Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gun control now a reality.
351 views
Skip to first unread message
FDK
Nov 12, 2012, 10:44:00 AM11/12/12
to
Hollis2
Nov 12, 2012, 1:55:46 PM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12 2012 10:44 AM, FDK wrote:
>
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
In order for any treaty to go into effect, it must be ratified by 2/3 of
the Senate. The probability of this treaty being ratified by the Senate
is zero.
>
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
In order for any treaty to go into effect, it must be ratified by 2/3 of
the Senate. The probability of this treaty being ratified by the Senate
is zero.
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 2:01:01 PM11/12/12
to
In article <iat7n9x...@news.ezprovider.com>,
And this isn't even a treaty yet: this is talks to create a treaty.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 12, 2012, 2:10:35 PM11/12/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:01:01 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>In article <iat7n9x...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12 2012 10:44 AM, FDK wrote:
>>
>> >
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q92009
>> 1015
>>
>> In order for any treaty to go into effect, it must be ratified by 2/3 of
>> the Senate. The probability of this treaty being ratified by the Senate
>> is zero.
>
>And this isn't even a treaty yet: this is talks to create a treaty.
Actually what "this" is would be paranoia from the machos who think
that machine guns should be in every home.
wrote:
>In article <iat7n9x...@news.ezprovider.com>,
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 12 2012 10:44 AM, FDK wrote:
>>
>> >
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q92009
>> 1015
>>
>> In order for any treaty to go into effect, it must be ratified by 2/3 of
>> the Senate. The probability of this treaty being ratified by the Senate
>> is zero.
>
>And this isn't even a treaty yet: this is talks to create a treaty.
that machine guns should be in every home.
MNMikeW
Nov 12, 2012, 3:16:45 PM11/12/12
to
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 3:18:30 PM11/12/12
to
In article <agd3pd...@mid.individual.net>,
So summarize what he's wrong about. You can do that, right... ...because
you HAVE read it, right?
you HAVE read it, right?
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 12, 2012, 3:23:00 PM11/12/12
to
Now are you going to tell me that you're fearful that your hunting
weapons and handguns are in jeopardy? Of course not.
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 4:28:29 PM11/12/12
to
In article <qim2a89c551cvnb9m...@4ax.com>,
The funny thing is--despite what some of the right-wing fanatics here
can comprehend--I actually do agree that the second amendment to the US
constitution was entirely about making sure that ordinary people were
guaranteed the means to resist a government that might one day become a
tyranny, or at least, undemocratic.
can comprehend--I actually do agree that the second amendment to the US
constitution was entirely about making sure that ordinary people were
guaranteed the means to resist a government that might one day become a
tyranny, or at least, undemocratic.
MNMikeW
Nov 12, 2012, 5:04:24 PM11/12/12
to
they would abolish the 2nd amendment entirely. The 2nd amendment isn't
about hunting.
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 5:10:37 PM11/12/12
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 12, 2012, 5:33:17 PM11/12/12
to
How in hell could the UN abolish a US constitutional amendment? I
know full well what the amendment is about. There is no threat to it
at all and this thread is bullshit. Gun control in the US is now a
reality because of this? Not a chance.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
MNMikeW
Nov 12, 2012, 6:00:20 PM11/12/12
to
for decades.
Carbon
Nov 12, 2012, 6:10:21 PM11/12/12
to
Barack Hussein Obama II is the best thing that ever happened to the US
gun industry.
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 12, 2012, 6:12:29 PM11/12/12
to
I want or need and from what you've said in the past so do you. It
would be impossible for the government to alter the law in order to
remove the right to own guns as it exists today.
The bottom line is that the OP of this thread is FOS.
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 7:03:56 PM11/12/12
to
In article <agddc5...@mid.individual.net>,
Actually, the information provided to you shows that the contemplated
treaty says they want to maintain the right of each member state to
decide its own internal policies.
What I pity you let your pre-conceptions override the facts.
treaty says they want to maintain the right of each member state to
decide its own internal policies.
What I pity you let your pre-conceptions override the facts.
Howard Brazee
Nov 12, 2012, 7:13:38 PM11/12/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:28:29 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>> Now are you going to tell me that you're fearful that your hunting
>> weapons and handguns are in jeopardy? Of course not.
>
>The funny thing is--despite what some of the right-wing fanatics here
>can comprehend--I actually do agree that the second amendment to the US
>constitution was entirely about making sure that ordinary people were
>guaranteed the means to resist a government that might one day become a
>tyranny, or at least, undemocratic.
Weapons suitable for a militia. If they also are suitable for
hunting, good for hunters. But it isn't about hunting.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
wrote:
>> Now are you going to tell me that you're fearful that your hunting
>> weapons and handguns are in jeopardy? Of course not.
>
>The funny thing is--despite what some of the right-wing fanatics here
>can comprehend--I actually do agree that the second amendment to the US
>constitution was entirely about making sure that ordinary people were
>guaranteed the means to resist a government that might one day become a
>tyranny, or at least, undemocratic.
hunting, good for hunters. But it isn't about hunting.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 7:17:50 PM11/12/12
to
In article <h443a8d8i3uvqtj5r...@4ax.com>,
the civil population. Hence, weapons suitable for a military force, with
reasonable limits (because all rights are subject to limits of
reasonability).
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:28:29 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now are you going to tell me that you're fearful that your hunting
> >> weapons and handguns are in jeopardy? Of course not.
> >
> >The funny thing is--despite what some of the right-wing fanatics here
> >can comprehend--I actually do agree that the second amendment to the US
> >constitution was entirely about making sure that ordinary people were
> >guaranteed the means to resist a government that might one day become a
> >tyranny, or at least, undemocratic.
>
> Weapons suitable for a militia. If they also are suitable for
> hunting, good for hunters. But it isn't about hunting.
Yup. And a militia is defined as a military force that is raised from
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:28:29 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now are you going to tell me that you're fearful that your hunting
> >> weapons and handguns are in jeopardy? Of course not.
> >
> >The funny thing is--despite what some of the right-wing fanatics here
> >can comprehend--I actually do agree that the second amendment to the US
> >constitution was entirely about making sure that ordinary people were
> >guaranteed the means to resist a government that might one day become a
> >tyranny, or at least, undemocratic.
>
> Weapons suitable for a militia. If they also are suitable for
> hunting, good for hunters. But it isn't about hunting.
the civil population. Hence, weapons suitable for a military force, with
reasonable limits (because all rights are subject to limits of
reasonability).
BAR
Nov 12, 2012, 7:50:42 PM11/12/12
to
In article <abi2a8tk1gnqfc50t...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...
They should be in every home. The police have no duty to protect you.
bkn...@conramp.net says...
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 12, 2012, 7:52:27 PM11/12/12
to
BAR
Nov 12, 2012, 7:52:12 PM11/12/12
to
In article <h443a8d8i3uvqtj5r...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...
states.
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:28:29 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now are you going to tell me that you're fearful that your hunting
> >> weapons and handguns are in jeopardy? Of course not.
> >
> >The funny thing is--despite what some of the right-wing fanatics here
> >can comprehend--I actually do agree that the second amendment to the US
> >constitution was entirely about making sure that ordinary people were
> >guaranteed the means to resist a government that might one day become a
> >tyranny, or at least, undemocratic.
>
> Weapons suitable for a militia. If they also are suitable for
> hunting, good for hunters. But it isn't about hunting.
There was no federal militia. The militia referred tot he several
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:28:29 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now are you going to tell me that you're fearful that your hunting
> >> weapons and handguns are in jeopardy? Of course not.
> >
> >The funny thing is--despite what some of the right-wing fanatics here
> >can comprehend--I actually do agree that the second amendment to the US
> >constitution was entirely about making sure that ordinary people were
> >guaranteed the means to resist a government that might one day become a
> >tyranny, or at least, undemocratic.
>
> Weapons suitable for a militia. If they also are suitable for
> hunting, good for hunters. But it isn't about hunting.
states.
BAR
Nov 12, 2012, 7:54:34 PM11/12/12
to
In article <2003a8panmqs846a8...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...
It is nice that you have been able to accumulate all of the guns you
want or need. Why would you deny that right to future citizens of the
US?
You and your ilk could be used as justification for death panels.
bkn...@conramp.net says...
want or need. Why would you deny that right to future citizens of the
US?
You and your ilk could be used as justification for death panels.
BAR
Nov 12, 2012, 7:56:54 PM11/12/12
to
In article <alangbaker-2C090...@news.shawcable.net>,
alang...@telus.net says...
In the words of Speaker Pelosi, we have to pass the law so that you can
see what is in it.
I would rather read the treaty before anyone votes on it.
alang...@telus.net says...
see what is in it.
I would rather read the treaty before anyone votes on it.
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 7:59:55 PM11/12/12
to
In article <MPG.2b0b636c...@news.giganews.com>,
You know what, Bert?
I share the idea that being able to have the tools to defend oneself is
an expression of our fundamental rights to life and liberty, and I am
completely aware that the courts have ruled that the police have no duty
to protect anyone.
But going from there to "machine guns SHOULD be in every home" just
shows you to be an idiot extremist.
I share the idea that being able to have the tools to defend oneself is
an expression of our fundamental rights to life and liberty, and I am
completely aware that the courts have ruled that the police have no duty
to protect anyone.
But going from there to "machine guns SHOULD be in every home" just
shows you to be an idiot extremist.
BAR
Nov 12, 2012, 8:17:28 PM11/12/12
to
In article <alangbaker-65B2D...@news.shawcable.net>,
alang...@telus.net says...
Why do police have "machine" guns? Because the criminals have "machine"
guns. Why should the people be at a disadvantage to the criminals and
the police?
alang...@telus.net says...
guns. Why should the people be at a disadvantage to the criminals and
the police?
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 12, 2012, 8:19:14 PM11/12/12
to
anyone in America the right to own the weapons that I have. None.
Your grasp to try to demean me is a failure as usual.
>
>You and your ilk could be used as justification for death panels.
I, nor anyone else that I know, would suggest such a thing about
>You and your ilk could be used as justification for death panels.
another person.
I'm glad that you posted it. It shows that you have no moral
character intelligence or class.
Not much to you Bert.
>
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 8:08:49 PM11/12/12
to
In article <MPG.2b0b64df...@news.giganews.com>,
No, actually. It's nothing like that at all.
>
> I would rather read the treaty before anyone votes on it.
There isn't even yet a treaty to vote on. There is a draft of one...
<http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.217/CRP.1&Lang=E>
...but it is far from final.
But if you think that it contains language that changes your second
amendment rights, by all means review it and produce the text. Because
what I see it saying right off the top is:
"Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to
regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place
exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional systems, "
>
> I would rather read the treaty before anyone votes on it.
<http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.217/CRP.1&Lang=E>
...but it is far from final.
But if you think that it contains language that changes your second
amendment rights, by all means review it and produce the text. Because
what I see it saying right off the top is:
"Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to
regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place
exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional systems, "
Alan Baker
Nov 12, 2012, 8:22:54 PM11/12/12
to
In article <MPG.2b0b69af...@news.giganews.com>,
You are having difficulty with your English. Look up "should".
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 7:40:27 AM11/13/12
to
In article <pq63a85e852uhkeku...@4ax.com>,
You haven't listed the guns you have, therefor nobody can say whether
> I'm glad that you posted it. It shows that you have no moral
> character intelligence or class.
Why, just because I am evolving on my view of death panels in the Obama
care law?
"anyone in America the right to own the weapons that I have."
> >
> >
> >You and your ilk could be used as justification for death panels.
>
> I, nor anyone else that I know, would suggest such a thing about
> another person.
Randy Brown on line 1.
>
> I, nor anyone else that I know, would suggest such a thing about
> another person.
> I'm glad that you posted it. It shows that you have no moral
> character intelligence or class.
care law?
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 13, 2012, 9:18:38 AM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:40:27 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>In article <pq63a85e852uhkeku...@4ax.com>,
>bkn...@conramp.net says...
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:54:34 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2003a8panmqs846a8...@4ax.com>,
>> >bkn...@conramp.net says...
>>
>> >
>In article <pq63a85e852uhkeku...@4ax.com>,
>bkn...@conramp.net says...
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:54:34 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2003a8panmqs846a8...@4ax.com>,
>> >bkn...@conramp.net says...
>>
>> >
>> >It is nice that you have been able to accumulate all of the guns you
>> >want or need. Why would you deny that right to future citizens of the
>> >US?
>>
>> You never fail to make a fool of yourself. There is nothing denying
>> anyone in America the right to own the weapons that I have. None.
>> Your grasp to try to demean me is a failure as usual.
>
>You haven't listed the guns you have, therefor nobody can say whether
>"anyone in America the right to own the weapons that I have."
>
I know the weapons that I own and thereforE no one needs to have a say
>> >want or need. Why would you deny that right to future citizens of the
>> >US?
>>
>> You never fail to make a fool of yourself. There is nothing denying
>> anyone in America the right to own the weapons that I have. None.
>> Your grasp to try to demean me is a failure as usual.
>
>You haven't listed the guns you have, therefor nobody can say whether
>"anyone in America the right to own the weapons that I have."
>
in it.
>> >
>> >You and your ilk could be used as justification for death panels.
>>
>> I, nor anyone else that I know, would suggest such a thing about
>> another person.
>
>Randy Brown on line 1.
I had forgotten that, and let Randy know what a low thing it was.
>> >You and your ilk could be used as justification for death panels.
>>
>> I, nor anyone else that I know, would suggest such a thing about
>> another person.
>
>Randy Brown on line 1.
>
>> I'm glad that you posted it. It shows that you have no moral
>> character intelligence or class.
>
>Why, just because I am evolving on my view of death panels in the Obama
>care law?
oversized ego.
>> Not much to you Bert.
>
Frank Ketchum
Nov 13, 2012, 9:26:46 AM11/13/12
to
"FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote in message news:k7r5g1$sat$1...@dont-email.me...
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
I don't see where this is anything about gun control in the US.
Actually it sounds like Obama has reversed his fast and furious program.
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 13, 2012, 9:49:52 AM11/13/12
to
Frank Ketchum
Nov 13, 2012, 10:21:22 AM11/13/12
to
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:gfn4a8hf3u4659nkk...@4ax.com...
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 13, 2012, 10:38:14 AM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:21:22 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:gfn4a8hf3u4659nkk...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:26:46 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote in message news:k7r5g1$sat$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
>>>
>>>I don't see where this is anything about gun control in the US.
>>>
>>>Actually it sounds like Obama has reversed his fast and furious program.
>>>
>> Miles from that. You should've read it.
>
>I did read it, I was making a joke.
>
Oh.
>
><bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:gfn4a8hf3u4659nkk...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:26:46 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
>> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote in message news:k7r5g1$sat$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
>>>
>>>I don't see where this is anything about gun control in the US.
>>>
>>>Actually it sounds like Obama has reversed his fast and furious program.
>>>
>> Miles from that. You should've read it.
>
>I did read it, I was making a joke.
>
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 10:57:49 AM11/13/12
to
to own in most states.
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 11:09:28 AM11/13/12
to
want and need? Are you nuts? :-) I bet they thought it was impossible
in Germany too.
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 11:12:07 AM11/13/12
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 13, 2012, 11:21:07 AM11/13/12
to
That old Germany scare is ridiculous. It couldn't possibly happen
here and you know it.
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 11:52:20 AM11/13/12
to
auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 13, 2012, 11:59:02 AM11/13/12
to
1. Why the hell would you want one? You sure don't need it.
2. Aren't you glad that they're not available to those who can
afford one? Like the drug gangs for instance.
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 12:07:33 PM11/13/12
to
gun and not really practical for your typical thug. Need one? No, not
really. But does anybody NEED a Ferrari either? Ever shoot a .50 cal?
It's exhilarating!
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 12:10:49 PM11/13/12
to
http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/the-petition-to-let-texas-secede-from-the-u-s-to-be-reviewed-by-the-white-house/
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 13, 2012, 1:05:07 PM11/13/12
to
fucked up than the nation. Look who we have as governor.
The article that I read said that this is de rigeur and that there are
petitions from other states on a regular basis.
Howard Brazee
Nov 13, 2012, 1:49:47 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Frank Ketchum
Nov 13, 2012, 1:54:01 PM11/13/12
to
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:te55a8hjoebkejfqe...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>
> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
What is it about?
>
>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>
> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
Alan Baker
Nov 13, 2012, 1:56:07 PM11/13/12
to
In article <te55a8hjoebkejfqe...@4ax.com>,
...but that doesn't mean that it can't have side effects that ARE fun.
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
> >auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
> >MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>
> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
True enough...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
> >auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
> >MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>
> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
...but that doesn't mean that it can't have side effects that ARE fun.
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 3:04:10 PM11/13/12
to
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>> auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>> MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>
> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>
No, but it's a nice byproduct. :-)
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>> auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>> MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>
> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 3:05:56 PM11/13/12
to
Gov's any day!
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 13, 2012, 5:04:27 PM11/13/12
to
Howard Brazee
Nov 13, 2012, 5:19:57 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:54:01 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>>
>> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>
>What is it about?
It's pretty clear - read it:
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>>
>> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>
>What is it about?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
MNMikeW
Nov 13, 2012, 5:29:22 PM11/13/12
to
Carbon
Nov 13, 2012, 6:45:13 PM11/13/12
to
Carbon
Nov 13, 2012, 6:51:24 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:12:07 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>
>> Barack Hussein Obama II is the best thing that ever happened to the
>> US gun industry.
>
> Yes, even better than Clinton was.
Which is ironic, because he's less likely than Clinton to do anything
> Carbon wrote:
>
>> Barack Hussein Obama II is the best thing that ever happened to the
>> US gun industry.
>
> Yes, even better than Clinton was.
about gun control. But I guess for the conspiracy theorists the fact
that he was born in Kenya to anti-colonialist Muslim extremists bent on
filling him with Black Rage kind of pushes things over the top.
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 7:01:42 PM11/13/12
to
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 7:03:33 PM11/13/12
to
In article <rls4a81jbgomoroog...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...
I would like to have a BAR and a M2 and a SAW(M249) would be nice.
bkn...@conramp.net says...
Alan Baker
Nov 13, 2012, 7:04:46 PM11/13/12
to
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 7:07:23 PM11/13/12
to
In article <2uu4a81d36gv93ik4...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...
Why do you drive your luxury car when an econo box would get you from
point A to point B.
We work to supply our needs and our wants. Who are you to question what
others want? How many trombones do you own? Would just one be enough?
bkn...@conramp.net says...
point A to point B.
We work to supply our needs and our wants. Who are you to question what
others want? How many trombones do you own? Would just one be enough?
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 7:08:24 PM11/13/12
to
In article <fd25a8tsckalkhepu...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...
The economy in Texas is better than the economy of the rest of the US.
bkn...@conramp.net says...
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 7:09:34 PM11/13/12
to
In article <coh5a89u4mmfn0h4a...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:54:01 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
> >>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
> >>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
> >>
> >> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
> >
> >What is it about?
>
> It's pretty clear - read it:
>
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
What does that mean to you?
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:54:01 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
> >>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
> >>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
> >>
> >> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
> >
> >What is it about?
>
> It's pretty clear - read it:
>
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 7:32:38 PM11/13/12
to
In article <pan.2012.11...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
Moose and Elk. At $5 per round you don't want to have to take a second
shot.
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
shot.
Carbon
Nov 13, 2012, 7:38:49 PM11/13/12
to
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 7:45:22 PM11/13/12
to
is within 1.5 miles you have dinner.
Mr. Joe
Nov 13, 2012, 7:56:21 PM11/13/12
to
In article <alangbaker-E68BD...@news.shawcable.net>,
alang...@telus.net says...
> Yup. And a militia is defined as a military force that is raised from
> the civil population. Hence, weapons suitable for a military force, with
> reasonable limits (because all rights are subject to limits of
> reasonability).
Shut up you babbling idiot. Nowhere in any of our founding documents
does it state that about our rights. Our Declaration of Independence
gives us unalienable rights. Obviously you're too stupid to understand
what it means.
--
People died, Obama lied
alang...@telus.net says...
> Yup. And a militia is defined as a military force that is raised from
> the civil population. Hence, weapons suitable for a military force, with
> reasonable limits (because all rights are subject to limits of
> reasonability).
Shut up you babbling idiot. Nowhere in any of our founding documents
does it state that about our rights. Our Declaration of Independence
gives us unalienable rights. Obviously you're too stupid to understand
what it means.
--
People died, Obama lied
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 13, 2012, 7:56:30 PM11/13/12
to
>We work to supply our needs and our wants. Who are you to question what
>others want? How many trombones do you own? Would just one be enough?
Six. No.
>others want? How many trombones do you own? Would just one be enough?
Frank Ketchum
Nov 13, 2012, 9:30:32 PM11/13/12
to
news:coh5a89u4mmfn0h4a...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:54:01 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>>>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>>>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>>>
>>> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>>
>>What is it about?
>
> It's pretty clear - read it:
>
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
I'm well aware of what it is about. I was simply curious if you knew.
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>>>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
>>>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>>>
>>> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>>
>>What is it about?
>
> It's pretty clear - read it:
>
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
Hollis2
Nov 13, 2012, 9:44:27 PM11/13/12
to
a state. Even so, the idea seems a bit far fetched.
Hollis2
Nov 13, 2012, 9:50:56 PM11/13/12
to
BAR
Nov 13, 2012, 10:31:02 PM11/13/12
to
In article <ghdbn9x...@news.ezprovider.com>, a3a...@webnntp.invalid
says...
They've got a lot of oil and they will be able to build new refineries.
Texas -- The Americas gas station.
says...
Texas -- The Americas gas station.
Don Kirkman
Nov 14, 2012, 2:16:27 AM11/14/12
to
Don Kirkman
Nov 14, 2012, 2:16:27 AM11/14/12
to
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:54:42 AM11/14/12
to
In article <41h6a85n6iah2af4j...@4ax.com>, donsno2
@charter.net says...
That wouldn't happen. We have BAE (British Aerospace Engineering) is a
large defense contractor in the US that is a British based company.
Many defense contractors have subsidiaries in Canada (the 51st state).
@charter.net says...
large defense contractor in the US that is a British based company.
Many defense contractors have subsidiaries in Canada (the 51st state).
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:56:23 AM11/14/12
to
In article <v3h6a8pbsdltn9l7s...@4ax.com>, donsno2
@charter.net says...
You do understand the difference between the nation and the several
states?
@charter.net says...
states?
Howard Brazee
Nov 14, 2012, 9:49:10 AM11/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:56:21 -0600, "Mr. Joe" <Mr...@home.com> wrote:
>Shut up you babbling idiot. Nowhere in any of our founding documents
>does it state that about our rights. Our Declaration of Independence
>gives us unalienable rights. Obviously you're too stupid to understand
>what it means.
It recognizes that some rights are inalienable. But I haven't
>Shut up you babbling idiot. Nowhere in any of our founding documents
>does it state that about our rights. Our Declaration of Independence
>gives us unalienable rights. Obviously you're too stupid to understand
>what it means.
observed that this is accurate.
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 10:04:28 AM11/14/12
to
Howard Brazee
Nov 14, 2012, 10:05:41 AM11/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:09:34 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>> >> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>> >
>> >What is it about?
>>
>> It's pretty clear - read it:
>>
>> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>> infringed.
>
>What does that mean to you?
The people have the right to keep and bear arms. The reason for
>> >> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
>> >
>> >What is it about?
>>
>> It's pretty clear - read it:
>>
>> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
>> infringed.
>
>What does that mean to you?
this is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security
of a free state. Security is the issue, not fun (nor even food). The
type of arms is implied by that purpose.
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 10:06:21 AM11/14/12
to
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 10:06:51 AM11/14/12
to
Howard Brazee
Nov 14, 2012, 10:07:21 AM11/14/12
to
On 13 Nov 2012 23:51:24 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
Yep. But what is being sold has nothing to do with reality.
wrote:
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 10:07:42 AM11/14/12
to
Carbon wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:09:28 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:09:28 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>> Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
>> auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole
>> called MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>
>> auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole
>> called MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
>
> What the hell do you need a 50 cal gun for? Shooting down planes?
>
Because they don't make a .60 cal. :-)
>
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 10:08:35 AM11/14/12
to
than enough for either elk or moose.
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 10:09:25 AM11/14/12
to
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 10:10:16 AM11/14/12
to
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 10:11:37 AM11/14/12
to
Carbon wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:12:07 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Carbon wrote:
>>
>>> Barack Hussein Obama II is the best thing that ever happened to the
>>> US gun industry.
>>
>> Yes, even better than Clinton was.
>
> Which is ironic, because he's less likely than Clinton to do anything
> about gun control. But I guess for the conspiracy theorists the fact
> that he was born in Kenya to anti-colonialist Muslim extremists bent on
> filling him with Black Rage kind of pushes things over the top.
>
He has stated several times he would like to see the AWB reinstated. I'm
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:12:07 -0600, MNMikeW wrote:
>> Carbon wrote:
>>
>>> Barack Hussein Obama II is the best thing that ever happened to the
>>> US gun industry.
>>
>> Yes, even better than Clinton was.
>
> Which is ironic, because he's less likely than Clinton to do anything
> about gun control. But I guess for the conspiracy theorists the fact
> that he was born in Kenya to anti-colonialist Muslim extremists bent on
> filling him with Black Rage kind of pushes things over the top.
>
sure we will see that come in sometime in the next couple years.
Don Kirkman
Nov 14, 2012, 5:20:27 PM11/14/12
to
full members of the one nation? That's why they called it the *united
states* of America, to distinguish it from other American states like
Canada and Mexico.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
Nov 14, 2012, 5:20:27 PM11/14/12
to
MNMikeW
Nov 14, 2012, 5:56:22 PM11/14/12
to
warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas
Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson,
On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 14, 2012, 6:02:21 PM11/14/12
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Nov 14, 2012, 6:25:53 PM11/14/12
to
Carbon
Nov 14, 2012, 7:02:49 PM11/14/12
to
going to outlaw guns that he bought several ARs, an AK and I think some
Russian surplus battle rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Did
anything happen? No. But I have no doubt he's doing the same thing this
time as well.
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:40:43 PM11/14/12
to
In article <8i58a81hjjkbevssn...@4ax.com>, donsno2
nation and the several states.
Maybe, you do understand. It is the states that compromise the nation.
Repeal the 17th amendment.
@charter.net says...
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:56:23 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <v3h6a8pbsdltn9l7s...@4ax.com>, donsno2
> >@charter.net says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:54:01 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> >> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:te55a8hjoebkejfqe...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
> >> >>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
> >> >>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
> >> >
> >> >What is it about?
> >>
> >> National defense.
> >
> >You do understand the difference between the nation and the several
> >states?
>
> Are you implying I don't? Do you realize that the several states are
> full members of the one nation? That's why they called it the *united
> states* of America, to distinguish it from other American states like
> Canada and Mexico.
Yes I am implying that you don't understand the difference between the
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:56:23 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <v3h6a8pbsdltn9l7s...@4ax.com>, donsno2
> >@charter.net says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:54:01 -0500, "Frank Ketchum"
> >> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:te55a8hjoebkejfqe...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:52:20 -0600, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Never say never. Well, I sure would like a Barrett M107 50 cal. A full
> >> >>>auto would be fun, but would never happen in the liberal shithole called
> >> >>>MN. I CAN get the Barrett, but it's around $13,000.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 2nd amendment isn't about fun.
> >> >
> >> >What is it about?
> >>
> >> National defense.
> >
> >You do understand the difference between the nation and the several
> >states?
>
> Are you implying I don't? Do you realize that the several states are
> full members of the one nation? That's why they called it the *united
> states* of America, to distinguish it from other American states like
> Canada and Mexico.
nation and the several states.
Maybe, you do understand. It is the states that compromise the nation.
Repeal the 17th amendment.
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:41:33 PM11/14/12
to
In article <aghq7s...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...
From the halls of ... Texas doesn't have a Marine Corps.
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:42:23 PM11/14/12
to
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:42:54 PM11/14/12
to
In article <tm58a8hheavp2aaio...@4ax.com>, donsno2
@charter.net says...
Dig a little deeper into English law.
@charter.net says...
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:45:14 PM11/14/12
to
In article <agilsm...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...
I would suggest that reading this on a regular basis would be a good
idea.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
idea.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:48:15 PM11/14/12
to
In article <aghqfj...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...
I don't have my Winchester Model 70 International Match, made in the
30's, any more.
30's, any more.
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:49:15 PM11/14/12
to
In article <aghqio...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...
Nope, I'm not a hunter.
Squirrels in the woods with a pellet gun is the extent of my hunting.
Squirrels in the woods with a pellet gun is the extent of my hunting.
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:49:55 PM11/14/12
to
In article <aghql9...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...
It just needs a triggering event.
BAR
Nov 14, 2012, 7:52:16 PM11/14/12
to
The say a gun in your hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Don Kirkman
Nov 15, 2012, 2:08:44 AM11/15/12
to
together) the smaller, however many there are.
>Repeal the 17th amendment.
Say wha'?
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
Nov 15, 2012, 2:08:44 AM11/15/12
to
farmers gathering on the green.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Don Kirkman
Nov 15, 2012, 2:08:44 AM11/15/12
to
since the Revolution.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages