More evidence that registration leads to confiscation!
Devil's Advocate
Lookout
<Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-seized-
>police523.html
You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of guns
on the city's streets."
Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
Did you really think that would get by me?
You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
Devil's Advocate
You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human rights!
RichTravsky
Gun ownership is a human right?
RT
Bob
wrote:
As far as Human Rights, there aren't a whole hell of a lot of them, as a
matter of fact I can't really think of any, except for some unmoderated
usenet groups.....did I say "unmoderated" well they have LEOs all over
sitting around like spiders in front of a monitor, and getting paid for it.
Your right, but with most of the LEO and Court ppl, they like to nit
pick at mis/interpretes laws they zioned up. These Law dudes need to
generate an income somehow, and they are of no use to anybody as far as the
service they are supposed to provide.
Lookout
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
A really stupid statement no doubt.
RD (The Sandman)
@hotmMOVEail.com:
To have the most effective means of defending oneself is. Today that is
a firearm.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
President John Adams
Devil's Advocate
I realize that communists dont recognize any human rights, but yes:
hu�man rights�,
fundamental rights, esp. those believed to belong to an individual and
in whose exercise a government may not interfere, as the rights to
speak, associate, work, etc.
[1785�95]
Why that sounds SO like the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments of
the U.S. Constitution, of which the RKBA - ( the universal individual
inalienable human Right to Keep And Bear Arms ) is Amendment 2.
YES, a human right, you gits!
R. LaCasse
I might suggest that if you need anything more powerful than 50AE
handgun, your probably doing something wrong as far as self defense is
concerned.
Once upon at time a commander warrior showed up with a flintlock
handgun, everybody looked at it, laughed, and said *What are you gonna do
with that little thing"....well, they were right, the handgun was more of
status symbol for prestige, in cold/hot wartimes.
So if a handgun is so useless, why are they so feared as having to
be seriously registered in the Americas, mostly Canada, since the Fuehrer
past the explicit handgun ban for possible attacks on his panzers and
Bismarcks?? no, for some local Gestappe protection from the registered
atc/ccw armed Jews.
A handgun without a silencer is usually accepted as an ethical means
of self protection, since the sound itself attracts all sorts of Witnesses
to the incident scene, whereas a rifle fired from indoors/cars will get away
from most crimes at a greater distance while blowing your own tympani out
w/o proper protection.
Handguns are greatly subject to Newton's law as (Equal and Opposite
Reaction) so where is the big fuss???, fair is fair, tit for tat, CCW or
open all depend on your immediate environment and personal protection,
"safety is still between your ears".....
BTW: The GTA (Greater Toronto Area) MILLER guy who started all these home
Invasions is stepping down from the glorified throne he shared with the
Queer of England.
Bob
--
Triad Productions-Fantalla~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
(http://*remove*boblacasse.150m.com/htmlconc.html)
Larry Hewitt
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:4ABEF9B5.4A1CF7F4
> @hotmMOVEail.com:
>
>> Devil's Advocate wrote:
>>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>>>> <Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-
> seized-
>>>>> police523.html
>>>> You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
>>>> "Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
>>>> registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of
> guns
>>>> on the city's streets."
>>>>
>>>> Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
>>>>
>>>> Did you really think that would get by me?
>>>>
>>>> You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
>>> You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human
> rights!
>> Gun ownership is a human right?
>>
>> RT
>>
>
> To have the most effective means of defending oneself is. Today that is
> a firearm.
>
Bwahahahaha.
You against a million man army.
This I gotta see.
Or against criminals so heavily armed because you push for lax gun laws
that even the police are outgunned?
I'd rather see that, actually.
Bwahahaha.
Larry
Devil's Advocate
>|>To have the most effective means of defending oneself is. Today
>|>that is a firearm.
>
> I might suggest that if you need anything more powerful than
> 50AE
> handgun, your probably doing something wrong as far as self defense
> is concerned.
Wasnt just recognized for self defense:
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now
appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be
always possible." -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)
Ours is also a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.
> Once upon at time a commander warrior showed up with a flintlock
> handgun, everybody looked at it, laughed, and said *What are you
> gonna do with that little thing"....well, they were right, the
> handgun was more of status symbol for prestige, in cold/hot wartimes.
A handgun is what you use to fight your way back to your rifle or
shotgun.
I say that the Second Amendment doesn't allow for exceptions -- or else
it would have read that the right 'to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, unless Congress chooses otherwise.' And because there are no
exceptions, I disagree with my fellow panelists who say the existing gun
laws should be enforced. Those laws are unconstitutional [and] wrong --
because they put you at a disadvantage to armed criminals, to whom the
laws are no inconvenience. - Harry Bowne, Aug 8, 2000, at a Second
Amendment rally in Arkansas
RichTravsky
That's rightards for ya.
RT
RichTravsky
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:35:49 -0600, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> trumps a sword on the belt.
Which means guns are not a human right.
RichTravsky
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in news:4ABEF9B5.4A1CF7F4
> @hotmMOVEail.com:
> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
> >> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
> >> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto-
> seized-
> >> >>police523.html
> >> >
> >> > You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
> >> > "Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with lapsed
> >> > registrations in a six-month push aimed at reducing the number of
> guns
> >> > on the city's streets."
> >> >
> >> > Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost their guns.
> >> >
> >> > Did you really think that would get by me?
> >> >
> >> > You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.
> >>
> >> You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human
> rights!
> >
> > Gun ownership is a human right?
>
> a firearm.
Then a bazooka would qualify. Good luck with that.
RichTravsky
>
> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>
> > On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:35:49 -0600, RichTravsky
> ><traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Devil's Advocate wrote:
> >>> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
> >>> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
> >>> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>
> >>> You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize human
> >>> rights!
> >>
> >>Gun ownership is a human right?
> >>
> >>RT
> >
> > A really stupid statement no doubt.
>
> I realize that communists dont recognize any human rights, but yes:
I realize that fascist rightards don't know the difference between Canada
and the US...
R. LaCasse
wrote:
|>> I realize that communists dont recognize any human rights, but yes:
|>
|>I realize that fascist rightards don't know the difference between Canada
|>and the US...
I call it North America myself, at least that's what it says on the
Geography Maps. There ain't no real friggin wall there, although the armed
border patrols can cause quite a barrier, what some ppl will do for
money.....enforce Nazism and then go home and live like the Nielson Family
or some Barney Fife.
What you may be referring to, is the 2 different Corporations you
are into. It doesn't matter that much they both suck with 20,000 insane gun
laws anyway.....you wanna know where that makes sense????.....
Bob
RD (The Sandman)
news:4AC2E64C...@hotmMOVEail.com:
Nope....a bazooka is too heavy to carry around all the time and it is a
bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a firearm, it
is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
RichTravsky
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:03:24 -0600, RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com>
> wrote:
>
> |>> I realize that communists dont recognize any human rights, but yes:
> |>
> |>I realize that fascist rightards don't know the difference between Canada
> |>and the US...
>
> I call it North America myself, at least that's what it says on the
> Geography Maps. There ain't no real friggin wall there, although the armed
There is a legal wall, tho. The American Constitution ends at it.
RichTravsky
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
So what. A musket can weight 8 to 10 pounds. A bazooka comes in at around 13.
> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a firearm, it
Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with anything?
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about that?
> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade launcher?
> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
Infantry carry grenade launchers. How hard is that to conceal? How do you conceal
an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to do with TORONTO?
RT
Bob
wrote:
|>> I call it North America myself, at least that's what it says on the
|>> Geography Maps. There ain't no real friggin wall there, although the armed
|>
|>There is a legal wall, tho. The American Constitution ends at it.
Laws "legal" are made to be broken, so break the wall down. In China
they have Concrete Walls to enforce laws and segregation, I don't think
paper walls can hold up that long.
Laws are rules, to be personally enforced by the "fuzz" for their
enrichment and prosperity.
THEY pass laws like I pass wind, I doesn't "smell" too long, just
the value of the paper laws are written on.
Some laws make sense like "road intersection signs and lights", but
a hell of a lot of those 20,000+ gun laws really stink as far as common
sense is concerned.
Bob
RD (The Sandman)
news:4AC80B00...@hotmMOVEail.com:
My P9 weighs 25 ounces. My .357 weighs 28 ounces and my .327 weighs the
same.
>> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
>> firearm, it
>
> Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
> anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about that?
Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
"....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and shotguns.
Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were fine
and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
>> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
>
> So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade launcher?
An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point of
view and that of the federal government.
>> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
>
> Infantry carry grenade launchers.
Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are perfectly
legal per federal law.
How hard is that to conceal? How do
> you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to do
> with TORONTO?
Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should take
that up with the poster who made the comment.
RichTravsky
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:13:50 -0600, RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com>
> wrote:
>
> |>> I call it North America myself, at least that's what it says on the
> |>> Geography Maps. There ain't no real friggin wall there, although the armed
> |>
> |>There is a legal wall, tho. The American Constitution ends at it.
>
> Laws "legal" are made to be broken, so break the wall down. In China
> they have Concrete Walls to enforce laws and segregation, I don't think
> paper walls can hold up that long.
Um, we're talking about national borders here... Good luck with that.
RichTravsky
How nice. "The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would
carry" - your words.
> >> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
> >> firearm, it
> >
> > Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
> > anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about that?
>
> Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
>
> "....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
> That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and shotguns.
The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable
of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for
military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these
men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time.
So, the military shops at Walmart?
> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were fine
> and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
> >
> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade launcher?
>
> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point of
> view and that of the federal government.
Your point of view doesn't count.
> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
> >
> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
>
> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are perfectly
> legal per federal law.
They don't ALL have to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
Now, where do you buy grenades?
> How hard is that to conceal? How do
> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to do
> > with TORONTO?
>
> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should take
> that up with the poster who made the comment.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
DUH...
And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
RD (The Sandman)
news:4ACC20C8...@hotmMOVEail.com:
> "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> @hotmMOVEail.com:
>> >> >> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
>> >> >> >> Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>> >> >> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>> >> >> >> ><Devil's_Adv...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toro
>> >> >> >> >>nto -
Yep.......long arms (rifles, shotguns) and sidearms (handguns). Which of
those do you think doesn't fit one of those two categories. Take all the
screens you need.
>> >> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
>> >> firearm, it
>> >
>> > Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
>> > anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about
>> > that?
>>
>> Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
>>
>> "....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
>> That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and
>> shotguns.
>
> The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)
>
> These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
> physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A
> body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
> ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
> bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> the time.
yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the king in common use at the time." do you think
belies what I said?
> So, the military shops at Walmart?
What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you having
trouble with?
>> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were
>> fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
>
> Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The case
was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
>> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
>> >> infantryman
>> >
>> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
>> > launcher?
>>
>> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point
>> of view and that of the federal government.
>
> Your point of view doesn't count.
The feds do and they agree with me.
>> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
>> >
>> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
>>
>> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
>> perfectly legal per federal law.
>
> They don't ALL have to.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
>
> Now, where do you buy grenades?
No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
>> How hard is that to conceal? How do
>> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to
>> > do with TORONTO?
>>
>> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should take
>> that up with the poster who made the comment.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
>
> DUH...
>
> And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed to
simply registration.
Matt
@comcast.net> wrote:
> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote innews:4ACC20C8...@hotmMOVEail.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
> >> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> @hotmMOVEail.com:
> >> >> >> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
Technically, depending on the time period you choose, any repeating
rifle or handgun.
They didn't exist at the time of the 2nd.
> >> >> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
> >> >> firearm, it
>
> >> > Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
> >> > anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about
> >> > that?
>
> >> Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
>
> >> "....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
> >> That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and
> >> shotguns.
>
> > The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)
>
> > These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
> > physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A
> > body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
> > ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
> > bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> > the time.
>
> yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the king in common use at the time." do you think
> belies what I said?
That I can't say, since I don't recall the last time the King of the
US called
up our servicemen. Iraq, perhaps. Since then, we have removed the king
and
put the President back into office.
>
> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
>
> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you having
> trouble with?
None at all. I have no problem with individual ownership, merely on
the right of
the state to restrict said ownership for the good of the people. The
issue is what
reasonable restrictions are, to me.
>
> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were
> >> fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
>
> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>
> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The case
> was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
Self-defense is an ill-defined term. Would you care to define it?
>
> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
> >> >> infantryman
>
> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
> >> > launcher?
>
> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point
> >> of view and that of the federal government.
>
> > Your point of view doesn't count.
>
> The feds do and they agree with me.
They agree this year, they may disagree next. Do you wish your rights
based on
who agrees with you at any given time? I suggest you talk to women
about their
bodies...
Matt
Scout
Actually they did. Both repeating and fully automatic firearms were known
and even in existance. True, they used a different and much earlier version
of that technology, but they still existed and were known.
Indeed in 1783 Congress voted the funds to convert 100 muskets to an earlier
form of full automatic fire. That same technology was recently 'reinvented'
and updated as the Metal Storm system.
Further this argument about something not existing at the time of the 2nd
was declared by SCOTUS as "bordering on the frivolous".
Are you bordering on the frivolous?
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those
arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American
Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment
applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S.
27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all
instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in
existence at the time of the founding."
DC v. Heller
Matt
wrote:
I don't believe the technology or even behavior was the same, but I'm
willing to
be convinced. What were the guns in question?
>
> Indeed in 1783 Congress voted the funds to convert 100 muskets to an earlier
> form of full automatic fire. That same technology was recently 'reinvented'
> and updated as the Metal Storm system.
>
> Further this argument about something not existing at the time of the 2nd
> was declared by SCOTUS as "bordering on the frivolous".
>
> Are you bordering on the frivolous?
Sometimes. You never know.
>
> "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those
> arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
> Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American
> Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment
> applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S.
> 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all
> instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in
> existence at the time of the founding."
Actually, I was simply referring to the thread above, not making a
judgement.
Matt
>
> DC v. Heller- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Demon Buddha
>> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you having
>> trouble with?
>
> None at all. I have no problem with individual ownership, merely on
> the right of
> the state to restrict said ownership for the good of the people. The
> issue is what
> reasonable restrictions are, to me.
There is your problem. States do not have rights. Only people do.
States are nothing more than conceptual abstractions employed as
frameworks within which people act. That's it. IOW, there really is no
such thing as a state, materially speaking. So how can an abstraction
have rights? That is similar to saying the general theory of relativity
has rights. It is purely nonsensical.
Furthermore, if one wishes to argue that a state does in fact have a
material reality (foolish, but let us grant it here), in the United
States WE are the state. Each and every last one of us. WE are the
material reality of "the state". There is no third-party entity that
stands outside of us, much less *above* us, dictating what we may and
may not do. That "the state" is approached and acted against in this
manner is no proof that "the state" exists as an entity in itself. It
is only testament to how ignorant most people are in this regard.
> Self-defense is an ill-defined term. Would you care to define it?
It is the act of defending one's life and property against harm. What
is ill-defined about that?
Matt
> Matt wrote:
> >> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you having
> >> trouble with?
>
> > None at all. I have no problem with individual ownership, merely on
> > the right of
> > the state to restrict said ownership for the good of the people. The
> > issue is what
> > reasonable restrictions are, to me.
>
> There is your problem. States do not have rights. Only people do.
People have rights which are enforced by the state.
> States are nothing more than conceptual abstractions employed as
> frameworks within which people act. That's it. IOW, there really is no
> such thing as a state, materially speaking. So how can an abstraction
> have rights? That is similar to saying the general theory of relativity
> has rights. It is purely nonsensical.
Ok, if you say so. I suggest you stick up for your own rights across
the
world then.
>
> Furthermore, if one wishes to argue that a state does in fact have a
> material reality (foolish, but let us grant it here), in the United
> States WE are the state. Each and every last one of us. WE are the
> material reality of "the state". There is no third-party entity that
> stands outside of us, much less *above* us, dictating what we may and
> may not do. That "the state" is approached and acted against in this
> manner is no proof that "the state" exists as an entity in itself. It
> is only testament to how ignorant most people are in this regard.
That's correct, we ARE the State. Which, of course, was the point
before
you went off on your rant.
>
> > Self-defense is an ill-defined term. Would you care to define it?
>
> It is the act of defending one's life and property against harm. What
> is ill-defined about that?
Quite a bit. Is it self-defense to believe that your neighbor is out
to get you
and that you need to get him first? Is attacking a sovereign state or
country
self-defense? Is it self-defense if I see you carrying a gun, assume
by life is
in danger, and kill you for it? I don't think it is well defined at
all, but thank
you for proving my point.
Matt
Demon Buddha
> On Oct 7, 7:28 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>>> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
having
>>>> trouble with?
>>> None at all. I have no problem with individual ownership, merely on
>>> the right of
>>> the state to restrict said ownership for the good of the people. The
>>> issue is what
>>> reasonable restrictions are, to me.
>> There is your problem. States do not have rights. Only
people do.
>
> People have rights which are enforced by the state.
As I said, states have no rights, only people. Glad you agree.
>
>> States are nothing more than conceptual abstractions employed as
>> frameworks within which people act. That's it. IOW, there really is no
>> such thing as a state, materially speaking. So how can an abstraction
>> have rights? That is similar to saying the general theory of relativity
>> has rights. It is purely nonsensical.
>
> Ok, if you say so. I suggest you stick up for your own rights across
> the world then.
How's that? What does that have to do with what I wrote?
>
>> Furthermore, if one wishes to argue that a state does in
fact have a
>> material reality (foolish, but let us grant it here), in the United
>> States WE are the state. Each and every last one of us. WE are the
>> material reality of "the state". There is no third-party entity that
>> stands outside of us, much less *above* us, dictating what we may and
>> may not do. That "the state" is approached and acted against in this
>> manner is no proof that "the state" exists as an entity in itself. It
>> is only testament to how ignorant most people are in this regard.
>
> That's correct, we ARE the State. Which, of course, was the point
> before you went off on your rant.
Try to keep it civil. I was pointing out a truth you apparently did
not quite grasp and still appear to miss or evade. Once more: "state"
== abstraction of thought. Therefore, "state" has no rights. At
*best*, WE are "state" (and even that is emminently questionable from
certain points of view). WE have rights as individuals and that is as
far as "rights" go, period. We may act in concert as "state", but that
is nothing more than a question of action under a presumably agreed-upon
set of conditions. It lends no material reality to "state" beyond that
of a bunch of individuals acting in a more or less common pattern. The
difference is subtle, but it is radical. To say the "state" has rights
is to accept a fundamental proposition that has no basis in reality. It
is like saying the door knobs in your house have rights, only even less
so because at least door knobs exist materially. Do thoughts and
concepts have rights?
>
>>> Self-defense is an ill-defined term. Would you care to define it?
>> It is the act of defending one's life and property against
harm. What
>> is ill-defined about that?
>
> Quite a bit. Is it self-defense to believe that your neighbor is out
> to get you
> and that you need to get him first? Is attacking a sovereign state or
> country
> self-defense? Is it self-defense if I see you carrying a gun, assume
> by life is
> in danger, and kill you for it? I don't think it is well defined at
> all, but thank
> you for proving my point.
You have proven nothing. What you have succeeded in doing is confuse
the definition with the question of whether specific instances fit it.
Those are two entirely different things. I have given you a clear
definition that provides precious little wiggle room insofar as it in
itself is concerned. As to whether a given situation fits, that is
another issue.
I will address just one of your hypotheticals. If you see me carrying
a gun in a manner that poses no immediate and direct threat to you, e.g.
it is in its holster and I am not behaving in a bellicose manner toward
you, then no - you have no reason to feel threatened and are in no
reasonable position to kill me. If you feel threatened under such
conditions, then either you are a psychotic who needs to be in a padded
cell and heavily drugged or you are a timid and universally frightened
little person for whom it is probably also true that dust bunnies scare
you sheet-white.
Jake Havoc
> Do you wish your rights
> based on who agrees with you at any given time? I suggest you talk to women
> about their
> bodies...
>
> Matt
Which amendment to the Constitution covers that?
Matt
Why do you believe the interpretation of the Constitution varies
whether it is
an "Amendment" or a core piece of the document. The Supreme Court
decided that
abortion was a right covered by the Constitution. Another SCOTUS could
decide it
is not. You believe the 2nd Amendment allows you the right to carry a
gun, another
SCOTUS may decide it does not. The question still stands.
Matt
RD (The Sandman)
news:b5ae7612-1dc3-4436...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 7, 2:09�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote
>> innews:4ACC20C8.2041EAFE@ho
> tmMOVEail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
>> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> @hotmMOVEail.com:
>> >> >> >> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> �wrote :
>> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
>> >> >> >> >> ><Devil's_Advoc...@devil.xxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-t
>> >> >> >> >> >>oro nto -
Not the time period I choose....or you choose....the Court said "....in
common use at the time." Currently, that includes the firearms I
mentioned.
> They didn't exist at the time of the 2nd.
Neither did the internet, radio, TV or most newspapers. I don't see you
using a town crier to post in here.
>> >> >> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
>> >> >> firearm, it
>>
>> >> > Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do
>> >> > with anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything
>> >> > about that?
>>
>> >> Don't have to. �The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
>>
>> >> "....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the
>> >> time." That is no longer muskets. �That is modern handguns, rifles
>> >> and shotguns.
>>
>> > The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)
>>
>> > �These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
>> > �physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A
>> > �body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further,
>> > tha
> t
>> > �ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
>> > appear �bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
>> > common use at �the time.
>>
>> yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms supplied
>> by themselves and of the king in common use at the time." do you
>> think belies what I said?
>
> That I can't say, since I don't recall the last time the King of the
> US called'
Nice shot at humor......it was a typo. Even you make them from time to
time. ;)
> up our servicemen. Iraq, perhaps. Since then, we have removed the king
> and
> put the President back into office.
>
>>
>> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
>>
>> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
>> having trouble with?
>
> None at all. I have no problem with individual ownership, merely on
> the right of
> the state to restrict said ownership for the good of the people. The
> issue is what
> reasonable restrictions are, to me.
Actually, the issue, if you wish to get technical, is registration. Read
the header.
>> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
>> >> were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
>> >> handgun.
>>
>> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>>
>> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. �The
>> ca
> se
>> was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
>
> Self-defense is an ill-defined term. Would you care to define it?
It is rather easy to define. Look up reasonable person or reasonable man
syndrome.
Some states, mine included, expand that to include prevention of rape,
child molestation, sexual molestation, aggravated assault, kidnapping,
some forms of burglary and arson of an occupied dwelling.
>> >> >> is ordnance. �The Second Amendment is about what a normal
>> >> >> infantryman
>>
>> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
>> >> > launcher?
>>
>> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. �Perfectly legal both from my
>> >> point of view and that of the federal government.
>>
>> > Your point of view doesn't count.
>>
>> The feds do and they agree with me.
>
> They agree this year, they may disagree next. Do you wish your rights
> based on
> who agrees with you at any given time? I suggest you talk to women
> about their
> bodies...
Why would you suggest that, Matt? Apparently, you have no clue as to
where I stand on abortion.
RD (The Sandman)
news:04218c22-759a-4729...@k41g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
Nice copout.
RD (The Sandman)
news:24ffb0a2-5195-49d7...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 7, 7:28�pm, Demon Buddha <Nob...@no.where> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>> >> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
>> >> havin
> g
>> >> trouble with?
>>
>> > None at all. I have no problem with individual ownership, merely on
>> > the right of
>> > the state to restrict said ownership for the good of the people.
>> > The issue is what
>> > reasonable restrictions are, to me.
>>
>> � � � � There is your problem. �States do not have rights. �O
> nly people do.
>
> People have rights which are enforced by the state.
Which doesn't mean the state has rights, only that it has powers.
Nope, you are not in *immediate* fear of loss of life or serious bodily
harm.
> Is attacking a sovereign state or country self-defense?
Not in the sense of the individual or this thread.
> Is it self-defense if I see you carrying a gun, assume by life
by life? What the hell is that? Oh, I see, you can make typos all by
yourself, too. ;)
> is in danger, and kill you for it?
Actually, that one may work if the threat has been stated before and the
person is actually coming after you in a way that a reasonable person
would think their life in immediate danger. Of course, you need to be
able to articulate that to a court.
> I don't think it is well defined at all,
I think it is pretty well defined and that you understand it. That was
how you were able to provide the examples you did.
> but thank
> you for proving my point.
RD (The Sandman)
48ca3e...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 8, 10:06�am, Jake Havoc <n...@void.net> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>> > Do you wish your rights
>> > based on �who agrees with you at any given time? I suggest you talk
t
> o women
>> > about their
>> > bodies...
>>
>> > Matt
>>
>> Which amendment to the Constitution covers that?
>
> Why do you believe the interpretation of the Constitution varies
> whether it is an "Amendment" or a core piece of the document.
Once an amendment is ratified it is a core piece of the document.
> The Supreme Court decided that abortion was a right covered by the
> Constitution. Another SCOTUS could decide it is not.
It is a "found" right in that it is made, basically, from whole cloth.
However, something like stare decisis will presume to keep it place for
awhile.
> You believe the 2nd Amendment allows you the right to carry a
> gun,
Actually, no, I don't. I have the right to keep and bear arms outside of
the Second Amendment. That is merely a protection of that right.
Currently, from the federal government, but that may be extended to cover
state governments as well.
> another SCOTUS may decide it does not.
At least the Second Amendment *is* an enumerated right unlike abortion.
> The question still stands.
It will always stand.....however, currently, most constitutional scholars
think that the Court will extend it to the states just like the rest of
the Bill of Rights except the 3A, 7A and the Grand Jury clause of the 5A.
Scout
Well the technology certainly wasn't, and I believe those guns behaved
pretty much the same as any other gun including modern ones.
You know, I could give a long talk about them including cites and references
to them, but I don't even think you've looked up "Metal Storm" yet, and I
know you wont pay them any attention. Heck you totally blew off the quote
from SCOTUS. I will simply tell you that one involved a musket with an extra
long barrel and a lock placed much further up the barrel. Up to 12 complete
powder and bullets would be loaded, and the last charge would match up with
the torch hole for the lock assembly. Other than the first bullet, each had
a fuze through the center which would be ignited when the proceeding charge
was fired and would burn back to touch off the charge under that bullet. You
would pull the trigger once, and fire the first round, after that another
round would be fired depending on the delay of the fuze built into each
bullet. A different version of this would use your standard lead bullets and
a sliding lock what would be shifted back to each different charge in
sucession allowing for repeat fire.
If you want more, then I suggest you either show some interest and
acceptance when facts are presented to you or look it up for yourself.
>> Indeed in 1783 Congress voted the funds to convert 100 muskets to an
>> earlier form of full automatic fire. That same technology was
>> recently 'reinvented' and updated as the Metal Storm system.
>>
>> Further this argument about something not existing at the time of
>> the 2nd was declared by SCOTUS as "bordering on the frivolous".
>>
>> Are you bordering on the frivolous?
>
> Sometimes. You never know.
In this case we do know, and you seem utterly unrepentant about wasting
everyone's time by even making such a stupid argument in the first place.
>> "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only
>> those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the
>> Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that
>> way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of
>> communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.
>> S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms
>> of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001),
>> the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
>> constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at
>> the time of the founding."
>
> Actually, I was simply referring to the thread above, not making a
> judgement.
Actually, you were making a judgement, and you were totally wrong in it.
Matt
@comcast.net> wrote:
No, it wasn't in the least. I wasn't referring to Heller. That was
brought up later.
Matt
Matt
I don't believe the technology matters. Nor, for that matter, do I
happen to agree
that it should be restricted to "guns at the time". But that's what
was brought up
above, so I asked.
>
> You know, I could give a long talk about them including cites and references
> to them, but I don't even think you've looked up "Metal Storm" yet, and I
> know you wont pay them any attention. Heck you totally blew off the quote
> from SCOTUS. I will simply tell you that one involved a musket with an extra
> long barrel and a lock placed much further up the barrel. Up to 12 complete
> powder and bullets would be loaded, and the last charge would match up with
> the torch hole for the lock assembly. Other than the first bullet, each had
> a fuze through the center which would be ignited when the proceeding charge
> was fired and would burn back to touch off the charge under that bullet. You
> would pull the trigger once, and fire the first round, after that another
> round would be fired depending on the delay of the fuze built into each
> bullet. A different version of this would use your standard lead bullets and
> a sliding lock what would be shifted back to each different charge in
> sucession allowing for repeat fire.
>
> If you want more, then I suggest you either show some interest and
> acceptance when facts are presented to you or look it up for yourself.
I realize that you automatically assume that those not absolutely with
you are against
you. In this case, I have no axe to grind, just pointing out the
facts. I certainly am interested
in learning, and if you will point out a cite or two that YOU respect,
I'll check it out.
Matt
Matt
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in news:70b3fd52-62a5-4ac7-a983-
> 48ca3e577...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 10:06 am, Jake Havoc <n...@void.net> wrote:
> >> Matt wrote:
> >> > Do you wish your rights
> >> > based on who agrees with you at any given time? I suggest you talk
> t
> > o women
> >> > about their
> >> > bodies...
>
> >> > Matt
>
> >> Which amendment to the Constitution covers that?
>
> > Why do you believe the interpretation of the Constitution varies
> > whether it is an "Amendment" or a core piece of the document.
>
> Once an amendment is ratified it is a core piece of the document.
That wasn't the point.
>
> > The Supreme Court decided that abortion was a right covered by the
> > Constitution. Another SCOTUS could decide it is not.
>
> It is a "found" right in that it is made, basically, from whole cloth.
> However, something like stare decisis will presume to keep it place for
> awhile.
It is, however, a decision of SCOTUS.
>
> > You believe the 2nd Amendment allows you the right to carry a
> > gun,
>
> Actually, no, I don't. I have the right to keep and bear arms outside of
> the Second Amendment. That is merely a protection of that right.
> Currently, from the federal government, but that may be extended to cover
> state governments as well.
That's a different issue, and one I could easily agree with. That
wasn't his point
and that's why I disagreed with him.
>
> > another SCOTUS may decide it does not.
>
> At least the Second Amendment *is* an enumerated right unlike abortion.
In *your* opinion it means an individual right. In *most* opinions, it
means an
individual right. SCOTUS, however, has never ruled on the issue
directly, and
likely never will.
>
> > The question still stands.
>
> It will always stand.....however, currently, most constitutional scholars
> think that the Court will extend it to the states just like the rest of
> the Bill of Rights except the 3A, 7A and the Grand Jury clause of the 5A.
They may, and I would probably agree with them. That doesn't mean the
next
court won't change their mind. Which, of course, was what I was
complaining
about in the first place.
Matt
Matt
@comcast.net> wrote:
I agreed with this, I questioned the time period. It was pointed out
to me that they
did exist, and I'm fine with that.
>
> > They didn't exist at the time of the 2nd.
>
> Neither did the internet, radio, TV or most newspapers. I don't see you
> using a town crier to post in here.
The First does not address such issues, it refers to "free speech"
amongst others.
Free Speech is not limited to a medium, guns are guns. We can quibble
over exactly
which guns are covered, which is what was happening here.
I do try.
>
> > up our servicemen. Iraq, perhaps. Since then, we have removed the king
> > and
> > put the President back into office.
>
> >> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
>
> >> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
> >> having trouble with?
>
> > None at all. I have no problem with individual ownership, merely on
> > the right of
> > the state to restrict said ownership for the good of the people. The
> > issue is what
> > reasonable restrictions are, to me.
>
> Actually, the issue, if you wish to get technical, is registration. Read
> the header.
I know. Show me where the 2nd restricts registration, if you wish to
stick
strictly to the header.
>
> >> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
> >> >> were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
> >> >> handgun.
>
> >> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>
> >> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The
> >> ca
> > se
> >> was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
>
> > Self-defense is an ill-defined term. Would you care to define it?
>
> It is rather easy to define. Look up reasonable person or reasonable man
> syndrome.
As I pointed out, it really isn't.
>
> Some states, mine included, expand that to include prevention of rape,
> child molestation, sexual molestation, aggravated assault, kidnapping,
> some forms of burglary and arson of an occupied dwelling.
And I would agree. I would go further and say it is like pornography.
Impossible
to adequately define, but we know it when we see it.
Matt
leg@sea
> but we know it when we see it.
Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk everywhere.
leg@sea
> Which, of course, was what I was
> complaining
> about in the first place.
Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
leg@sea
> I'll check it out.
Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
leg@sea
> No, it wasn't in the least. I wasn't referring to Heller. That was
> brought up later.
Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
leg@sea
> self-defense? Is it self-defense if I see you carrying a gun, assume
> by life is
> in danger, and kill you for it? I don't think it is well defined at
> all, but thank
> you for proving my point.
Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
leg@sea
> Actually, I was simply referring to the thread above,
Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
leg@sea
> I suggest you talk to women
> about their
> bodies...
Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
Matt
Grow up, be an adult, learn something about politeness.
You are a moron.
Matt
Matt
As if you were old enough to own a gun.
ROFLMAO.
Matt
Matt
And this, RD, is why people object to gun ownership.
Get some adults to back you, others might listen.
Matt
Klaus Schadenfreude
>You are a moron.
Says the guy who think Brooklyn has a mayor. [chuckle]
leg@sea
Stop trying to take peoples' rights away, learn something about AMERICA!
> You are a moron.
>
> Matt
You are a fascist.
leg@sea
As if you are mature enough to hold one.
> ROFLMAO.
>
> Matt
KMA, fascist.
leg@sea
Of course. "people"/fascists like you are afraid of honest emotion when
they try and take the rights of others away.
> Get some adults to back you, others might listen.
>
> Matt
Get some "adults" to commit you to a psych-ward, you belong there,
gun-grabber.
LesClaypool
It does!
Mike Bloomberg! :)
What MATT said, was that Brooklyn has its OWN mayor, seperate from what
he thinks "NYC" is, and that the boroughs are NOT part of NY state!
Klaus Schadenfreude
I doubt it. He's just dumb.
LesClaypool
Yeah! Tell us more about the Mayor of Brooklyn!
LesClaypool
Forgot who you were replying to already?
leg@sea
Know much about him?
Want to know more?
Dumb he ain't, traitor he is.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Could have fooled me. What delicious facts can you tell us about him?
He's certainly weird.
RichTravsky
> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> >> >> > "RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> @hotmMOVEail.com:
> >> >> >> > Devil's Advocate wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
> >> >> >> >> >>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toro
So you want to carry a grenade launcher?
> >> >> bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
> >> >> firearm, it
> >> >
> >> > Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do with
> >> > anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything about
> >> > that?
> >>
> >> Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:
> >>
> >> "....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the time."
> >> That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles and
> >> shotguns.
> >
> > The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)
> >
> > These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
> > physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A
> > body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
> > ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
> > bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
> > the time.
>
> yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> themselves and of the king in common use at the time." do you think
> belies what I said?
So you want to carry a grenade launcher?
> > So, the military shops at Walmart?
>
> What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you having
> trouble with?
Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?
> >> Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense were
> >> fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun.
> >
> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
>
> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The case
> was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong. Unless you
can provide a quote from the decision.
> >> >> is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
> >> >> infantryman
> >> >
> >> > So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
> >> > launcher?
> >>
> >> An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my point
> >> of view and that of the federal government.
> >
> > Your point of view doesn't count.
>
> The feds do and they agree with me.
Good luck buying grenades...
> >> >> would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try again.
> >> >
> >> > Infantry carry grenade launchers.
> >>
> >> Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
> >> perfectly legal per federal law.
> >
> > They don't ALL have to.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues
> >
> > Now, where do you buy grenades?
>
> No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
> when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
Not a tangent. You started this train.
> >> How hard is that to conceal? How do
> >> > you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have to
> >> > do with TORONTO?
> >>
> >> Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should take
> >> that up with the poster who made the comment.
> >
> > http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto
> >
> > DUH...
> >
> > And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?
>
> That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed to
> simply registration.
You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)
Bob
wrote:
|>> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
|>>
|>> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The case
|>> was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
|>
|>"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong. Unless you
|>can provide a quote from the decision.
|>
A handgun is very low on the self defense echelon, when it comes to
power against T2a-->T5 and all the stuff modern crooks use these days, but
it is wieldy and the hi-calibers are usually sufficient for average uses.
Try shooting a rifle on a right corner, meaning your right your
right hand on the stock, and your left on the trigger...you would be
exposing all your body otherwise.
In a self defense situation the handgun is much better at handling
those situations, shoot weak/strong and both hands, after you have mapped
out your location, giving you the ultimate edge on the Home Invaders.
Usually a handgun is all you need and rifles still over penetrate
leaving little in stopping power. Shotguns with #00 buckshot are still the
best for shotgun stopping power, but I find shotguns and rifles a bit
cumbersome these "city" days.
Bob
--
Triad Productions-Fantalla�~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
(http://tarbitch.balder.prohosting.com/htmlconc. html)
Morton Davis
"Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:58d0bb9a-6068-452c...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
You are a moron.
=============
You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
GO FUCK YOURSELF.
leg@sea
Matt
> "Matt" <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
Morton said it, it must be true.
>
> GO FUCK YOURSELF.
Nah, I'd rather see you die of a heart attack listening to me. Relax,
you'll live longer.
Matt
Matt
This, folks, is your Republican Communist Party.
Good job.
Matt
Fiftycal
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>
>Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
Hey DICKHEAD, why don't you do a little research before you spout your
IGNORANCE.
Update -- November 11, 1999 -- Update
From: Chuck Michel, Chief NRA Lawyer for California
We are preparing a lawsuit against the Cal. DOJ on behalf of a class
of people who recently had their "assault weapon" registrations
invalidated by Cal. DOJ and who now face potential felony prosecution.
A subset of this class is people who were actually charged with a
felony, then, pursuant to the statute, registered their firearm, had
the felony charge reduced to an infraction, and got their gun back.
These people also got a letter from DOJ saying their registration was
invalid and instructing them to turn in their firearm to law
enforcement or face prosecution (again).
We need people from that subclass to support an argument to challenge
the registration revocation.
If you know of someone like this, please refer them to this office. We
will handle their case pro bono.
leg@sea
> On Oct 11, 9:01 am, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
>> "Matt" <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:58d0bb9a-6068-452c...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 10, 11:34 am, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt wrote:
>>>> Which, of course, was what I was
>>>> complaining
>>>> about in the first place.
>>> Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
>>> second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
>>> worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
>>> decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
>>> un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk everywhere.
>> Grow up, be an adult, learn something about politeness.
>>
>> You are a moron.
>>
>> =============
>> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>
> Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
>
> Morton said it, it must be true.
He did eh?
Where precisely did he say "there are no guns in California"?
That shouldn't be too damned difficult for you yo quote, should it, liar?
>> GO FUCK YOURSELF.
>
> Nah, I'd rather see you die of a heart attack listening to me.
You'll punch out first, control freaks like you always do.
leg@sea
That folks is a lying gun-grabber.
> Good job.
>
> Matt
Thanks for exposing your lying fascism.
LesClaypool
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Matt
> <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>>
>>Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
>
>
> Hey DICKHEAD, why don't you do a little research before you spout your
> IGNORANCE.
Matt still thinks that Brooklyn (in New York City, which is located in
New York State) has it's own mayor, and not part of NY!
Matt is a QUEEN... Not _from_ Queens, NY.
leg@sea
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Matt
> <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>>> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>> Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
>
> Hey DICKHEAD, why don't you do a little research before you spout your
> IGNORANCE.
Simple answer - he's a lying fascist scumsucker.
Matt
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>
> >> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>
> >Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
>
> Hey DICKHEAD, why don't you do a little research before you spout your
> IGNORANCE.
Not a SINGLE gun in California. And Mort told us.
We appreciate the information.
No Guns. None. Not a one. Every single one confiscated.
Gone.
Matt
LesClaypool
> This, folks, is your Republican Communist Party.
Find that "Mayor of Brooklyn" yet, Queeny boy?
Still can't find out what borough of NYC is not an island? :)
leg@sea
> On Oct 11, 12:35 pm, Fiftycal <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>>> Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
>> Hey DICKHEAD, why don't you do a little research before you spout your
>> IGNORANCE.
>
> Not a SINGLE gun in California. And Mort told us.
He did?
Where?
Can you QUOTE him, Liar?
> We appreciate the information.
>
> No Guns. None. Not a one. Every single one confiscated.
>
> Gone.
>
> Matt
So where did he claim that?
Cite?
Fiftycal
OK dumbass, which is it? EVERY GUN or NO GUNS were confiscated. Or
can't you write English either.
Matt
Yep, no guns. All confiscated. And you agree with him.
Glad to hear it, moron.
Matt
Matt
All gone.
No more guns in California.
Not a single one.
Not even on army bases. Or police stations. Or hunters. Or much of
anything
else.
All gone.
Matt
Fiftycal
Hey ASSHOLE, no one but you is claiming that. Tell me, did you hear
about the same SCAM in New Yawk City? First "mayor" Dinkins had
semi-autos REGISTERED and then had them CONFISCATED. DO you DENY that
happened,"mayor queens'?
Matt
> Matt wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 9:01 am, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
> >> "Matt" <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:58d0bb9a-6068-452c...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 10, 11:34 am, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>
> >>> Matt wrote:
> >>>> Which, of course, was what I was
> >>>> complaining
> >>>> about in the first place.
> >>> Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
> >>> second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
> >>> worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
> >>> decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
> >>> un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk everywhere.
> >> Grow up, be an adult, learn something about politeness.
>
> >> You are a moron.
>
> >> =============
> >> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>
> > Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
>
> > Morton said it, it must be true.
>
> He did eh?
>
> Where precisely did he say "there are no guns in California"?
Now, now, little one. Some day, you too will learn English. I think
they teach in second grade, so hang in there. They might even get
to 'confiscation', which is probably in third grade for normal
students
and about.. hm... 23rd grade for you.
>
> That shouldn't be too damned difficult for you yo quote, should it, liar?
>
> >> GO FUCK YOURSELF.
>
> > Nah, I'd rather see you die of a heart attack listening to me.
>
> You'll punch out first, control freaks like you always do.
ROFLMAO. Yeah, I control.
Poor little one. No name, no brain, no talent. Mommy loves you though.
Nobody else really gives a flip whether you exist or not.
Matt
Matt
> Matt wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 4:14 pm, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
> >> Matt wrote:
> >>> On Oct 10, 11:34 am, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
> >>>> Matt wrote:
> >>>>> but we know it when we see it.
> >>>> Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
> >>>> second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
> >>>> worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
> >>>> decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
> >>>> un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk everywhere.
> >>> As if you were old enough to own a gun.
> >> As if you are mature enough to hold one.
>
> >>> ROFLMAO.
> >>> Matt
> >> KMA, fascist.
>
> > This, folks, is your Republican Communist Party.
>
> That folks is a lying gun-grabber.
Fine. Name every person I have grabbed a gun from.
Right here, right now.
Yep, folks, your lying Republican idiots.
Matt
Matt
> Matt spewed all over his fathers computer and typed:
>
> > This, folks, is your Republican Communist Party.
>
> Find that "Mayor of Brooklyn" yet, Queeny boy?
Aww, little one can't reply, so he has to take things out of context.
Poor little boy. Maybe if you get a girlfriend some day, people will
notice.
>
> Still can't find out what borough of NYC is not an island? :)
None of them. Learn English and you'll understand what an 'island'
is. But you, being a typical moron.. er... Republican... won't know.
Did you pass second grade yet? Did you grow up enough to post your
own name yet? Doesn't your boyfriend let you?
Matt
Fiftycal
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> Where precisely did he say "there are no guns in California"?
>
>Now, now, little one. Some day, you too will learn English. I think
>they teach in second grade, so hang in there. They might even get
>to 'confiscation', which is probably in third grade for normal
>students
>and about.. hm... 23rd grade for you.
Well, little matty thought he said all BUNS were confiscated. And
that made him deathly afraid. Afraid there wouldn't be any more
little boys BUNS he could finger. isn't that right matty? After all,
Freud pointed out that a fear of weapons is a sign of sexual deviancy.
So I guess matty's fear of the loss of BUNS would be upsetting to a
short-eyes chickenhawk like himself.
Fiftycal
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> >> KMA, fascist.
>>
>> > This, folks, is your Republican Communist Party.
>>
>> That folks is a lying gun-grabber.
>
>Fine. Name every person I have grabbed a gun from.
>
>Right here, right now.
>
>Yep, folks, your lying Republican idiots.
>
>Matt
How about a list of all the BUNS you have grabbed? Start with the
youngest. We know you have a catalog of all of them. Isn't that how
chickenhawks get it up? Remembering the good times they had with
their "conquests"? Is that why you are afraid of guns? Afraid you
might run into a 12 year old someday that has a gun and knows how to
use it?
Matt
Learn to read.
Matt
Fiftycal
<mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>> Hey ASSHOLE, no one but you is claiming that. �
>
>Learn to read.
>
>Matt
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
YOU are the one "claiming" that. YOU prove it asshole. Can't can
you? Unless of course you just FAKE a quote. But chickenhawk liars
like you do that as a matter of course, don't you little matti. Now
just run away with your tail between your legs. Or cut and paste.
good little matti.
LesClaypool
> On Oct 11, 1:04 pm, LesClaypool <Pri...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>>Matt spewed all over his fathers computer and typed:
>>
>>
>>>This, folks, is your Republican Communist Party.
>>
>>Find that "Mayor of Brooklyn" yet, Queeny boy?
> Aww, little one can't reply, so he has to take things out of context.
Uh, you're the one that made the claim, cup cake.
Care to name the "MAYOR OF BROOKLYN"? BWAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
> Poor little boy. Maybe if you get a girlfriend some day, people will
> notice.
I've had a wife since 1993. ( a female in case you are confused) So why
would I want another "girlfriend"?
>>Still can't find out what borough of NYC is not an island? :)
> None of them.
I thought you said that you lived in NYC? Are you LYING again?
All of the NYC boroughs are ISLANDS except one! You still don't know?
DAMN, yer stupid!
> Learn English and you'll understand what an 'island'
> is.
I have learned, and know!
> But you, being a typical moron.. er... Republican... won't know.
> Did you pass second grade yet? Did you grow up enough to post your
> own name yet? Doesn't your boyfriend let you?
Lets see: YOU said Brooklyn is not a part of NY or NYC, and has it's own
Mayor, Government, and set of laws.
Now you say that NONE of the five boroughs of NYC are islands?
Please explain Staten Island, Manhattan, and what land mass Queens and,
Brooklyn lay?
OH WAIT! You still think that The Bronx is not a part of NYC, has it's
own mayor as well, and forgot that IT is the only borough of NEW YORK
CITY that _is_ a part of the mainland! (except Marble Hill when they re
routed the harlem river)
All the rest are on ISLANDS... lands seperated by WATER!
Otherwise, tell me how YOU drive a car to Manhattan without crossing a
bridge OVER water... or from Manhatten to any other borough?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bronx
RD (The Sandman)
september.org:
> Matt wrote:
>
>> No, it wasn't in the least. I wasn't referring to Heller. That was
>> brought up later.
>
> Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
> second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
> worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
> decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
> un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk everywhere.
>
I doubt that......a lot of folks agree with him.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
On TV, they show how detergents take out bloodstains. A pretty
violent image. I think if you've got a Tshirt full of bloodstains,
maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem. Maybe you should get rid
of the body before you do the wash and get some different friends.
RD (The Sandman)
news:183fc96d-b287-4d00...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 8, 12:05�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in news:70b3fd52-62a5-4ac7-a983-
>> 48ca3e577...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 10:06�am, Jake Havoc <n...@void.net> wrote:
>> >> Matt wrote:
>> >> > Do you wish your rights
>> >> > based on �who agrees with you at any given time? I suggest you
>> >> > tal
> k
>> t
>> > o women
>> >> > about their
>> >> > bodies...
>>
>> >> > Matt
>>
>> >> Which amendment to the Constitution covers that?
>>
>> > Why do you believe the interpretation of the Constitution varies
>> > whether it is an "Amendment" or a core piece of the document.
>>
>> Once an amendment is ratified it is a core piece of the document.
>
> That wasn't the point.
>
>>
>> > The Supreme Court decided that abortion was a right covered by the
>> > Constitution. �Another SCOTUS could decide it is not.
>>
>> It is a "found" right in that it is made, basically, from whole
>> cloth.
> �
>> However, something like stare decisis will presume to keep it place
>> for awhile.
>
> It is, however, a decision of SCOTUS.
I believe that is about what I said. ;)
>> > You believe the 2nd Amendment allows you the right to carry a
>> > gun,
>>
>> Actually, no, I don't. �I have the right to keep and bear arms
>> outside
> of
>> the Second Amendment. �That is merely a protection of that right. �
>> Currently, from the federal government, but that may be extended to
>> cover state governments as well.
>
> That's a different issue, and one I could easily agree with. That
> wasn't his point
> and that's why I disagreed with him.
OK
>> > another SCOTUS may decide it does not.
>>
>> At least the Second Amendment *is* an enumerated right unlike
>> abortion.
>
> In *your* opinion it means an individual right. In *most* opinions, it
> means an
> individual right. SCOTUS, however, has never ruled on the issue
> directly, and
> likely never will.
Yes, they have. Please take a look at Heller (decided in June, 2008)
where they stated that yes, it is an individual right and it exists
outside of any military or militia involvement.
Now, if you mean that they have never ruled on whether or not it applies
to the states, that has been ruled on as well. See US v Cruikshank -
1876.
>> > The question still stands.
>>
>> It will always stand.....however, currently, most constitutional
>> scholars think that the Court will extend it to the states just like
>> the rest of the Bill of Rights except the 3A, 7A and the Grand Jury
>> clause of the 5A.
>
> They may, and I would probably agree with them. That doesn't mean the
> next court won't change their mind. Which, of course, was what I was
> complaining about in the first place.
If it is decided in my favor and a later court reverses it, I would be
complaining about it myself.
RD (The Sandman)
f860b0...@z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 11, 9:01�am, "Morton Davis" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
>> "Matt" <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:58d0bb9a-6068-452c-b4a1-
2f73a7...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 10, 11:34 am, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>
>> > Matt wrote:
>> > > Which, of course, was what I was
>> > > complaining
>> > > about in the first place.
>>
>> > Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
>> > second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
>> > worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
>> > decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
>> > un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk
everywhere.
>>
>> Grow up, be an adult, learn something about politeness.
>>
>> You are a moron.
>>
>> ============
>> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>
> Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
His statement would be correct if he had said "certain assault weapons".
RD (The Sandman)
news:fac4d51602rkrugik...@4ax.com:
Excuse me, but what Matt is saying is that Mort didn't identify that it
was assault weapons. Mort simply said guns were registered and then
confiscated. One could believe from that that he meant all of the guns
not just the assault weapons. I believe Matt is kinda teasing about the
actual statement , not the sentiment.
RD (The Sandman)
68cb54...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 10, 11:34�am, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>> > Which, of course, was what I was
>> > complaining
>> > about in the first place.
>>
>> Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
>> second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
>> worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
>> decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
>> un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk everywhere.
>
> And this, RD, is why people object to gun ownership.
>
> Get some adults to back you, others might listen.
I know.....there are idiots that act like trolls on both sides of the
fence.
RD (The Sandman)
september.org:
> Matt wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 11:34 am, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>> Matt wrote:
>>>> Which, of course, was what I was
>>>> complaining
>>>> about in the first place.
>>> Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
>>> second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
>>> worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
>>> decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
>>> un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk
everywhere.
>>
>> And this, RD, is why people object to gun ownership.
>
> Of course. "people"/fascists like you are afraid of honest emotion when
> they try and take the rights of others away.
I think he was referring to a maturity level not an honest emotion.
>> Get some adults to back you, others might listen.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Get some "adults" to commit you to a psych-ward, you belong there,
> gun-grabber.
Now, that is really in depth analysis of the gun situation. I don't know
how you manage to do it.
RD (The Sandman)
$607e...@cv.net:
> Matt wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 11:34 am, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>
>>>Matt wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which, of course, was what I was
>>>>complaining
>>>>about in the first place.
>>>
>>>Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
>>>second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
>>>worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
>>>decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
>>>un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk everywhere.
>>
>>
>> And this, RD, is why people object to gun ownership.
>
> Forgot who you were replying to already?
>
No, he knows.
leg@sea
Matty is an insane liar, even he can't make sense of himself.
leg@sea
> On Oct 11, 1:04 pm, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 12:35 pm, Fiftycal <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>>> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>>>>> Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
>>>> Hey DICKHEAD, why don't you do a little research before you spout your
>>>> IGNORANCE.
>>> Not a SINGLE gun in California. And Mort told us.
>> He did?
>>
>> Where?
>>
>> Can you QUOTE him, Liar?
>>
>>> We appreciate the information.
>>> No Guns. None. Not a one. Every single one confiscated.
>>> Gone.
>>> Matt
>> So where did he claim that?
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Yep, no guns. All confiscated. And you agree with him.
Um no, no, and no again.
Why do you always lie?
> Glad to hear it, moron.
>
> Matt
You are insane and scummy.
leg@sea
> On Oct 11, 1:22 pm, Fiftycal <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:00:47 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 12:35 pm, Fiftycal <n...@abcnnbcbs.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:26:59 -0700 (PDT), Matt
>>>> <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You're the moron. California registered guns and the confiscated them.
>>>>> Of course they did. There are no guns in California.
>>>> Hey DICKHEAD, why don't you do a little research before you spout your
>>>> IGNORANCE.
>>> Not a SINGLE gun in California. And Mort told us.
>>> We appreciate the information.
>>> No Guns. None. Not a one. Every single one confiscated.
>>> Gone.
>>> Matt
>> OK dumbass, which is it? EVERY GUN or NO GUNS were confiscated. Or
>> can't you write English either.
>
> All gone.
>
> No more guns in California.
>
> Not a single one.
And not a single cite from you, as always.
> Not even on army bases. Or police stations. Or hunters. Or much of
> anything
> else.
>
> All gone.
>
> Matt
You are insane and a lair.
leg@sea
No cite.
No quotation.
No proof.
Case closed.
>> That shouldn't be too damned difficult for you yo quote, should it, liar?
>>
>>>> GO FUCK YOURSELF.
>>> Nah, I'd rather see you die of a heart attack listening to me.
>> You'll punch out first, control freaks like you always do.
>
> ROFLMAO. Yeah, I control.
You _try_ there is a difference...
> Poor little one.
You deserve to die a very painful death.
leg@sea
> On Oct 11, 12:56 pm, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 4:14 pm, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 10, 11:34 am, "leg@sea" <l...@sea.way> wrote:
>>>>>> Matt wrote:
>>>>>>> but we know it when we see it.
>>>>>> Get this through your head- gun-hater...you will NEVER take away the
>>>>>> second amendment rights of honest Americans, and as long as your
>>>>>> worthless carcass draws breath you will never be responsible for one
>>>>>> decent American having his gun confiscated. You sick fascist,
>>>>>> un-American bucket of barf! You revolt decent, honest folk everywhere.
>>>>> As if you were old enough to own a gun.
>>>> As if you are mature enough to hold one.
>>>>> ROFLMAO.
>>>>> Matt
>>>> KMA, fascist.
>>> This, folks, is your Republican Communist Party.
>> That folks is a lying gun-grabber.
>
> Fine. Name
Die, you fascist vermin.