protecting my right to keep and bear arms 2002.
The-Trainers
> > On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:41:08 +1000, Neville Purvis <a...@mo.ram> wrote:
> > >I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
> > >this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> > >plunge and join up.
> > >I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> > >distill my own hooch.
> > >I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> > >recognized by other NRA members.
> > >What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
> > >make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
> > >NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
> > >with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
> > >happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
> > >Thanks in advance,
> > >Neville
> I guess you must be proud of yourself. You just insulted 4,300,000
> law-abiding citizens and our families.
That's all gun-haters have to bolster their agenda, lies and insults,
nothing of substance.
The-Trainers
> 1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians
> to own Firearms.
FALSE!
The nations Founders, you know, the guys who wrote and ratified it
said many times that WAS the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
ONLY the 13th Amendment allows for SOME restrictions on gun ownership
by Americans and that ONLY applies to restricting felons, NOT the rest of
us.
> 2-the NRA use to be a firearms safety training group.
They still are! The BULK of their budget goes directly for gun safety
programs. They cannot even use any "dues" money of money from their
magazines or other things for political purposes.
100% of the monty they NRA uses for political purposes comes from
volentary donations for that purpose.
> They are GOP Grass Roots organization for campaaign collections.
Hardly.
> It is so ironic as it is the Political Right Winger as a group that
> will want to confiscate a civilians firearms.
Funny how it's the left-wing that has been doing it however.
The-Trainers
> "Hugh G." <hu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
Just a responce in-kind to the liar who insulted NRA members.
David L. Moffitt
"Daniel T. Fahey" <DanF...@DanSources.com> wrote in message news:0jSQ6.423$aK4.1...@news.abs.net...
%%%% the Justice Dept. disagrees with you.
> 2-the NRA use to be a firearms safety training group. They are GOP Grass
> Roots organization for campaaign collections. It is so ironic as it is the
> Political Right Winger as a group that will want to confiscate a civilians
> firearms. So interesting.....
%%%% Do like Bill Clinton-----don't inhale!!!
ro...@hotmail.com
says...
>>
>> 1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians to own
>> Firearms.
>
>%%%% the Justice Dept. disagrees with you.
>
You're citing Pat Robertson's lackey as an authority on this ?
The Real Morton Davis
The-Trainers
> You didn't answer his question about fucking his sister, David. That
> would be more help.
Why is it that gun-haters are always so damn interested, even obsessed,
with the sex lives of other people?
Why do gun-haters constantly make up sexual stories about people they
don't know?
Aside from their hatred of guns and gun-owners, gun-haters appear to have
serious sexually related mental problems.
Which sort of goes along with what Sigmund Freud said about gun-haters...
Michael Dix
> 1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians to own
> Firearms.
Then you'll agree the First Amendment has nothing to do with
a separation of Church and State.
David L. Moffitt
<ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:g7VQ6.4456$rn5.2...@www.newsranger.com...
%%%% No. I'm citing the Justice Dept.
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS,TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn proud of it!
If Jesus had had an Uzi in the garden of Gethsemene, things would have
been a lot different, let me tell you!
- Zepp, a weasel in talk.politics.guns, May 2000
David L. Moffitt
%%%% No Attorney General John Ashcroft.
From the Washington Times
The right to bear arms
Attorney General John Ashcroft shocked gun-control advocates by taking the "extreme" position that the Second Amendment to the
Constitution enshrines an individual rather than a corporate right to firearms ownership. In other words, actual people were what
the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution not some collective entity such as state militias.
Mr. Ashcroft wrote a letter to the executive director of the National Rifle Association, James Jay Baker, in which he argued
that "the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms.
While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective´ right of the states to maintain militias, I believe
the amendments´s plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."
To anyone who has actually read the Second Amendment and has any grasp of the fundamental reason why American colonists
rebelled against Great Britain in the first place, Mr. Ashcroft´s interpretation is neither controversial nor surprising. America
was founded on the idea of individual not "corporate" rights. In fact, only individuals can have rights, at least in any meaningful
sense. "Society," the "people," etc. are all abstractions. They have no reality beyond the basic building blocks that comprise them
that is, each individual. To take the opposite position, as demanded by gun-control advocates, is to turn one of the most
fundamental founding principles on its head.
The gun-controllers, of course, do not base their arguments on the founding principles, but on the 60-year history of federal
encroachment on gun control, including the 1968 Gun Control Act that was itself patterned on the very law used by Hitler and his
Nazis to disarm the German people in the 1930s. "The practical effect of what he´s done with this letter is to produce a 180 degree
shift in policy on the Second Amendment," said Kirsten Rand, legislative director for the radical gun-control group, the Violence
Policy Center.
All we can say in the immortal phraseology of Teddy Roosevelt is "bully." Mr. Ashcroft is the first attorney general in many
years to agree with what the Constitution clearly states vs. some latter-day interpretation by activist federal judges or
gun-control advocates. As Mr. Ashcroft put it, the Constitution "unequivocally" protects the individual right to possess firearms.
The role of the federal government is to protect that right not undermine it. Contrast the opinion of Mr. Ashcroft with former
Clinton administration Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who wrote that "the Supreme Court and eight United States courts of appeals
have considered the scope of the Second Amendment and have uniformly rejected arguments that it extends firearms rights to
individuals independent of the collective need to ensure a well-regulated militia."
There, in a nutshell, you have the fundamental philosophical difference between two views of the Constitution and the rights it
enshrines. Luckily, the holders of the former view are in power.
ralph
--
ralph
go away vile temptor!
--
ralph
developing lately?
The-Trainers wrote:
>
> Why is it that gun-haters are always so damn interested, even obsessed,
> with the sex lives of other people?
>
> Why do gun-haters constantly make up sexual stories about people they
> don't know?
>
> Aside from their hatred of guns and gun-owners, gun-haters appear to have
> serious sexually related mental problems.
>
> Which sort of goes along with what Sigmund Freud said about gun-haters...
>
> Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
> Gun-owner since the 1994 Clinton gun-ban, VOTER since Carter in 1976,
> NRA member since Al Gore 51-50 in 1999, GOA member in 2001. Now voting
> ONLY on the issue of protecting my right to keep and bear arms 2002.
--
d'geezer
wrote:
Tell me Yo Duh, does The Force also allow you to know who is and who is not in the
NRA among the drivers you encounter?
d'geezer
d'geezer
wrote:
>
Yah can't "infringe" what don't already exist, little doofi.
>2-the NRA use to be a firearms safety training group.
Still is. If you go nearly anywhere in the US for training in marksmanship and
safe gun handling you are 99 times out of 100 being taught by an NRA certified
instructor, that includes most police instructors as well, and a goodly number of
military instructors.
It is a membership organization.
>They are GOP Grass
>Roots organization for campaaign collections.
The have a special interest in civil rights. As such, we pay them to lobby and
support which ever candidate, Independent, Dem, Repub, supports out civil rights.
The NRA-ILA is a donation supported lobbying group, just like all the other
lobbying groups addressing their own issues under the rights stipulated in the 1st
Amendment of the BOR to the Constitution of the United States. Don't it just make
you shiver to think of it? I know it does me. Take off your hat and stand at
attention you trollish thug.
They are not tax exempt, like the MMM, and influencing political issues illegal,
like the MMM.
>It is so ironic as it is the
>Political Right Winger as a group that will want to confiscate a civilians
>firearms.
Like Shumer, Feinstien and that crowd who declares they are out to disarm the
citizens of this country entirely. Yeh, Right Wingers.
>So interesting.....
Well, it would be if you'd get your head out and and take a look around the real
world.
>
>YoDa
Thank you for the interesting view into your strange head, Yo Duh.
d'geezer
romg
> <ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:g7VQ6.4456$rn5.2...@www.newsranger.com...
> > In article <9f15e3$35bi$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, David L. Moffitt
> > says...
> > >>
> > >> 1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians to own
> > >> Firearms.
> > >
> > >%%%% the Justice Dept. disagrees with you.
> > >
> >
> > You're citing Pat Robertson's lackey as an authority on this ?
>
> %%%% No Attorney General John Ashcroft.
>
The troglodyte servant of the Religious Right and the NRA, who worked
on an abortion-banning amendment, and consequently lost to a corpse.
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
from the school girl!
William "Dave" Thweatt
<DanF...@DanSources.com> wrote:
So much anger I see. Not ready this one is.
Trefor Thomas
<thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Dr. William "Dave" Thweatt
> Ph.D. Theoretical Quantum Chemistry
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> North Dakota State University
> Fargo, ND 58105
Hey, I just noticed the "Dr." - congratulations!
Trefor Thomas
The-Trainers
> I thought Newt was the champion of the blowjob in the limo
> from the school girl!
Newt Gingrinch? Who cares about that idiot?
The NRA does NOT need "freinds" like him.
It's John McCain that we have to worry about now!
The-Trainers
Good point, mind if I use it sometime?
ralph
romg wrote:
>
> The troglodyte servant of the Religious Right and the NRA, who worked
> on an abortion-banning amendment, and consequently lost to a corpse.
--
ralph
nickname for William.
(kidding!)
Trefor Thomas wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> > Dr. William "Dave" Thweatt
> > Ph.D. Theoretical Quantum Chemistry
> > Postdoctoral Fellow
> > North Dakota State University
> > Fargo, ND 58105
>
> Hey, I just noticed the "Dr." - congratulations!
>
> Trefor Thomas
--
ralph
The-Trainers wrote:
>
> Good point, mind if I use it sometime?
>
> Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
> Gun-owner since the 1994 Clinton gun-ban, VOTER since Carter in 1976,
> NRA member since Al Gore 51-50 in 1999, GOA member in 2001. Now voting
> ONLY on the issue of protecting my right to keep and bear arms 2002.
--
Michael Dix
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Michael Dix wrote:
>
> > Daniel T. Fahey wrote:
> >
> > > 1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians to own
> > > Firearms.
> >
> > Then you'll agree the First Amendment has nothing to do with
> > a separation of Church and State.
>
> Good point, mind if I use it sometime?
>
No, please go ahead.
We have to support civil rights even if we don't expect
to benefit from them, or even if we are personally
opposed to them. (Personally I am outraged at
the annual toll of 1.1 million abortions in the US,
but I keep reminding myself, it is not my decision
to make.)
You've got MALE.. sex organs!
Bill?
William \"Dave\" Thweatt wrote:
>
> (piggyback)
>
> > On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:41:08 +1000, Neville Purvis <a...@mo.ram> wrote:
> >
> > >I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
> > >this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
> > >plunge and join up.
> > >I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
> > >distill my own hooch.
> > >I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
> > >recognized by other NRA members.
> > >What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
> > >make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
> > >NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
> > >with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
> > >happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
> > >Thanks in advance,
> > >Neville
>
> I guess you must be proud of yourself. You just insulted 4,300,000
> law-abiding citizens and our families.
>
> Maybe you should do what I did.
>
> Put yourself through private college by joining the US Army as an
> enlisten infantryman. get a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry.
> Go to graduate school and get a PhD. In Theoretical Quantum Chemistry.
> While in grad school, mary a beatuiful and highly intelligent woman who
> likes shooting sports as much as you do (maybe more). Make sure you go
> into the National Guard as a musician so you can keep up with your
> artistic endeavors.
>
> Along the way, join the NRA because it's only $30 per year, and you get
> a magazine subscription, a bunch of discounts at hotels and stuff,
> low-cost insurance, and you get to be a part of a group lobbying
> Congress to protect our basic right to self-protection.
>
> Until then, go away, troll.
>
> --
> "If you want to know God's thoughts, first learn His language."
>
William "Dave" Thweatt
organs!" <cool...@luke.com> wrote:
> Could he train himself to be a self-righteous right wing turd like YOU,
> Bill?
Maybe you could first learn to read, then learn to stop top-posting.
William "Dave" Thweatt
trefor...@domcol.com (Trefor Thomas) wrote:
Thanks, I am trying to get used to it myself!
--
"If you want to know God's thoughts, first learn His language."
The-Trainers
Good, by allowing others to freely make their own decisions, short of
harming the rights of others, you also protect your own rights to
make your own decisions.
lazarus
Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
On Thu, 31 May 2001 09:20:38 -0700, "William \"Dave\" Thweatt"
<thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> keyed:
>In article <3B1638A7...@luke.com>, "You've got MALE.. sex
>organs!" <cool...@luke.com> wrote:
>
>> Could he train himself to be a self-righteous right wing turd like YOU,
>> Bill?
>
>Maybe you could first learn to read, then learn to stop top-posting.
--
lazarus
I shave with Ockham's Razor every morning.
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen F. Roberts
lazarus
<moff...@prodigy.net> keyed:
>
>"Daniel T. Fahey" <DanF...@DanSources.com> wrote in message news:0jSQ6.423$aK4.1...@news.abs.net...
>>
>> "HerrGlock" <herr...@usa.net> wrote in message
>> news:3B13D4A8...@usa.net...
>> > "Hugh G." wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:41:08 +1000, Neville Purvis <a...@mo.ram> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >I've been interested for a long time in joining the NRA, and I guess
>> > > >this is the right place to address my concerns before I take the
>> > > >plunge and join up.
>> > > >I'm happy to move to the hills and live in trailer with no heating and
>> > > >distill my own hooch.
>> > > >I'm even happy to let my front teeth rot away so that I can be
>> > > >recognized by other NRA members.
>> > > >What I really am concerned about is the requirement to settle down and
>> > > >make babies with my sister. My sister is sixteen years old, and the
>> > > >NRA application says that she must be fourteen or younger. Can I fuck
>> > > >with my cousin instead? She's a lot prettier anyways, and I'd be
>> > > >happy to share her around with the rest of you guys.
>> > > >Thanks in advance,
>> > > >Neville
>> > >
>> > > The NRA is a 2nd Amendment rights group.
>> >
>> > The NRA is a firearms safety training group who has over 125 years of
>> > safety training.
>> >
>> > The NRA-ILA is a 2d Amendments rights group who only came along recently
>> > in response to an extremist movement to restrict the rights of the
>> > citizens of the US.
>> >
>>
>> 1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians to own
>> Firearms.
>
>%%%% the Justice Dept. disagrees with you.
But the Supreme Court agrees with us, and that trumps the "Justice"
Dept.
David L. Moffitt
"lazarus" <lazaru...@msn.com> wrote in message news:3cdehtcmhdqcf0qpv...@4ax.com...
%%%% Please post URLs to the decision by the Supremes! (Hint: Ain't no such thang!!!)
David Lentz
lazarus wrote:
<snip>
> >%%%% the Justice Dept. disagrees with you.
>
> But the Supreme Court agrees with us, and that trumps the "Justice"
> Dept.
How so?
The executive branch is not inferior to the judicial. Read the
Constitution.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
Haele
.
*
Top-posted disclaimer (- and guys, there is actual topic based
commentary at the bottom, so don't be weenie cowards and use this
disclaimer as an excuse to whimp out, stop reading, and cry like
little rambo wannabes about USENET protocal instead of addressing
issues...)
Is this a private party? If it is, trim your headers and stop
trolling in ATVPI. If not, don't bitch and whine becuase I'm
answering this.
*
.
.
"David L. Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<9f1hmt$24ga$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>...
Hmmm...this *is* the same Justice Department that gave us Waco and
Ruby Ridge?
BTW, I'd be rather take the definitions as interperated by the Supreme
Court opinions and actual constitutional scholars (including Robert
Bork, BTW) rather
than a police force that is dependant on "enforcement" to justify
itself.
I find the opinions of the Justice department to be rather suspect.
Their statistics are usually good, but their interperatations...sigh
Look up the Cornell Law library online archives to find out how the
2nd has been interperated *consistantly* for over 130 years.
And here's a "short version" critique that's used in most
constitutional law courses:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/reycrit.html
In a nutshell the consensis is as follows:
1) The 2nd guarantees a right to bear arms. However, the right is not
absolute, and is dependant on (but "not infringed")by the following
issues:
a) -The definition of arms and bearing arms as understood by the
actual wording of the 2nd to weapons for self protection and community
protection. It has been determined that this definition does not
include sporting arms, collection items, or personal arsenals, those
are considered personal property, not arms. Arms are specifically for
self-protection and community protection as an opposition to crime and
"tyranny" - like the Justice Department armchair agents who order
politically expediant raids...and they are only "born" when used in
those incidents.
b) -The wording of the 2nd also implies that the person "bearing arms"
must be well trained and competent to bear them. In one (but only
one) SCOTUS opinion, training for self defense or for militia uses was
included under the definition of "bearing arms".
2) The opinions of the federal courts, the Supreme Court,and as a
matter of fact,the actions of the authors of the Constitution and the
Ammendments themselves have indicated that the right to bear arms is
not absolute; criminals and the mentally incompetent are not allowed
to "bear arms". Confiscation of arms is authorised for concerns of
personal and community safety. Confiscation has also been authorised
for unlawful rebellion. (A side note: the "Natural Rights to
Rebellion" is usually legally defined from commentary in Madison's
45th Federalist papers commentary; "legal" rebellion has always had
very narrow definition and "should not be entered into lightly and for
spurious reasons". Madison and the other founders have always claimed
that the government does have the right to try and suppress unlawful
rebellions and activites.)
3) The opinions of the above agencies and the Justice Department has
always been that the community has the responsibility to set the
standards to bear arms. Well, the Justice Deparment would like to
include the feds in that responsibility, but they've been stopped so
far. Registration, licencing, and background checks are viewed as
legitimate even if they are inconvieniences, they are not *legally*
considered "infringements".
You can still have your weapon, as long as you are competent and
trained, and can prove will not be a danger to your community with it.
This has always been the "official" interperation of the 2nd. Nothing
that has come up to the Supreme Court has ever proven to be able to
shake that legal opinion enough to make them actually decide on any of
the questions of constitionality of any state law by anything more
than issuing "an opinion" and shelving the question.
My opinion on the whole "gun issue"...
As soon as the first fowling piece owned by a Loyalist was legally
confiscated after the formation of the new Republic and adoption of
the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights, the "Right to
Bear Arms" was defined as non-absolute and subject to restrictions.
Just as the Right to one's practice of own Religion or lack thereof
does not exempt them from following the law - if you ever kill your
child for "disrespect" as directed the Old Testement, expect to go to
jail.
Just as the Right to Free Speech does not exempt one from being
successfully prosecuted for false advertising, libel, slander, or
inflamitory speech that ends up in loss of reputation, injury, death
or destruction of property.
And IMO, unless you want to spend the rest of your life isolated from
everyone else, you've got to live with the fact that for every right
you claim, someone else claims an equally valid right that may be in
opposition to your opinion of your right. Most of the bitch is over
where one precieves the line should be drawn - and, of course, it
*should* always be where one wants it, and where it would give one the
greatest advantage or emotional satisfaction...waahh, waahh...
Human Nature. Selfish, Egotistical... Bleah..
Pogo (Walt Kelly) had it right - "We have met the enemy and he is
us..."
A government "for the people and by the people" is ultimatly run by
the people - so there really *is* no "them" to blaim when there's a
major F**K-up. It's "US"!
You got your vote. You got "your representitive". You got the
backing of your community, right?...so get off yer asses work to
change it to how you see it should be.
Just be careful what you are wishing for, it might not end up being
what you really want...;)
Haele
The-Trainers
> BTW, I'd be rather take the definitions as interperated by the Supreme
> Court opinions and actual constitutional scholars (including Robert
Ah, you mean like the following:
Supreme Court of the USA opinions:
********
Spencer v. Kemna 1998
Justice Stevens:
"An official determination that a person has committed a crime may cause
two different kinds of injury. It may result in tangible harms such as
imprisonment, loss of the right to vote or to bear arms, and the risk of
greater punishment if another crime is committed..."
{A person can only lose a right upon conviction of a crime if a person
had the right before conviction. Hence, if an individual can lose his
right "to bear arms," he must possess such a right.}
********
Albright v. Oliver
Justice Stevens:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot
be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees
elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ?liberty? is not a series of
isolated points pricked out in terms ofthe taking of property; the freedom
of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the
freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on."
********
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
Chief Justice Rehnquist:
""[T]he people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts
of the Constitution. The preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained
and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment
protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," ... "the People"
protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendment,
and to whom rights are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers
to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have
otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be
considered part of that community."
********
Laird v. Tatum
Chief Justice Warren:
"They were reluctant to ratify the Constitution without further
assurances, and thus we find in the Bill of Rights Amendments 2 and 3,
specifically authorizing a decentralized militia, guaranteeing the right
of the people to keep and bear arms, and prohibiting the quartering of
troops in any house in time of peace without the consent of the
owner. Other Amendments guarantee the right of the people to assemble,
to be secure in their homes against unreasonable searches and
seizures,..."
********
Duncan v. Louisiana
Justices Black & Douglas
"...these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by
the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of
speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble
and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right
appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and
bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers
in a house without consent of the owner..."
********
Konigsberg v. State Bar
Justice Black
"...is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First
Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: ?Congress shall make no law
. . . abridging the freedom speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble . . . .? ... In this connection also compare
the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
********
Poe v. Ullman
Justice Harlan
"...the clause was not limited exclusively to the precise terms of the
specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution, such as "the
freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures."
Justice Douglas
"the Fourteenth Amendment must protect all the Bill of Rights."
********
Johnson v. Eisentrager
Justice Jackson
"If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except
Americans engaged in defending it,[179] the same must be true of the
companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its
express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would
mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements,
guerrilla fighters, and "were-wolves" could require the American
Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in
the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security
against "unreasonable" searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well
as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
********
United States v. Cruikshank
Majority opinion
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed
long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In
fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship
under a free government....The right. . . of bearing arms for a lawful
purpose. . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it
in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence. The second
amendment declares that it shall not be infringed..."
********
Dred Scott
Majority opinion
"Black citizens would have the right to enter any state, to stay there as
long as they pleased, and within that state they could go where they
wanted at any hour of the day or night, unless they committed some act
for which a white person could be punished.[271] Further, black citizens
would have the right to full liberty of speech in public and private upon
all subjects which a state's own citizens might meet; to hold public
meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they
went."
********
You mean like those SCOTUS member opinions?
The-Trainers
> > >> 1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians to own
> > >> Firearms.
> > >
> > >%%%% the Justice Dept. disagrees with you.
> >
> > But the Supreme Court agrees with us, and that trumps the "Justice"
> > Dept.
> %%%% Please post URLs to the decision by the Supremes! (Hint: Ain't no
> such thang!!!)
How about these quotes from SCOTUS decisions:
Supreme Court of the USA opinions:
********
Spencer v. Kemna 1998
Justice Stevens:
"An official determination that a person has committed a crime may cause
two different kinds of injury. It may result in tangible harms such as
imprisonment, loss of the right to vote or to bear arms, and the risk of
greater punishment if another crime is committed..."
A person can only lose a right upon conviction of a crime if a person
had the right before conviction. Hence, if an individual can lose his
right "to bear arms," he must possess such a right.
********
Albright v. Oliver
Justice Stevens:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot
be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees
elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ?liberty? is not a series of
isolated points pricked out in terms ofthe taking of property; the freedom
of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the
freedom fromunreasonable searches and seizures; and so on."
Justice Douglas
Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
lazarus
<moff...@prodigy.net> keyed:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/reycrit.html
http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/
http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/courts.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=174
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=445&page=55
Reckon these will be enough to keep you busy?
(Hint: Some of us actually do research!!!)
lazarus
keyed:
>
>
>lazarus wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >%%%% the Justice Dept. disagrees with you.
>>
>> But the Supreme Court agrees with us, and that trumps the "Justice"
>> Dept.
>
>How so?
>
>The executive branch is not inferior to the judicial. Read the
>Constitution.
>
>David
Unlike you, I have. The Justice Dept enforces the law, the Supreme
Court interprets it. The JD can agree or disagree, but they have to
enforce.
ralph
lazarus wrote:
>
> (Hint: Some of us actually do research!!!)
>
> --
>
> lazarus
>
> I shave with Ockham's Razor every morning.
>
> "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
> fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
> the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
> Stephen F. Roberts
--
David L. Moffitt
"lazarus" <lazaru...@msn.com> wrote in message news:q5bght44e17g3uk6i...@4ax.com...
%%%% Not a ruling but, very supportive arguments for the rights of <individuals> to bear arms !!!
> http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm
%%%% Supreme Court cases that support the rights of <individuals> to bear arms!!!
> http://www.2ndlawlib.org/court/fed/sc/
%%%% Another listing of Supreme Courts cases that supports the <individual> right to bear arms!!!!
> http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/courts.html
%%%% Miller case where a sawed off shot gun was not protected by the Second Ammendment. BFD. Does not address the <individual> right
to bear arms!!!
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=174
%%%% Miller case again where case was returned to lower court because of non-appearance of Miller (dead) Decision was over the right
to have an outlawed sawed off shotgun and not the <individual> right to bear arms!!!
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=445&page=55
%%%% Lewis was a convicted felon and by law did not have the right to keep and bear arms. Decision was not on the <individual> right
of citizens to keep and bear arms but, felons are not protected by the 2nd Ammendment!!!!
> Reckon these will be enough to keep you busy?
%%%% Being familiar with the cases-----about 10 minutes total.
> (Hint: Some of us actually do research!!!)
%%%% And I graciously thank you for making my point for me and backing it with URLs!!!
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS,TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn proud of it!
Most of us know that the Second Amendment does not "grant" us any right to
keep and bear arms, but rather acts as a prohibition on government to not
infringe on this right. What many do not know, however, is that when the
other side says that the Supreme Court has never tackled the issue, they are
simply lying. A few citations will suffice.
in 1857 (1) that citizens rights include the right "to keep and carry arms
wherever they want."
in 1876 (2) that the Constitution did not grant a right to arms but that
the right to arms long predates the Constitution and is not dependent upon
that document for its existence.
in 1886 (3) that "the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and
bearing arms."
in 1895 (4) that individuals have the right to possess and use firearms for
self-defense.
in 1897 (5) that the right to arms is an ancient and "fundamental" right,
"inherited from our English ancestors," and has existed "from time
immemorial."
and more recently,
in 1990 (6) that the term "the people," as used in the Second and other
amendments, and elsewhere in the Constitution, means all the individuals who
make up our national community.
There are others, but these should get the discussion going.
From time to time the anti's propose repealing the Second Amendment. Should
you find yourself facing a left-wing, warm-and-fuzzy bedwetter espousing
this view, educate them to the fact that the entire Bill of Rights is immune
from such action, since the inclusion of the Bill of Rights was a
prerequisite for nine of the thirteen colonies ratifying the new
Constitution in the period 1787-1791. But for the inclusion of the Bill of
Rights, there would be no Constitution.
If the whiner persists in this vein, just tell him that you would agree to
amending the Second Amendment so as to make it consistent with the doctrines
and beliefs of the Founders, to wit: "Save for lunatics and violent felons,
as so adjudged by a competent court of jurisdiction, the right of the people
individually and collectively to keep and bear arms for any purpose
whatsoever is and shall remain inviolate. This amendment applies to weapons
of any form, and specifically includes such weapons as are currently in use
by the military forces of the United States or any other sovereign state."
This rewording is completely in accord with the views of the Founders. When
you hear that Jefferson, Madison, et al could not have intended for citizens
to own machine guns because such things didn't exist in their time, ask the
speaker if his thinking also applies to the banning of radio and television
from protection under the First Amendment for like reasons.
Of course, we all know that trying to win this argument with logic and facts
is like wrestling with a pig; you can't win, you will get filthy, and the
pig likes it. Speaking of pigs, however . . .
NOTES:
01. Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 691, 705 (1857)
02. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 553 (1876)
03. Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252 (1886)
04. Beard v. United States, 158 US 550 (1895)
05. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 (1897)
06. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, No. 88-1353 (1990)
lazarus
Top posting because i don't feel like snipping.
So, Dave, you just admitted my point, that the 2nd amendment isn't an
absolute right. What are you arguing about?
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 15:57:28 -0500, "David L. Moffitt"
W. E. Woods
lazarus wrote:
>
> Top posting because i don't feel like snipping.
>
> So, Dave, you just admitted my point, that the 2nd amendment isn't an
> absolute right.
What's with the old strawman? No one claims it is an "absolute" right,
whatever that is.
"One of the bargains men make with one another in order
to maintain their sanity is to share an illusion that they
are safe even when the physical evidence in the world
around them does not seem to warrant that conclusion."
-- Kai T. Erickson, _Everything in Its Path_
W. E. Woods
lazarus wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 12:09:48 GMT, David Lentz <Ro...@signfile.net>
> keyed:
>
> >
> >
> >lazarus wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >%%%% the Justice Dept. disagrees with you.
> >>
> >> But the Supreme Court agrees with us, and that trumps the "Justice"
> >> Dept.
> >
> >How so?
> >
> >The executive branch is not inferior to the judicial. Read the
> >Constitution.
> >
> >David
>
> Unlike you, I have. The Justice Dept enforces the law, the Supreme
> Court interprets it. The JD can agree or disagree, but they have to
> enforce.
Not at all. They can also ignore.
W. E. Woods
William \"Dave\" Thweatt wrote:
>
> In article <3b15260a...@client.nw.news.psi.net>,
> trefor...@domcol.com (Trefor Thomas) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 29 May 2001 12:45:20 -0700, "William \"Dave\" Thweatt"
> > <thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > > Dr. William "Dave" Thweatt
> > > Ph.D. Theoretical Quantum Chemistry
> > > Postdoctoral Fellow
> > > North Dakota State University
> > > Fargo, ND 58105
> >
> > Hey, I just noticed the "Dr." - congratulations!
> >
>
> Thanks, I am trying to get used to it myself!
Congrats. Still planning on leaving ND?
W. E. Woods
lazarus wrote:
>
> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>
> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
You ignorance is blinding.
The-Trainers
> > >> >> 1- the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with any right for Civilians to own
> > >> >> Firearms.
> %%%% Miller case where a sawed off shot gun was not protected by the
> Second Ammendment.
Actually, in the Miller case of 1929, the SCOTUS did NOT state that the
"sawed off shot gun" Miller was convicted of possessing under 1934-NFA
was "not protected" by the 2nd Amendment.
All the SCOTUS said was that as a result of the failure of the lower court
to properly complete the case at their level, such as presenting actual
evidence about the FACT that sawed-off shotguns WERE COMMON military
weapons back then (not to mention for decades later) and other missing
bits of testimony and evidence gathering....
The SCOTUS said that the Miller case had been prematurely sent up to them
and the SCOTUS offered suggestions as to what sort of evidence might
allow the SCOTUS to actually make some ruling on the claims made by
Millers lawyer that the 1934-NFA law was Unconstitutional.
The real proble with the Miller case was the lack of competant lawyer for
Miller. The lawyer did not even bother to go to the SCOTUS hearing or
even the prior appeals courts level to argue his case and the last
layer of court he did show up for he made a very narrow claim rather than
a more broad claim about the 2nd.
Well, then of course there is the little problem with Miller and his
partner mysteriously dying before the case got to the SCOTUS...
> %%%% Lewis was a convicted felon and by law did not have the right to
> keep and bear arms. Decision was not on the <individual> right
> of citizens to keep and bear arms but, felons are not protected by the
> 2nd Ammendment!!!!
Yes, felons have been prohibited by law from exercising their rights
of several types by a combination of the 13th Amendment and subsequent
laws.
The 13th Amendment allows for the suppression of certain rights of
convicted felons, but it was NOT untill 1968-GCA that felons were
prohibited by law from guns.
Most people don't know that, but then, most people are clueless.
Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
Gun-owner since the 1994 Clinton gun-ban, VOTER since Carter in 1976,
NRA member since Al Gore 51-50 in 1999, GOA member in 2001. Now voting
ONLY on the issue of protecting my right to keep and bear arms 2002.
lazarus
<wew...@ix.netcom.com> keyed:
>
>
>lazarus wrote:
>>
>> Top posting because i don't feel like snipping.
>>
>> So, Dave, you just admitted my point, that the 2nd amendment isn't an
>> absolute right.
>
>What's with the old strawman? No one claims it is an "absolute" right,
>whatever that is.
>
So you don't mind restrictions on the personal ownership of guns?
lazarus
<wew...@ix.netcom.com> keyed:
>
>
>lazarus wrote:
>>
>> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>>
>> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
>> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>
>You ignorance is blinding.
>
So, I *do* have a right to bear arms? Where, pray tell, would that
be?
David Voth
kind enough to write:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:09:23 -0700, "W. E. Woods"
><wew...@ix.netcom.com> keyed:
>>
>>lazarus wrote:
>>>
>>> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>>>
>>> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
>>> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>>
>>You ignorance is blinding.
>>
>
>So, I *do* have a right to bear arms? Where, pray tell, would that
>be?
The same place your right to bake chocolate-chip cookies is.
lazarus
keyed:
Exactly, relying on the good graces of my state and local legislature.
Gun bans are legal.
ralph
W. E. Woods wrote:
>
>
> You ignorance is blinding.
>
> "One of the bargains men make with one another in order
> to maintain their sanity is to share an illusion that they
> are safe even when the physical evidence in the world
> around them does not seem to warrant that conclusion."
> -- Kai T. Erickson, _Everything in Its Path_
--
lazarus
keyed:
>Another one! Damn, your precise geometrical logic is diabolical!
Startling forensic skills, eh? Now we know how DimSon got so good at
public speaking........
>W. E. Woods wrote:
>>
>>
>> You ignorance is blinding.
>>
>> "One of the bargains men make with one another in order
>> to maintain their sanity is to share an illusion that they
>> are safe even when the physical evidence in the world
>> around them does not seem to warrant that conclusion."
>> -- Kai T. Erickson, _Everything in Its Path_
--
lazarus
William "Dave" Thweatt
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>
> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>
You have every right in the world to top-post. It is simply annoying.
You also have every right to own and bear any and all arms. That right
is independent of any written document. It is self-evident. It is
axiomatic. It is a natural extension of your right to defend yourself.
The right to self-defense is a natural extension of your right to life.
If you fail to understand this, then you are an idiot.
If you refuse to accept this, then you are a lapdog of tyrants.
--
"If you want to know God's thoughts, first learn His language."
lazarus
<thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> keyed:
>In article <cadeht4atck7ftpfl...@4ax.com>, lazarus
><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>>
>> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
>> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>>
>
>You have every right in the world to top-post. It is simply annoying.
>You also have every right to own and bear any and all arms. That right
>is independent of any written document. It is self-evident. It is
>axiomatic. It is a natural extension of your right to defend yourself.
>The right to self-defense is a natural extension of your right to life.
>
Why haven't you people risen up to protect the right of the residents
of Washington, DC, to bear arms? Or any other place in America where
guns are banned? Are you loons just full of talk and hot air?
>If you fail to understand this, then you are an idiot.
>
If you fail to understand the logical fallacy in your statement, then
your doctorate isn't worth the sheepskin it's printed on.
>If you refuse to accept this, then you are a lapdog of tyrants.
Again.
David Voth
kind enough to write:
>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:09:35 GMT, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth)
>keyed:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:05:25 -0500, lazarus <lazaru...@msn.com> was
>>kind enough to write:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:09:23 -0700, "W. E. Woods"
>>><wew...@ix.netcom.com> keyed:
>>>>
>>>>lazarus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
>>>>> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>>>>
>>>>You ignorance is blinding.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So, I *do* have a right to bear arms? Where, pray tell, would that
>>>be?
>>
>>The same place your right to bake chocolate-chip cookies is.
>
>Exactly, relying on the good graces of my state and local legislature.
>Gun bans are legal.
No, you don't get it!
You do not need PERMISSION from your state and local governments to do
ANYTHING you want, as long as it is not specifically prohibited.
If people needed explicit permission from the government to do as they
please, what did our ancestors do before there were governments?
Act like a sheep, and the "authorities" will gladly act as your
shepherds.
--
The pro-control side clearly believes that U.S. laws are based on the
"everything is prohibited unless specifically allowed" model, rather
than the "everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited" model
that U.S. law actually uses. - Steve Hix in talk.politics.guns
David Voth
kind enough to write:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:18:21 -0700, "William \"Dave\" Thweatt"
><thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> keyed:
>
>>In article <cadeht4atck7ftpfl...@4ax.com>, lazarus
>><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>>>
>>> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
>>> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>>>
>>
>>You have every right in the world to top-post. It is simply annoying.
>>You also have every right to own and bear any and all arms. That right
>>is independent of any written document. It is self-evident. It is
>>axiomatic. It is a natural extension of your right to defend yourself.
>>The right to self-defense is a natural extension of your right to life.
>>
>
>Why haven't you people risen up to protect the right of the residents
>of Washington, DC, to bear arms?...
Because that is THEIR problem, not mine.
<snip>
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
The-Trainers
> >Why haven't you people risen up to protect the right of the residents
> >of Washington, DC, to bear arms?...
>
> Because that is THEIR problem, not mine.
Actually, we TRIED to get them back their rights by electing Bush,
now we will just have to wait and see.
The-Trainers
> >Exactly, relying on the good graces of my state and local legislature.
> >Gun bans are legal.
> No, you don't get it!
>
> You do not need PERMISSION from your state and local governments to do
> ANYTHING you want, as long as it is not specifically prohibited.
Correct, but SOME people prefer to live as slaves begging for permission
from the government to get priviliges granted to them.
> If people needed explicit permission from the government to do as they
> please, what did our ancestors do before there were governments?
>
> Act like a sheep, and the "authorities" will gladly act as your
> shepherds.
Then they always end up acting like butchers once they get comfy as
shepherds.
> --
> The pro-control side clearly believes that U.S. laws are based on the
> "everything is prohibited unless specifically allowed" model, rather
> than the "everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited" model
> that U.S. law actually uses. - Steve Hix in talk.politics.guns
Good quote.
The-Trainers
> > Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
> > like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
> You also have every right to own and bear any and all arms. That right
> is independent of any written document. It is self-evident. It is
> axiomatic. It is a natural extension of your right to defend yourself.
> The right to self-defense is a natural extension of your right to life.
>
> If you fail to understand this, then you are an idiot.
>
> If you refuse to accept this, then you are a lapdog of tyrants.
Well-put, it also explains why so many gun-haters also support the efforts
to attack smokers.
Personally, I don't mind if people wish to smoke as long as they do it
without putting their smoke into my lungs, which is the same as guns.
Own them all you wish, use them safely all you wish, but don't use
them in a manner that harms me or other innocent persons.
lazarus
keyed:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:47:11 -0500, lazarus <lazaru...@msn.com> was
>kind enough to write:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:18:21 -0700, "William \"Dave\" Thweatt"
>><thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> keyed:
>>
>>>In article <cadeht4atck7ftpfl...@4ax.com>, lazarus
>>><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>>>>
>>>> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
>>>> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have every right in the world to top-post. It is simply annoying.
>>>You also have every right to own and bear any and all arms. That right
>>>is independent of any written document. It is self-evident. It is
>>>axiomatic. It is a natural extension of your right to defend yourself.
>>>The right to self-defense is a natural extension of your right to life.
>>>
>>
>>Why haven't you people risen up to protect the right of the residents
>>of Washington, DC, to bear arms?...
>
>Because that is THEIR problem, not mine.
>
><snip>
First they came for the guns in DC, and I did nothing. Then they came
for the guns in Chicago, and I did nothing...............
lazarus
keyed:
Wow, you really have a difficult time with this, don't you?
Gun bans are legal. If your local government decides to ban guns, it
may do so.
The-Trainers
> > So, Dave, you just admitted my point, that the 2nd amendment isn't an
> > absolute right.
> What's with the old strawman? No one claims it is an "absolute" right,
> whatever that is.
He just wants something he can push down. In reality I have always
said that it was Constitutional to prohibit guns from felons as
the government is allowed to do by the 13th Amendment.
It is also Constitutional to prohibit guns from minors.
It is also Constitutional to require a license to carry a concealed
handgun in public places, IF and ONLY IF the license process is NOT
ABUSED as a means of EXCLUDING the majority of people who apply.
It is also Constitutional to place penalties on negligent or criminal
mis-USE of guns.
In PRIVATE places, on PRIVATE property the Constitution does NOT allow
for any infringement of firearms ownership (other than for those
individuals forbidden by good and specific cause).
Mike Trainer, Life-long Liberal Democrat Atheist, Gun-owner and VOTER!
Gun-owner since the 1994 Clinton gun-ban, VOTER since Carter in 1976,
NRA member since Al Gore 51-50 in 1999, GOA member in 2001. Now voting
ONLY on the issue of protecting my right to keep and bear arms 2002.
The-Trainers
> > Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
> > like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
> You ignorance is blinding.
It keeps him happy and warm.
d'geezer
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:04:46 -0700, "W. E. Woods"
><wew...@ix.netcom.com> keyed:
>
>>
>>
>>lazarus wrote:
>>>
>>> Top posting because i don't feel like snipping.
>>>
>>> So, Dave, you just admitted my point, that the 2nd amendment isn't an
>>> absolute right.
>>
>>What's with the old strawman? No one claims it is an "absolute" right,
>>whatever that is.
>>
>
>So you don't mind restrictions on the personal ownership of guns?
From straw to fish.
d'geezer
David Voth
kind enough to write:
Please don't change the subject. You asked where your right to bear
arms CAME FROM, i.e. the subject was the source of the rights of
individuals. Now you are talking about the powers of government.
Those are very different things, and I am not convinced that you are
clear on that concept.
Governments cannot create or grant rights. Governments can only
restrict them. The only way a government can ensure the rights of one
or more individuals is by compromising the rights of a different set
of individuals. Your rights now equals the set of rights you had when
you were born minus what has been taken away from you.
Your right to bear arms came with your right to breathe and the right
to protect yourself from harm. Like the right to breathe, the right
to bear arms is not unlimited, not without restrictions. Yes, the
government can infringe your right to bear arms! It can also infringe
your right to breathe, as can individuals. The fact that they CAN
infringe your rights doesn't make it right for them to do so.
Your question was where the right came from, not how you can lose it.
Losing a right is simple - You just let someone (person or government)
take it away.
Am I making myself clear enough yet?
--
If Jesus had had an Uzi in the garden of Gethsemene, things would have
been a lot different, let me tell you!
- Zepp, a weasel in talk.politics.guns, May 2000
David Voth
kind enough to write:
>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:24:45 GMT, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth)
>keyed:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:47:11 -0500, lazarus <lazaru...@msn.com> was
>>kind enough to write:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:18:21 -0700, "William \"Dave\" Thweatt"
>>><thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> keyed:
>>>
>>>>In article <cadeht4atck7ftpfl...@4ax.com>, lazarus
>>>><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
>>>>> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have every right in the world to top-post. It is simply annoying.
>>>>You also have every right to own and bear any and all arms. That right
>>>>is independent of any written document. It is self-evident. It is
>>>>axiomatic. It is a natural extension of your right to defend yourself.
>>>>The right to self-defense is a natural extension of your right to life.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why haven't you people risen up to protect the right of the residents
>>>of Washington, DC, to bear arms?...
>>
>>Because that is THEIR problem, not mine.
>>
>><snip>
>
>First they came for the guns in DC, and I did nothing. Then they came
>for the guns in Chicago, and I did nothing...............
I'll give you a half-hearted touche on that one, but nobody can fight
every battle that raises its head. People who try to do that drive
themselves crazy.
lazarus
keyed:
Sure. Now, do you dispute the fact that gun bans are Constitutional?
David L. Moffitt
We still see references to "smart gun" technology coming from our
government, the most recent being in the frightening McCain-Lieberman
Totalitarian Gun Bill. And we remember co-president Clinton's first Surgeon
General, Joycelyn Elders, calling for "safer bullets" (when she wasn't
calling for public educators to teach kindergarteners to masturbate). Smart
guns and safe bullets are attacks on your right to defend yourself.
As for safer bullets, first we'll ban plastic bullets, which fragment,
making it dangerous for surgeons who fear HIV infection to go digging around
in a live body for them. It sounds reasonable to ban those, right? They
they'll ban hollow points. Then, finally, we'll be left with only rubber
bullets. It is as "safe" and "smart" to shoot an attacker with a rubber
bullet as it is to throw rocks at a bear.
The truth about guns is stark: You need bullets that kill, and kill quickly.
I own my guns, a pistol and a shotgun, for the sole purpose of self defense.
I do not hunt, I am not a collector. I've had my guns for 10 years, and
have never come close to pointing one at another person. I hope I never do,
because it'll mean some innocent life, probably mine, is in immediate
danger. But if the time comes, I don't want to enrage or protect my
attacker.
There are two sets of reasons why when you shoot at a person, you should
shoot to kill. The first set includes self-preserving reasons: If you kill
the attacker, he won't testify against you, and there is no predicting how
an American court will rule on anything these days; if you kill him he isn't
around to take revenge; and most plainly, when he's dead that means he has
stopped the immediate attack.
The second set of reasons you should shoot to kill are moral reasons having
to do with all of society. You should intend to kill when you shoot because
shooting at someone is a good way to kill them, even when you don't intend
to. If there's somebody you want to merely frighten or maim, but not kill,
don't shoot at them; don't even reach for a gun (I'm not sure why anyone
would want to terrorize or injure another anyway). Guns are dangerous. You
should aim a gun at another person only in circumstances that might
reasonably require the death of the other person. I do not want to live
where people believe shooting for any other purpose is valid. I don't want
any accidental gun deaths. I want only deliberate ones, where an innocent
person is defending himself or someone else. I want a society full of
people who know shooting means killing, who thus see shooting at people as
the most serious matter imaginable.
As for "smart guns," the fantasy is that we can produce guns that will shoot
only for the owner. Whether the technology involves wearing a magnetic ring
or bracelet, or the gun using some bioscan to recognize you, the result will
be horrific. The most common result will be the guns not working when you
need them. Another result will be theft of the gun: In the heat of a crime,
theft likely will involve removal of whatever body part is in the way or
needed to operate the gun. Further, the article linked above suggests
future radio-smart guns used by cops might be turned off by the mayor if it
helps his political position. I'm not nearly as frightened of that as I am
that my radio-smart gun could be turned off by the government. You can bet
the farm that if we have radio-smart guns, the government will have an "off"
switch.
I bought my Smith & Wesson 10mm pistol before S & W became a sycophant of
the state. As long as I keep powerful ammunition in it, I know that when I
pull the trigger, it will fire (weak ammo has failed to fully retract the
slide - the return spring is comically strong). Further, it is purely
mechanical, so the government can't turn it off. I can take it apart enough
to keep it clean and reliable, and I can find a S &W gunsmith in Selma
should the need ever arise, which I don't expect. With a smart gun, none of
that matters. Should I ever need it, I'll probably end up too dead to care
about the "never-fail" warranty.
Get yourself some dumb guns and dangerous ammo while you still can. "Smart"
and "safe" are what you and I are, not what the government, in their quest
for absolute power, should mandate for our means of self defense.
June 6, 2001
Brad Edmonds, MS in Industrial Psychology, Doctor of Musical Arts, is a
banker in Alabama.
Copyright Đ 2001 LewRockwell.com
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS,TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn proud of it!
Īš°`°šĪø,ļļ,øĪš°Ī DISCLAIMER Īš°`°šĪø,ļļ,øĪš°Ī
If you find a posting or message from myself
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please
ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting,
complain to me and I will demonstrate.
Īš°`°šĪø,ļļ,øĪš°Ī Īš°`°šĪø,ļļ,øĪš°Ī Īš°`°šĪø,ļļ,øĪš°Ī
ralph
David Voth wrote:
>
> I'll give you a half-hearted touche on that one, but nobody can fight
> every battle that raises its head. People who try to do that drive
> themselves crazy.
--
ralph
understand that means you have to be extra clear, don't you?
>
> Am I making myself clear enough yet?
>
> --
> If Jesus had had an Uzi in the garden of Gethsemene, things would have
> been a lot different, let me tell you!
>
> - Zepp, a weasel in talk.politics.guns, May 2000
--
ralph
promised us!!!!
--
lazarus
Industrial Psychology.
"Brad Edmonds, MS in Industrial Psychology, Doctor of Musical Arts, is
a banker in Alabama."
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:08:34 -0700, ralph <124...@gernsback.net>
keyed:
--
lazarus
Morton Davis
ralph <124...@gernsback.net> wrote in message
<3B1DC8...@gernsback.net>...
>But but but.... I thought you only had to show the bad guy the guns. MT
>promised us!!!!
It worked for me every time.
-*MORT*-
d'ge...@d'geezer.net
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:47:11 -0500, lazarus <lazaru...@msn.com> was
>kind enough to write:
>
>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:18:21 -0700, "William \"Dave\" Thweatt"
>><thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> keyed:
>>
>>>In article <cadeht4atck7ftpfl...@4ax.com>, lazarus
>>><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
>>>>
>>>> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
>>>> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have every right in the world to top-post. It is simply annoying.
>>>You also have every right to own and bear any and all arms. That right
>>>is independent of any written document. It is self-evident. It is
>>>axiomatic. It is a natural extension of your right to defend yourself.
>>>The right to self-defense is a natural extension of your right to life.
>>>
>>
>>Why haven't you people risen up to protect the right of the residents
>>of Washington, DC, to bear arms?...
>
>Because that is THEIR problem, not mine.
And because if you aren't a resident you'll play hell getting any response from
the DC government...
d'geezer
>
><snip>
>
>--
>
>"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
>so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
> -- Bertrand Russell
"Anyone who wants to get rid of all guns, thinks that the earth should
be ruled by large,strong men with swords and clubs. I think we
already tried that. It was called the Dark Ages."
Christopher Morton, Tue, 27 Mar 2001
David Voth
kind enough to write:
Governments can regulate the manner in which guns can be traded and
the manner in which they can be used, but outright bans are IMHO
unconstitutional.
Why didn't the federal government ban machineguns outright back in
1934? Because the government does not have the power to legally ban
guns. That's why the National Firearms Act imposes restrictions and
taxes on commerce, but not on manufacturing or ownership of certain
types of guns.
Morton Davis
Axlrose wrote in message <3b24c073...@24.7.143.118>...
>On The Date Of Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:46:40 GMT, "Morton Davis"
><oglet...@oglethorpe.com> Wrote The Followng:
>
>->
>->ralph <124...@gernsback.net> wrote in message
>-><3B1DC8...@gernsback.net>...
>->>But but but.... I thought you only had to show the bad guy the guns. MT
>->>promised us!!!!
>->
>->It worked for me every time.
>
>
>Paying a male prostitute is NOT the same a pulling a gun on a bad guy.
>
>Learn the difference please...
>
>
>------------------------------------
>http://www.bettybowers.com/jenna.html --- LOL!!!!!
>***********************************
>Keeping track of King George W Bush --> http://www.dubyareport.com/
>313/313/200 -- March 18th,2001
>December 15th 2000 - CONSTITUTION R.I.P.
>******************************
Notice how no one gives a shit about Gore anymore? Not one mention in the
news for weeks on end. That's because America has forgotten Al Gore. He can
smolke all the pot he wants now.
-*MORT*-
William "Dave" Thweatt
<lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:18:21 -0700, "William \"Dave\" Thweatt"
> <thw...@quantum.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu> keyed:
>
> >In article <cadeht4atck7ftpfl...@4ax.com>, lazarus
> ><lazaru...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Top posting is wrong? But, but, but, it's a right! It is!
> >>
> >> Just like my "right" to bear arms. It's in the Constitution, just
> >> like, oh, wait, never mind. Neither one is.
> >>
> >
> >You have every right in the world to top-post. It is simply annoying.
> >You also have every right to own and bear any and all arms. That right
> >is independent of any written document. It is self-evident. It is
> >axiomatic. It is a natural extension of your right to defend yourself.
> >The right to self-defense is a natural extension of your right to life.
> >
>
> Why haven't you people risen up to protect the right of the residents
> of Washington, DC, to bear arms? Or any other place in America where
> guns are banned? Are you loons just full of talk and hot air?
I do all I can within the system, I vote and lobby Congress.
>
> >If you fail to understand this, then you are an idiot.
> >
>
> If you fail to understand the logical fallacy in your statement, then
> your doctorate isn't worth the sheepskin it's printed on.
>
Obviously you fail the test.
> >If you refuse to accept this, then you are a lapdog of tyrants.
>
> Again.
Denial is not a river in Egypt, idiot lapdog.