Re: Gun Control: A Jewish Look
You Know Who
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Gun Control: A Jewish Look
>by Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz *
>
>On March 24th, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, two junior high school students armed
>with rifles murdered four of their schoolmates and one of their teachers.
>These horrible murders reignited the ongoing international debate about gun
>control.
How do you "reignite" something that's ongoing?
>In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control.
>There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who owns
>a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3).
>Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must be
>chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause stress
>related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b).
Here is your problem, Jabba.
You think guns are sentient beings. You can't tell the difference
between a sentient being and cold piece of steel.
______
"What if my permit allowed me to carry cobras. And I set my cobra
basket down next to my desk and begin working. How would you feel
trying to work in the same room?"
-"Lee" Harrison, 9/28/00
Don W. McCollough
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9618E69ECF572...@130.133.1.4...
> Gun Control: A Jewish Look
> by Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz *
>
> On March 24th, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, two junior high school students
> armed
> with rifles murdered four of their schoolmates and one of their teachers.
> These horrible murders reignited the ongoing international debate about
> gun
> control. In Canada, the Canadian parliament has passed several major
> pieces
> of legislation requiring gun control. In 1995, it passed Bill C-68
> requiring
> all guns and rifles to be included in a national gun registry. This
> followed
> previous laws which prohibited machine guns, and required the training and
> screening of all owners of firearms. To opponents of gun control laws,
> these
> laws are a nuisance for law abiding gun owners, and have little effect on
> violent crime. Proponents of these laws point to extensive academic
> research
> that these laws save lives and increase safety. What does Jewish law
> (halacha) have to say about this issue?
>
> In Judaism, safety is a religious concern. The Bible requires that a roof
> be
> properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it
> (Deuteronomy 22:8). This commandment is understood by the Talmud as a
> general directive to remove any safety hazard (Bava Kamma 15b; Shulchan
> Aruch CM 427:8). Contemporary rabbinic authorities include in this
> commandment an employer's responsibility to ensure occupational safety
> (Piskei Uziel 47) and an injunction against reckless driving (Minchat
> Yitzchak 8:148). Someone who refuses to remove a safety hazard can be
> punished by excommunication (YD 334:7). In general, safety regulations are
> treated with far greater stringency than any other section of halacha (YD
> 116:7). Clearly, any Jewish view of gun control would place high value on
> safety.
>
> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control.
> There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who
> owns
> a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3).
> Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must be
> chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause
> stress
> related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b). One
> of
> the more pious Rabbis, Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair, was so stringent about this
> law that he refused to own mules, because they can occasionally cause
> injury
> (Hullin 7b; Terumat Hadeshen 2:105). However, there were instances where
> allowances were made. In border communities, where there is a threat of
> marauders, owners of dangerous dogs may unchain them at night for
> protection. Some say that any dangerous city is similar to a border
> community (CM 409:3).These sources demonstrate that halacha would require
> any gun to be carefully locked at all times, with allowances made in cases
> where the gun is actively being used for security. Those who are more
> stringent would avoid guns completely. (It should also be noted that many
> authorities prohibit hunting for sport; Rama OH 316:2, Darchei Teshuva YD
> 117:44)
>
> There is a second halacha that is relevant to this issue. The Talmud
> prohibits someone from selling offensive weapons to idol worshippers and
> suspected criminals (Avodah Zarah 15b; YD 151:5-6). The rule against
> selling
> to idol worshippers is based on an assumption that the idol worshippers
> will
> use them against Jews; however, if the Jews are allied with the idol
> worshippers, it is permitted to sell them arms. It is likewise prohibited
> to
> sell such weapons to anyone suspected of reselling them to criminals. This
> halacha requires that the buyers of firearms be carefully screened, and
> resembles in many ways laws requiring a national registry of gun and rifle
> owners.
>
> Although halacha is extremely concerned about safety, it does not prohibit
> the ownership of guns. However, recognizing that a gun is a dangerous
> object, halacha (like many current gun control laws) requires that owners
> and vendors of guns take all possible precautions to prevent their guns
> from
> causing any harm.
>
> Reprinted with permission of Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz
> Footnotes
>
> *) Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz is the spiritual leader of Tifereth Beth David
> Jerusalem in Montreal, Quebec. He writes a column on Jewish Law for the
> Canadian Jewish News, and writes a column and hosts an internet Jewish
> study
> group for the Microsoft Network. He is a member of the executive board of
> the Rabbinical Council of America, the Vice President of the Montreal
> Board
> of Jewish Ministers, and a member of the board of directors of the Jewish
> Educational Council of Montreal and Hillel-Jewish Students Center of
> Montreal. He recieved his ordination from Yeshiva University, where he was
> a
> fellow of the Gruss Kollel Elyon. He has a M.A. in Jewish Philosophy from
> the Bernard Revel Graduate School, and a M.A. in Education from Adelphi
> University.
>
>
> --
>
> Yours truly,
>
> The Lone Weasel
Christopher Morton
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Gun Control: A Jewish Look
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any
word and your cynical manipulation of my expression won't
ever make me a racist or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." -
Lee Harrison
I'm sure Lee the alky hates Jews too. After all, you won't find a
White man who hates Blacks who isn't himself Jewish who doesn't also
hate Jews. It's a package deal.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Check out: http://machjr.blogspot.com
You Know Who
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>vous_sa...@i-hate-france.com said:
>
>> How do you "reignite" something that's ongoing?
>
>These Jewish guys got it figured out.
>
>[begin excerpt]
>
>3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire
>out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the
>bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
>
>3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great
>sight, why the bush is not burnt.
>
>- KJV Bible, Exodus
He didn't have to reignite it, did he?
Sir Marksman
"The Lone Weasel" <lonew...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961962BE111C3...@130.133.1.4...
I see you are again trying to get out of my killfile.
Back in you go fascist!
A Lone Weasel
semititic, but I changed it back because Jewish law is very similar to
English Common Law regarding weapons. Shouldn't we honor the Jewish law
rather than try to delete it, like Mr. Shittybritches does?)
Gun Control: A Jewish Look
by Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz *
[begin excerpt]
In Judaism, safety is a religious concern. The Bible requires that a roof
be properly gated, in order to prevent people from falling off of it
(Deuteronomy 22:8). This commandment is understood by the Talmud as a
general directive to remove any safety hazard (Bava Kamma 15b; Shulchan
Aruch CM 427:8). Contemporary rabbinic authorities include in this
commandment an employer's responsibility to ensure occupational safety
(Piskei Uziel 47) and an injunction against reckless driving (Minchat
Yitzchak 8:148). Someone who refuses to remove a safety hazard can be
punished by excommunication (YD 334:7). In general, safety regulations are
treated with far greater stringency than any other section of halacha (YD
116:7). Clearly, any Jewish view of gun control would place high value on
safety.
In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control.
There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who
owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM
409:3). Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must
be chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause
stress related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat
[end excerpt]
[begin excerpt]
"YOU MUST USE YOUR OWN SO AS NOT TO INJURE OTHERS"
The right to carry a bowie-knife for lawful defense is
secured, and must be admitted. It is an exceeding
destructive weapon. It is difficult to defend against it, by
any degree of bravery, or any amount of skill. The gun or
pistol may miss its aim, and when discharged, its dangerous
character is lost, or diminished at least. The sword may be
parried. With these weapons men fight for the sake of the
combat, to satisfy the laws of honor, not necessarily with
the intention to kill, or with a certainty of killing, when
the intention exists. The bowie-knife differs from these in
its device and design; it is the instrument of almost
certain death. He who carries such a weapon, for lawful
defense, as he may, makes himself more dangerous to the
rights of others, considering the frailties of human nature,
than if he carried a less dangerous weapon. Now, is the
legislature powerless to protect the rights of others thus
the more endangered, by superinducing caution against
yielding to such frailties? May the state not say, through
its law, to the citizen, "this right which you exercise, is
very liable to be dangerous to the rights of others, you
must school your mind to forbear the abuse of your right by
yielding to sudden passion; to secure this necessary
schooling of your mind, an increased penalty must be affixed
to the abuse of this right, so dangerous to others." This
would be in accordance with the well established maxim of
law, that "you must so use your own as not to injure
others." A law inflicting such increased penalty, would
only be a sanction of this rule.
Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)
[end excerpt]
See how Judge Roberts' explanation of the old maxim from English Common
Law is virtually the same as Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz's explanation of Jewish
weapons law?
There's no need to attack the Rabbi just because he's Jewish, Mr.
Shittybritches - in the law we're all Jewish to some extent.
Stephan Rothstein
> (Mr. Shittybritches tried to change the subject header because he's anti-
> semititic, but I changed it back because Jewish law is very similar to
> English Common Law regarding weapons. Shouldn't we honor the Jewish law
> rather than try to delete it, like Mr. Shittybritches does?)
>
No, we should ignore Jewish law because we do not have a state religion
in the US. As was already pointed out to you, we have separation of
church and state here.
Steve Rothstein
Sir Marksman
"Stephan Rothstein" <sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:02jZd.10442$cN6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>A Lone Fascist wrote:
>> (Mr. Marksman tried to change the subject header because he's anti-
>> semititic, but I changed it back because Jewish law is very similar to
>> English Common Law regarding weapons. Shouldn't we honor the Jewish law
>>
I see the lone fascist is still up to his old lies. Anti-Semitic, right.. my
wife is Jewish.
He has been busted AGAIN lying.
>
> No, we should ignore Jewish law because we do not have a state religion in
> the US. As was already pointed out to you, we have separation of church
> and state here.
>
Don't bother trying to debate with the lone fascist. He LIES and contradicts
his own statements.
I killfiled him YEARS ago and he is still trying to get out of my killfile.
He is a waste of oxygen.
A Lone Weasel
> A Lone Weasel wrote:
>> (Mr. Shittybritches tried to change the subject header because he's
anti-
>> semititic, but I changed it back because Jewish law is very similar to
>> English Common Law regarding weapons. Shouldn't we honor the Jewish
law
>> rather than try to delete it, like Mr. Shittybritches does?)
>
> No, we should ignore Jewish law because we do not have a state religion
Mr. Wrothstein has exposed his antisemitism by denying us the right to
compare two systems of legal thought - Jewish and English Common Law -
because he's afraid just talking about Jewish law will have some evil
effect on our whole legal system.
When a gunlobby shill posted a a propaganda piece that intentionally
misconstrued Jewish law as advocating the same thing as the NRA, Mr.
Wrothstein was nowhere to be heard. Then Mr. Wrothstein loved Jewish law
and had no problem having it posted to TPG because it had been perverted
to a viewpoint identical to his own.
But when I correct this misrepresentation, suddenly Mr. Wrothstein loses
his cool. He can't take it anymore (one example to the contrary). He's
very upset because someone has another point of view. Because someone
wants to discuss this difference of opinion. Because Mr. Wrothstein has
no rational basis for his opinions, no verifiable facts, nothing but
gunlobby handouts telling him exactly what he may think, feel, say, do,
and nothing else!
Please encourage Mr. Wrothstein to accept Jewish thought in our
discussions, at least when the Jewish thought is my guest.
Bill Levinson
The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control.
> There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who owns
> a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3).
Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack someone.
>
> *) Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz is the
empty-headed airhead
> of Tifereth Beth David
> Jerusalem in Montreal, Quebec.
Had this guy, along with Eric Yoffie of the Union of "American" "Hebrew"
Congregations been in charge during the time of the Hanukkah story,
the Jewish religion would not exist. We would all be praying to Zeus
like Antiochus wanted, and so would every Christian in the world (noting
that Jesus would have been a Zeus-worshipper had the Maccabees done what
Yoffie wanted and get rid of their swords).
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/hanukkah.html, the Hanukkah
story for pro-gun control Jews who obviously need to read it again. This
means especially Lautenberg, Levin, Feinstein, and Putzhead (Schumer).
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaflets/uahc.html for why Eric
Yoffie is an idiot.
Recommended viewing: "Cast a Giant Shadow" with Kirk Douglas. This movie
shows why, had Yoffie been in charge of Israel in 1948, Israel would
have been wiped off the map by the Arabs.
--Bill
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
>
>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control.
>> There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who
>> owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM
>> 409:3).
>
> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack someone.
No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if a
gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
The analogy is valid.
>> *) Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz is the
>
> empty-headed airhead
Sounds like he knows lots more about Jewish law than you do, Shitorian.
That's why you attack him, just like your Nazi heroes attacked Jews;
totally irrational hatred - just because they exist, you hate them.
>> of Tifereth Beth David
>> Jerusalem in Montreal, Quebec.
>
> Had this guy, along with Eric Yoffie of the Union of "American" "Hebrew"
> Congregations been in charge during the time of the Hanukkah story,
> the Jewish religion would not exist. We would all be praying to Zeus
Now you're just ranting unintelligible gibberish.
Your hatred is disgusting. According to Shitorian, Jews don't have a
right to teach traditional Jewish legal concepts because that conflicts
with his neocorporatist (fascist) beliefs, so Shitorian has to portray
Jews as stupid, emasculated, idol-worshipping anti-Jews, Un-Americans.
Jews have a rich intellectual tradition that is not opposed to
philosophical discussion, especially discussion of the law.
Shitorian is opposed to free and open discussion of the law because it
contradicts his gun agenda.
If Google censors my posts, just use a real NSP and you'll see my posts
again.
You can get Shitorian's posts on Google.
Point proven.
Stephan Rothstein
> sroth...@earthlink.net said:
>
>
>>A Lone Weasel wrote:
>
>
>>>(Mr. Shittybritches tried to change the subject header because he's
>
> anti-
>
>>>semititic, but I changed it back because Jewish law is very similar to
>>>English Common Law regarding weapons. Shouldn't we honor the Jewish
>
> law
>
>>>rather than try to delete it, like Mr. Shittybritches does?)
>>
>>No, we should ignore Jewish law because we do not have a state religion
>
>
> Mr. Wrothstein has exposed his antisemitism
Very interesting. How many anti-semitic Jews do you know, idiot? It
would be pretty hard for me to be anti-semitic and hate myself.
> by denying us the right to
> compare two systems of legal thought - Jewish and English Common Law -
> because he's afraid just talking about Jewish law will have some evil
> effect on our whole legal system.
No, I let you post it without a problem, even though you clearly
misstated things (such as there is a law in Judaism against owning a
dangerous dog when you then show that owning it was allowed by the laws
on how to keep it). It is when you want to use it as a basis for our law
that I protested why we should not do so.
Steve Rothstein
Joseph Crowe
While your point should be good, how much separation of church and
state do we really have, especially with the current administration
attempting to justify its actions based on instructions from a hight
power? (how's that for a run on sentence?). That said, I agree with
your point. LW seems to be undermining his argument accusing you of
anti-semitism. What a chuckle.
>
> Steve Rothstein
>
--
Joseph Crowe
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>Shitorian said:
:>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
:>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control.
:>>> There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who
:>>> owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM
:>>> 409:3).
:>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack someone.
:>No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if a
:>gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
False.
A dangerous dog (or animal) is by definition one that is known to make random
attacks.
Try studying the issue, rather than listen to your reformed clergy who
typically have less of a Jewish education than a religious 11 year old.
:>The analogy is valid.
False.
There is no laws against keeping weapons.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
Sir Marksman
"Joseph Crowe" <jcr...@io.com> wrote in message
news:2005031415...@eris.io.com...
Lee always provides cites which contradict his posts. He has done this for
years.
You Know Who
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>Shitorian said:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control.
>>> There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who
>>> owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM
>>> 409:3).
>>
>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack someone.
>
>No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if a
>gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
LOL You *are* a fucking loon. Thanks for being on THEIR side, Jabba.
The Lone Weasel
> On 14 Mar 2005 18:33:31 GMT The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>:>Shitorian said:
>:>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
>:>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
>:>>> control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
>:>>> 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains
>:>>> at all times (CM 409:3).
>
>:>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack
>:>> someone.
>
>:>No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if
>:>a gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
>
> False.
How so?
> A dangerous dog (or animal) is by definition one that is known to make
> random attacks.
So a dog trained to attack all strangers is not dangerous?
Maybe you misunderstood what I said.
> Try studying the issue, rather than listen to your reformed clergy who
> typically have less of a Jewish education than a religious 11 year old.
Well, you haven't actually cited your claim that dogs trained to attack are
not dangerous. Besides you, who says that?
>:> The analogy is valid.
>
> False.
>
> There is no laws against keeping weapons.
I didn't say that. The law is against using your property in a way that
endangers someone else; it's a legal maxim of English Common Law, and
apparently a principle in Jewish law.
If that's not true, explain how.
One Lone Weasel
> LW seems to be undermining his argument accusing you of
> anti-semitism. What a chuckle.
A discussion comparing the Jewish law and English Common Law traditions
regarding the legal principle that you should use your property so as not
to injure others, has nothing to do with the US Constitutional principle
of separation of church and state.
Wrothstein distracted you, then fooled you into accepting his strawman.
Sucker...
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
_______________________
--
Bill Levinson
The Lone Weasel wrote:
> post...@dissensoftware.com said:
>
>
>>On 14 Mar 2005 18:33:31 GMT The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>:>Shitorian said:
>>:>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>
>>:>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
>>:>>> control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
>>:>>> 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains
>>:>>> at all times (CM 409:3).
>>
>>:>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack
>>:>> someone.
>>
>>:>No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if
>>:>a gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
>>
>>False.
>
>
> How so?
The dog can choose to attack on its own, while the gun's owner has to
make a very conscious decision to draw the weapon, release the safety,
and pull the trigger.
>>A dangerous dog (or animal) is by definition one that is known to make
>>random attacks.
>
>
> So a dog trained to attack all strangers is not dangerous?
>
> Maybe you misunderstood what I said.
Even a dog that is not trained to attack anyone can, if it thinks it or
its master is being threatened, decide to bite someone. As an example, a
sudden move toward the dog (or someone it feels obliged to protect)
could conceivably trigger a nasty response. You can easily frighten a
dog by moving your open hand toward its head suddenly, because to most
animals an open hand is a claw and a sudden movement by the same is a
threat. (On the other hand, I read somewhere that a good way to
introduce yourself to a dog is to put your fist under its nose-- an
obvious threat to a person but, to a dog, a fist is a closed or
retracted claw and therefore a peaceful gesture.) A gun, on the other
hand, can't jump out of its holster or storage box and shoot someone.
>>Try studying the issue, rather than listen to your reformed clergy who
>>typically have less of a Jewish education than a religious 11 year old.
Yes, I learned the Hanukkah story when I was eight or nine, which is
apparently more than Mr. Yoffie or this other left-winger did.
> Well, you haven't actually cited your claim that dogs trained to attack are
> not dangerous. Besides you, who says that?
>
>
>>:> The analogy is valid.
>>
>>False.
>>
>>There is no laws against keeping weapons.
>
>
> I didn't say that. The law is against using your property in a way that
> endangers someone else; it's a legal maxim of English Common Law, and
> apparently a principle in Jewish law.
A rifle in a gun safe or a pistol in a holster is not being used "in a
way that endangers someone else." On the other hand, it can and should
be used to endanger someone like a genocidal dictator and his minions
(e.g. Hitler) or a religious oppressor (e.g. Antiochus).
Bill Levinson
The Lone Weasel wrote:
> Sorry for the cross-posting, the previous poster added headers and I
> didn't notice until after I responded.
>
> If anyone would like to respond to the issue of gun control under Jewish
> law or in modern Israel, I'd appreciate your comments.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> [begin wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com headers]
Your point, since my response is on-topic for soc.culture.israel and
soc.culture.jewish as the subject is "Gun Control: A Jewish Look?"
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>post...@dissensoftware.com said:
:>> On 14 Mar 2005 18:33:31 GMT The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com>
:>> wrote:
:>>:>Shitorian said:
:>>:>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
:>>:>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
:>>:>>> control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
:>>:>>> 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains
:>>:>>> at all times (CM 409:3).
:>>:>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack
:>>:>> someone.
:>>:>No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if
:>>:>a gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
:>> False.
:>How so?
Keep reading.
:>> A dangerous dog (or animal) is by definition one that is known to make
:>> random attacks.
:>So a dog trained to attack all strangers is not dangerous?
If the owner can control it? No.
:>Maybe you misunderstood what I said.
Not at all.
:>> Try studying the issue, rather than listen to your reformed clergy who
:>> typically have less of a Jewish education than a religious 11 year old.
:>Well, you haven't actually cited your claim that dogs trained to attack are
:>not dangerous. Besides you, who says that?
You would have to show that they are prohibited.
:>>:> The analogy is valid.
:>> False.
:>> There is no laws against keeping weapons.
:>I didn't say that. The law is against using your property in a way that
:>endangers someone else; it's a legal maxim of English Common Law, and
:>apparently a principle in Jewish law.
Using your property.
Not having property that can be used.
One can have a car.
Understand the difference now?
:>If that's not true, explain how.
Study a little. It doesn't hurt.
HeyBub
I hope you'll permit a small emendation: "... we should ignore Jewish law
when Jewish law is in conflict with the secular law because..."
And there's no conflict: Jewish law specifically demands that secular law be
followed, even when secular law conflicts with Jewish law. Except in three,
well-defined, cases.
For example, you keep Kosher, submitted your first-born to a Pidyan Hayben,
refrain from work on the Sabbath, pray three times per day with a Minyan,
put mezuzot on all your doors, and strangle to death homosexuals, don't you?
There, I thought so.
The Lone Weasel
> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>> post...@dissensoftware.com said:
>>>On 14 Mar 2005 18:33:31 GMT The Lone Weasel
>>><lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>:>Shitorian said:
>>>:>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>:>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
>>>:>>> control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
>>>:>>> 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal
>>>:>>> chains at all times (CM 409:3).
>>>
>>>:>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack
>>>:>> someone.
>>>
>>>:>No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like
>>>:>if a gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
>>>
>>>False.
>>
>> How so?
>
> The
This was a question for a previous poster. Please allow that poster to
respond, if he chooses to respond, in his own words.
Thank you.
Rick Heeke
Actually, he has the characteristics of an anaerobe.
Or perhaps he simulates that by keeping his buttocks firmly planted on
his sloping shoulders.
Reminds me of Bacteroides fragilis.
--
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset.
to email me, concatenate the following:
nom de plume of Jay, Madison, Hamilton-The Federalist
(new, in Latin) at (this planet) dot net
The Lone Weasel
You shouldn't post drunk.
______________
Matters Forbidden Due to Danger Ch. 33:7
One should take great care from all things which bring one into danger.
Because [Chullin 10a]: "(The regulations instituted because of possible)
danger are stricter than prohibitions."
One should be more careful about possible dangerous things, than about
possible forbidden things. Accordingly, it is forbidden to walk in a
dangerous place - for example, under a leaning wall or on a shaky bridge.
A person should not go out alone at night...
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Linear Translation by Yona Newman© 1999-2001
http://www.geocities.com/yona_n.geo/index.html
The Lone Weasel
> Actually, he has the characteristics of an anaerobe.
You're a thick little fella, aren't you son?
You found the Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decisions?
After I gave you the title of the document and its url?
You didn't, eh Mr. Eek?
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
_______________
A well informed public being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the Lone Weasel to kick rightwing
ass shall not be infringed.
POINT PROVEN!
Bill Levinson
The Lone Weasel wrote:
>
> This was a question for a previous poster. Please allow that poster to
> respond, if he chooses to respond, in his own words.
>
> Thank you.
In other words, you can't counter my arguments. As usual.
--Bill
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/
NOT DEAD, IN JAIL, OR A SLAVE? THANK A VETERAN AND/OR A LIBERTARIAN!
Kent Finnell
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9619C1B8519A2...@130.133.1.4...
You shouldn't post at all.
You're not a lawyer, but you expound upon the law without regard to reality.
You're not a Biblical scholar or a Rabbi, but you interperate things that
you have absolute no knowledge.
And you've shown your hypocrisy, you bloated bigot, by not sending a
contribution to:
The Arroyo Children Fund
Southside Bank
c/o Susan Manning Miller
1201 S. Beckham
Tyler, Texas 75701
>
--
Kent Finnell, from the Music City, USA
Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Mega-rich, sad obese Michael Moore
The Lone Weasel
> You shouldn't post at all.
You shouldn't post drunk or drive while enjoying phone sex.
Susan Cohen
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Shitorian said:
>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control.
>>> There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who
>>> owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM
>>> 409:3).
>>
>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack someone.
>
> No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if a
> gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
>
> The analogy is valid.
In that it doesn't say you can;t have an attack dog, yes.
No decent gun-owner would say that their weapons should be left lying around
any more than a decent dog owner would let his dog run around loose.
Susan
The Lone Weasel
We have plenty of indecent gunloons posting in talk.politics.guns.
______________
Matters Forbidden Due to Danger Ch. 33:7
One should take great care from all things which bring one
into danger. Because [Chullin 10a]: "(The regulations
instituted because of possible) danger are stricter than
prohibitions."
One should be more careful about possible dangerous things,
than about possible forbidden things. Accordingly, it is
forbidden to walk in a dangerous place - for example, under
a leaning wall or on a shaky bridge.
A person should not go out alone at night...
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Linear Translation by Yona Newman©
1999-2001
http://www.geocities.com/yona_n.geo/index.html
--
Susan Cohen
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> flav...@verizon.net said:
>
>>
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96197FC0FE882...@130.133.1.4...
>>> Shitorian said:
>>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
>>>>> control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
>>>>> 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains
>>>>> at all times (CM 409:3).
>>>>
>>>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack
>>>> someone.
>>>
>>> No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if
>>> a gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
>>>
>>> The analogy is valid.
>>
>> In that it doesn't say you can;t have an attack dog, yes.
>> No decent gun-owner would say that their weapons should be left lying
>> around any more than a decent dog owner would let his dog run around
>> loose.
>
> We have plenty of indecent gunloons posting in talk.politics.guns.
There's plentry of indecent loons of all types on Usenet.
& nothing you post below is anti-gun.
I could just as well quote the Talmud as *pro* gun by pointing out that
Jewish law states "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
Susan
The ++Revd++
>Suzy
Duh...jew law doesn't apply to you, you thick Irish cunt.
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון
know anything at all about Judaism!
"Bill Levinson" <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:7ikZd.3760$qW....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
:
:
:
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>post...@dissensoftware.com said:
:>> On 14 Mar 2005 22:00:13 GMT The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com>
Why not?
Is that yet another reformed corruption of Halacha?
:>Matters Forbidden Due to Danger Ch. 33:7
:>One should take great care from all things which bring one into danger.
:>Because [Chullin 10a]: "(The regulations instituted because of possible)
:>danger are stricter than prohibitions."
OK.
:>One should be more careful about possible dangerous things, than about
:>possible forbidden things. Accordingly, it is forbidden to walk in a
:>dangerous place - for example, under a leaning wall or on a shaky bridge.
:>A person should not go out alone at night...
OK.
Now show the connection on how this shows that one may not have a gun.
Christopher Morton
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>flav...@verizon.net said:
>
>>
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96197FC0FE882...@130.133.1.4...
>>> Shitorian said:
>>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
>>>>> control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
>>>>> 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains
>>>>> at all times (CM 409:3).
>>>>
>>>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack
>>>> someone.
>>>
>>> No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if
>>> a gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
>>>
>>> The analogy is valid.
>>
>> In that it doesn't say you can;t have an attack dog, yes.
>> No decent gun-owner would say that their weapons should be left lying
>> around any more than a decent dog owner would let his dog run around
>> loose.
>
>We have plenty of indecent gunloons posting in talk.politics.guns.
And a few racists and anti-Semites like you.
"Okay Chrissy, you cock-sucking saucer-lipped booger-eating
monkey-fucking nigger, I hereby announce that I can say any
word and your cynical manipulation of my expression won't
ever make me a racist or a bigot. I don't give a fuck." -
Lee Harrison
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Check out: http://machjr.blogspot.com
Christopher Morton
wrote:
You WISH that age of consent law didn't apply to you, you kiddie
diddling coward.
Kent Finnell
> kent...@bellsouth.net said:
>
>> You shouldn't post at all.
>
> You shouldn't post drunk or drive while enjoying phone sex.
>
Where's your contribution to the Arroyo orphans, bigot? Southside Bank
hasn't received it yet. Do at least one thing right in your sad, useless
life.
--
Kent Finnell, From the Music City, USA
"A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the
autocrat, not because he fears the power of the gun, but, rather, the
spirit of the man who holds it." Anon
Morton Davis
"Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:RUuZd.2707$UV2.300@trnddc04...
knives, poweer tools, sports eqipment (like baseball bats, golf clubs,
darts). various poisonous chemicals that can be used to do great bodily
harm.
-*MORT*-
The ++Revd++
wrote:
Hay, chickenshit nigra - wasn't that kiddie diddler Jacko one of you
people once?
The Lone Weasel
> Now show the connection on how this shows that one may not have a gun.
The idea is you don't use your gun so as to injure others.
But you're all stopped up. Take a laxative and you'll feel better.
_______________________
--
Susan Cohen
"Morton Davis" <anti...@home.com> wrote in message
news:K0BZd.132762$4q6.92411@attbi_s01...
Don't let's get off the subject.
Jewish law is *not* anti-gun.
Susan
Susan Cohen
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961A65D72B1FF...@130.133.1.4...
> post...@dissensoftware.com said:
>
>> Now show the connection on how this shows that one may not have a gun.
>
> The idea is you don't use your gun so as to injure others.
The diea is that you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> But you're all stopped up. Take a laxative and you'll feel better.
& you prove it here as well.
Susan
Chris Morton
says...
>
>post...@dissensoftware.com said:
>
>> Now show the connection on how this shows that one may not have a gun.
>
>The idea is you don't use your gun so as to injure others.
"Others" as in Nazis in the Ghetto?
Sober up, you fat, pathetic drunk.
--
--
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb.
rapists.
Bill Levinson
Christopher Morton wrote:
> You WISH that age of consent law didn't apply to you, you kiddie
> diddling coward.
The "Reverend" is not into children although he is on record as saying
that he is into livestock.
Bill Levinson
Susan Cohen wrote:
Welcome back, Susan. (I see that you are the real one and not the phony
that is posting in soc.culture.israel) :-)
You are right about the above, and I also pointed out the Hanukkah story
to the Lone Weasel. If Jews did not use weapons, they would not exist!
--Bill
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/
Bill Levinson
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון wrote:
> Here we go again with your ridiculous Hanukkah lies and pretending to
> know anything at all about Judaism!
Lies? Are you saying that the Maccabees did NOT use weapons to gain
independence from the Macedonians, who wanted to force them to worship
idols?
Susan Cohen
>
>
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns961A36ECE1D1l...@130.133.1.4...
>>
[snips]
>>>>>The analogy is valid.
>>>>
>>>>In that it doesn't say you can't have an attack dog, yes.
>>>>No decent gun-owner would say that their weapons should be left lying
>>>>around any more than a decent dog owner would let his dog run around
>>>>loose.
>>>
>>>We have plenty of indecent gunloons posting in talk.politics.guns.
>>
>>
>> There's plentry of indecent loons of all types on Usenet.
>> & nothing you post below is anti-gun.
>> I could just as well quote the Talmud as *pro* gun by pointing out that
>> Jewish law states "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
>>
>> Susan
>
> Welcome back, Susan. (I see that you are the real one and not the phony
> that is posting in soc.culture.israel) :-)
It's a real testament to just how much they fear me - and it shows just how
pathetic they are!!!
Susan
Bill Levinson
Susan Cohen wrote:
> "Bill Levinson" <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
> news:rnEZd.4453$qW....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>>Susan Cohen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns961A36ECE1D1l...@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>
>
> [snips]
>
>
>>>>>>The analogy is valid.
>>>>>
>>>>>In that it doesn't say you can't have an attack dog, yes.
>>>>>No decent gun-owner would say that their weapons should be left lying
>>>>>around any more than a decent dog owner would let his dog run around
>>>>>loose.
>>>>
>>>>We have plenty of indecent gunloons posting in talk.politics.guns.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's plentry of indecent loons of all types on Usenet.
>>>& nothing you post below is anti-gun.
>>>I could just as well quote the Talmud as *pro* gun by pointing out that
>>>Jewish law states "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
>>>
>>>Susan
>>
>>Welcome back, Susan. (I see that you are the real one and not the phony
>>that is posting in soc.culture.israel) :-)
>
>
> It's a real testament to just how much they fear me - and it shows just how
> pathetic they are!!!
>
> Susan
Nonetheless, whoever it is is making it harder to find YOUR postings.
Maybe we should start reporting them to their service provider-- I think
the "Reverend" got kicked off Tiscali and Google a couple of times for
this sort of thing. I was going to say that he was put out to pasture
but he seems to go there on his own quite frequently... :^)
Susan Cohen
Google refuses to do anything about it, saying that it's not a "forge" but a
"spoof" because his e-mail is radically different than mine.
I have been told to sue Google but I can't really see that going
anywhere....
His ISP doesn't give a rat's butt.
But he's ticking off more & more people, & they seem to be zeroing in on
him, so, we'll see....
Susan
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Hay, chickenshit nigra - wasn't that kiddie diddler Jacko one of you
>people once?
He's clearly one of yours now.
Do you two double date?
Rick Heeke
<snip>
>
Your proctologist left a message for you.
He found your head.
--
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset.
to email me, concatenate the following:
nom de plume of Jay, Madison, Hamilton-The Federalist
(new, in Latin) at (this planet) dot net
The ++Revd++
Gee, that's a shame.
>Maybe we should start reporting them to their service provider-- I think
>the "Reverend" got kicked off Tiscali and Google a couple of times for
>this sort of thing.
Wrong again, Levinstein. Tiscali is absolutely bulletproof.
> I was going to say that he was put out to pasture
>but he seems to go there on his own quite frequently... :^)
Hey, Levinstein, what's your position on inter-racial sex?
The ++Revd++
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:27:12 GMT, ren+gd@anglic+n.org (The ++Revd++)
>wrote:
>
>>Hay, chickenshit nigra - wasn't that kiddie diddler Jacko one of you
>>people once?
>
>He's clearly one of yours now.
Was he a kiddie diddler before he became a honkie?
>Do you two double date?
Do you miss him, boy?
The ++Revd++
<wlev...@stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>
>> You WISH that age of consent law didn't apply to you, you kiddie
>> diddling coward.
>
>The "Reverend" is not into children although he is on record as saying
>that he is into livestock.
You don't really like schvartzes either, do you, Levinstein?
The ++Revd++
There's a jew lawyer out there just waiting to make a fast buck, Suzy.
>His ISP doesn't give a rat's butt.
>But he's ticking off more & more people, & they seem to be zeroing in on
>him, so, we'll see....
>
>Suzy
We'll see jack shit, you thick Irish cunt.
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון
"Bill Levinson" <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:rnEZd.4453$qW....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
:
:
:
:
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון
"Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OyEZd.2802$uw6.1270@trnddc06...
:
: "Bill Levinson" <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
: >
: >
:
:
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:47:54 -0500, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:27:12 GMT, ren+gd@anglic+n.org (The ++Revd++)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hay, chickenshit nigra - wasn't that kiddie diddler Jacko one of you
>>>people once?
>>
>>He's clearly one of yours now.
>
>Was he a kiddie diddler before he became a honkie?
Were you?
The ++Revd++
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:28:00 GMT, ren+gd@anglic+n.org (The ++Revd++)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:47:54 -0500, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:27:12 GMT, ren+gd@anglic+n.org (The ++Revd++)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hay, chickenshit nigra - wasn't that kiddie diddler Jacko one of you
>>>>people once?
>>>
>>>He's clearly one of yours now.
>>
>>Was he a kiddie diddler before he became a honkie?
>
>Were you?
Just answer the question, boy.
I bet y'all wish you were white, dontcha boy?
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:32:57 -0500, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:28:00 GMT, ren+gd@anglic+n.org (The ++Revd++)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:47:54 -0500, Christopher Morton <cm...@cox.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:27:12 GMT, ren+gd@anglic+n.org (The ++Revd++)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hay, chickenshit nigra - wasn't that kiddie diddler Jacko one of you
>>>>>people once?
>>>>
>>>>He's clearly one of yours now.
>>>
>>>Was he a kiddie diddler before he became a honkie?
>>
>>Were you?
>
>Just answer the question, boy.
Were you?
Susan Cohen
"Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון" <ri...@zion.org.il> wrote in message
news:mbSZd.49203$%Y4.4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Your arrogance shows.
You tell me how I can reach any other conclusion about these people.
And how is their treatment of me any different than their treatment of you?
Susan
Bill Levinson
The ++Revd++ wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:47:51 GMT, Bill Levinson
> <wlev...@stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You WISH that age of consent law didn't apply to you, you kiddie
>>>diddling coward.
>>
>>The "Reverend" is not into children although he is on record as saying
>>that he is into livestock.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
> You don't really like schvartzes either, do you, Levinstein?
Sure I do; I plan to vote for Condi Rice in 2008!
--Bill
Bill Levinson
The ++Revd++ wrote:
>
>>Maybe we should start reporting them to their service provider-- I think
>>the "Reverend" got kicked off Tiscali and Google a couple of times for
>>this sort of thing.
>
>
> Wrong again, Levinstein. Tiscali is absolutely bulletproof.
I'll have to look at those headers and put that to the test if it comes
from Tiscali again.
>>I was going to say that he was put out to pasture
>>but he seems to go there on his own quite frequently... :^)
>
>
> Hey, Levinstein, what's your position on inter-racial sex?
Cattle are not another race, they are another species.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22
fuck+a+cow%22+Fformby&hl=en&lr=&ie=
U%20TF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=
3f1e225c.5150933%40news.tiscali.co.uk&rnum=1
The Troll, I mean Reverend, Terence Fformby-Smythe provided this
unforgettable gem:
"Why do you think it [zoophilia] constitutes animal abuse? If you or I
tried to fuck a cow, do you think the cow would even notice? It should
not only be legal but acceptable as a legitimate alternative lifestyle."
"The fact is that animals are incapable of giving or refusing consent.
To imagine otherwise is a ridiculous anthropomorphism (look it up,
Levinstein). Do we ask animals for their consent before we kill them and
eat them? By comparison, getting fucked is a minor inconvenience."
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
--Bill
Bill Levinson
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון wrote:
> Your ignorance shows.
So tell me, Riain, if Jews had done what you and Eric Yoffie wanted
(i.e. regarded weapons as "idols" to be controlled or banned), what do
you think would have happened when Antiochus told our ancestors to bow
down to idols? Or when the Arabs tried to throw the Jews into the sea in
1948?
--Bill
The ++Revd++
<wlev...@stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
>The ++Revd++ wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:47:51 GMT, Bill Levinson
>> <wlev...@stentorian.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You WISH that age of consent law didn't apply to you, you kiddie
>>>>diddling coward.
>>>
>>>The "Reverend" is not into children although he is on record as saying
>>>that he is into livestock.
>
>MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Replying to yourself? A sure sign of desperation.
>> You don't really like schvartzes either, do you, Levinstein?
>
>Sure I do; I plan to vote for Condi Rice in 2008!
Condoleesha ain't running in 2008, Levinstein. But go ahead and vote
for her anyway. LOL
The ++Revd++
<wlev...@stentorian.com> wrote:
>
>
>The ++Revd++ wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>Maybe we should start reporting them to their service provider-- I think
>>>the "Reverend" got kicked off Tiscali and Google a couple of times for
>>>this sort of thing.
>>
>>
>> Wrong again, Levinstein. Tiscali is absolutely bulletproof.
>
>I'll have to look at those headers and put that to the test if it comes
>from Tiscali again.
Be my guest. You'll get absolutely nowhere. Like last time.
>>>I was going to say that he was put out to pasture
>>>but he seems to go there on his own quite frequently... :^)
>>
>>
>> Hey, Levinstein, what's your position on inter-racial sex?
>
>Cattle are not another race, they are another species.
I was asking about inter-racial sex. Your bigoted views on bestiality
are well known.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22
>fuck+a+cow%22+Fformby&hl=en&lr=&ie=
>U%20TF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=
>3f1e225c.5150933%40news.tiscali.co.uk&rnum=1
>
>The Troll, I mean Reverend, Terence Fformby-Smythe provided this
>unforgettable gem:
>
>"Why do you think it [zoophilia] constitutes animal abuse? If you or I
>tried to fuck a cow, do you think the cow would even notice? It should
>not only be legal but acceptable as a legitimate alternative lifestyle."
>
>"The fact is that animals are incapable of giving or refusing consent.
>To imagine otherwise is a ridiculous anthropomorphism (look it up,
>Levinstein). Do we ask animals for their consent before we kill them and
>eat them? By comparison, getting fucked is a minor inconvenience."
>
>MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
See what I mean? For some reason you seem to think that what faggots
do is OK. That's a very bigoted view of sexual diversity.
Binyamin Dissen
<wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
:>Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון wrote:
:>> Your ignorance shows.
:>So tell me, Riain, if Jews had done what you and Eric Yoffie wanted
:>(i.e. regarded weapons as "idols" to be controlled or banned), what do
:>you think would have happened when Antiochus told our ancestors to bow
:>down to idols?
No problem.
Such an act would easily fit into the reformed or conservative religions.
:> Or when the Arabs tried to throw the Jews into the sea in
:>1948?
As Berlin is the reformed/conservatives "new" Jerusalem, again no problem.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
Susan Cohen
>
>
> The ++Revd++ wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:47:51 GMT, Bill Levinson
>> <wlev...@stentorian.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You WISH that age of consent law didn't apply to you, you kiddie
>>>>diddling coward.
>>>
>>>The "Reverend" is not into children
He *has* defended pedophilia, while condemning homosexuality.
Susan
Stephan Rothstein
> A Lone Weasel wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Wrothstein has exposed his antisemitism
>
>
>
> Very interesting. How many anti-semitic Jews do you know, idiot? It
> would be pretty hard for me to be anti-semitic and hate myself.
Well, Weasel, I am waiting for an answer as to how I could be
anti-semitic and how many anti-semitic Jews you know? Or are you ready
to admit you are a lying welching asshole who calls people names because
you cannot answer their points logically?
Steve Rothstein
Susan Cohen
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961A36ECE1D1l...@130.133.1.4...
>>> Shitorian said:
>>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
>>>>> control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
>>>>> 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains
>>>>> at all times (CM 409:3).
>>>>
>>>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack
>>>> someone.
>>>
>>> No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if
>>> a gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
>>>
>>
>> In that it doesn't say you can;t have an attack dog, yes.
>> No decent gun-owner would say that their weapons should be left lying
>> around any more than a decent dog owner would let his dog run around
>> loose.
>
> We have plenty of indecent gunloons posting in talk.politics.guns.
There's plentry of indecent loons of all types on Usenet.
& nothing you post below is anti-gun.
I could just as well quote the Talmud as *pro* gun by pointing out that
Jewish law states "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
Susan
>
> ______________
>
>
> Matters Forbidden Due to Danger Ch. 33:7
>
> One should take great care from all things which bring one
> into danger. Because [Chullin 10a]: "(The regulations
> instituted because of possible) danger are stricter than
> prohibitions."
>
> One should be more careful about possible dangerous things,
> than about possible forbidden things. Accordingly, it is
> forbidden to walk in a dangerous place - for example, under
> a leaning wall or on a shaky bridge.
>
> A person should not go out alone at night...
>
>
> Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Linear Translation by Yona Newman©
> 1999-2001
>
> http://www.geocities.com/yona_n.geo/index.html
>
>
>
> --
>
> Yours truly,
>
> The Lone Weasel
The ++Revd++
>Suzy
Duh...jew law doesn't apply to you, you thick Irish cunt.
The Lone Weasel
>
> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96197FC0FE882...@130.133.1.4...
>> Shitorian said:
>>> The Lone Weasel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun
>>>> control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma
>>>> 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains
>>>> at all times (CM 409:3).
>>>
>>> Unlike a gun, a dog is capable of deciding on its own to attack
>>> someone.
>>
>> No, it's not. If a dog is trained to attack, it attacks; just like if
>> a gun is loaded and somebody pulls the trigger, it shoots.
>>
>> The analogy is valid.
>
> In that it doesn't say you can;t have an attack dog, yes.
> No decent gun-owner would say that their weapons should be left lying
> around any more than a decent dog owner would let his dog run around
> loose.
We have plenty of indecent gunloons posting in talk.politics.guns.
______________
Sid9
Another RRRR class act joins the group!
Susan Cohen
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:87i_d.34708$c72....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> The ++Revd++ wrote:
>>
[snip Jew-hatred]
>
> Another RRRR class act joins the group!
He's been infesting scj for quite sometime.
Susan
The Lone Weasel
Well, who's coming to kill you now?
If you're living in Israel you might have a good reason to carry a gun;
but if you don't the Israeli government will let you know.
The gunlobby's hired professional liars, who just happen to be lawyers,
make fabulous claims about how easy it is to get a concealed-carry license
in Israel, but when you check it out yourself it turns out Israel has
pretty strict gun laws and it's not easy to get a CC permit.
Then they say look at Japan, they banned guns and look at the crime.
Well, if Japan banned guns they did a good job because there's very little
gun homicide in Japan.
Then the professional liars jump up and scream, but look at the suicides!
Japan has more suicides than the US at half the population, but suicide is
a part of traditional Japanese culture, and besides the suicidal don't
kill anybody else and they don't use guns.
The gunlobby lives on circular logic.
Which brings us to your Jewish cite. Note that your paraphrase doesn't
say "when you fantasize someone's coming to kill you" - because that's
nearly all gunloons do. The actual threats to life are few. Another
Jewish saying admonishes us to avoid danger:
[begin excerpt]
One should take great care from all things which bring one
into danger. Because [Chullin 10a]: "(The regulations
instituted because of possible) danger are stricter than
prohibitions."
One should be more careful about possible dangerous things,
than about possible forbidden things. Accordingly, it is
forbidden to walk in a dangerous place - for example, under
a leaning wall or on a shaky bridge.
A person should not go out alone at night...
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Linear Translation by Yona Newman©
1999-2001
http://www.geocities.com/yona_n.geo/index.html
[end excerpt]
So Jews are aware of possible dangers, which they avoid.
Gunloons say they just want to avoid trouble, but they carry guns
everywhere just looking for trouble so they can pull their gun and wave it
around and chalk up several DGUs, followed by a phone call to John Lott no
doubt. Phone answered by his secretary Mary Rosh.
The ++Revd++
Bog off, you prat.
Susan Cohen
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
Are you saying that people have to be psychic to own a gun?
>
> If you're living in Israel you might have a good reason to carry a gun;
> but if you don't the Israeli government will let you know.
>
> The gunlobby's hired professional liars,
Never mind.
Susan
Riain Barton/ריעין ברתון
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961C6DC429B9l...@130.133.1.4...
: flav...@verizon.net said:
:
: Well, who's coming to kill you now?
The Lone Weasel
No, but they should be able to identify a specific, credible threat before
they carry a gun around looking for something to shoot at.
Jewish law is on my side. Are you Jewish?
>> If you're living in Israel you might have a good reason to carry a gun;
>> but if you don't the Israeli government will let you know.
>>
>> The gunlobby's hired professional liars,
>
> Never mind.
If you minded what you believe before checking it out, you'd realize they
made a sucker out of you.
Of course you don't care. Sucker!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. .04, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83
L.Ed. 1206 (1939), the Supreme Court held that the National
Firearms Act of 1934 did not violate the Second Amendment.
In its opinion the Court stated:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than
eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon
is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its
use could contribute to the common defense. Id. at 178, 59
S.Ct. at 818 (citation omitted)."
Warin argues that the necessary implication of the quoted
language is that a member of the "sedentary militia" may
possess any weapon having military capability and that
application of 26 U.S.C. section 5861(d) [footnote 2] to
such a person violates the Second Amendment. We disagree.
In Miller the Supreme Court did not reach the question of
the extent to which a weapon which is "part of the ordinary
military equipment" or whose "use could contribute to the
common defense" may be regulated. In holding that the
absence of evidence placing the weapon involved in the
charges against Miller in one of these categories precluded
the trial court from quashing the indictment on Second
Amendment grounds, the Court did not hold the converse-that
the Second Amendment is an absolute prohibition against all
regulation of the manufacture, transfer and possession of
any instrument capable of being used in military action.
Within a few years after Miller v. United States was
announced the First Circuit dealt with arguments similar to
those made by Warin in the present case. In Cases v. United
States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir 1942), cert. denied sub nom,
Velazquez v. United States, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87
L.Ed. 1718 (1943), the court held that the Supreme Court did
not intend to formulate a general rule in Miller, but merely
dealt with the facts of that case. The court of appeals
noted the development of new weaponry during the early years
of World War II and concluded that it was not the intention
of the Supreme Court to hold that the Second Amendment
prohibits Congress from regulating any weapons except
antiques "such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock
harquebus." 131 F.2d at 922. If the logical extension of
the defendant argument for the holding of Miller was
inconceivable in 1942, it is completely irrational in this
time of nuclear weapons.
Agreeing as we do with the conclusion in Cases v. United
States, supra, that the Supreme Court did not lay down a
general rule in Miller, we consider the present case on its
own facts and in light of applicable authoritative
decisions. It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees
a collective rather than an individual right. In Stevens v.
United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971), this court
held, in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18
U.S.C. App. section 1202(a)(1):
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms"
applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia
and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be
no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an
individual to possess a firearm.
See also, United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 648, 560 (4th
Cir. 1974); United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261, 266 (3d Cir.
1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463, 63 S.Ct. 1241,
87 L.Ed. 1619 (1943).
It is also established that the collective right of the
militia is limited to keeping and bearing arms, the
possession or use of which "at this time has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, . . ." United States v. Miller, supra,
307 U.S.at 178, 59 S.Ct at 819. See also, United States v.
Johnson, supra; Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34, 37 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d
303 (1972).
The fact that the defendant Warin, in common with all adult
residents and citizens of Ohio, is subject to enrollment in
the militia of the State confers upon him no right to
possess the submachine gun in question. By statute the
State of Ohio exempts "members of . . . the organized
militia of this or any other state . . .," (emphasis added)
from the provision, "No person shall knowingly acquire,
have, carry, or use any dangerous ordnance." Ohio Revised
Code section 2923.17. "Dangerous ordnance" is defined to
include any automatic firearm. O.R.C. section 2923.11.
There is no such exemption for members of the "sedentary
militia." Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that
a submachine gun in the hands of an individual "sedentary
militia" member would have any, much less a "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia." Miller, supra, 307 U.S. at 178, 59
S.Ct. at 819. Thus we conclude that the defendant has no
private right to keep and bear arms under the Second
Amendment which would bar his prosecution and conviction for
violating 26 U.S.C. section 5861(d).
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 130 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426
U.S. 948 (1976)
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>No, but they should be able to identify a specific, credible threat before
:>they carry a gun around looking for something to shoot at.
Proof?
:>Jewish law is on my side.
Source?
What did your reformed clergyman give you as proof?
The Lone Weasel
> On 17 Mar 2005 17:51:55 GMT The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>:>No, but they should be able to identify a specific, credible threat
>:>before they carry a gun around looking for something to shoot at.
>
> Proof?
In fact, using the example of the burglar, the Tract Sanhedrin advises
caution in killing a burglar, that you should give yourself time to calm
down before killing a burglar.
"... if it is as clear to you as the sun that it is impossible to be at
peace with him, then you may kill him, but not otherwise."
Impossibility, not unlikelihood.
"The rabbis taught: It reads [Ex. xxii. 2]: "If the sun be
risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him." What is
meant by the sun being risen upon him? Does the sun rise
upon him only? It means therefore if it is as clear to you
as the sun that it is impossible to be at peace with him,
then you may kill him, but not otherwise."
Talmud. Tract Sanhedrin, Chapter 8, pp 214-215
>:>Jewish law is on my side.
>
> Source?
If you refuse to read it, too bad.
> What did your reformed clergyman give you as proof?
I'm a Reformed Animist, not a Reformed Jew.
Sorry for your obvious confusion.
______________
Matters Forbidden Due to Danger Ch. 33:7
One should take great care from all things which bring one
into danger. Because [Chullin 10a]: "(The regulations
instituted because of possible) danger are stricter than
prohibitions."
One should be more careful about possible dangerous things,
than about possible forbidden things. Accordingly, it is
forbidden to walk in a dangerous place - for example, under
a leaning wall or on a shaky bridge.
A person should not go out alone at night...
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Linear Translation by Yona Newman©
1999-2001
http://www.geocities.com/yona_n.geo/index.html
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>post...@dissensoftware.com said:
:>> On 17 Mar 2005 17:51:55 GMT The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com>
:>> wrote:
:>>:>No, but they should be able to identify a specific, credible threat
:>>:>before they carry a gun around looking for something to shoot at.
:>> Proof?
:>In fact, using the example of the burglar, the Tract Sanhedrin advises
:>caution in killing a burglar, that you should give yourself time to calm
:>down before killing a burglar.
:>"... if it is as clear to you as the sun that it is impossible to be at
:>peace with him, then you may kill him, but not otherwise."
Based on your reformed translation.
Try getting an educated person to translate it for you (if you know any Jews
that can read the Talmud).
:>Impossibility, not unlikelihood.
:>"The rabbis taught: It reads [Ex. xxii. 2]: "If the sun be
:>risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him." What is
:>meant by the sun being risen upon him? Does the sun rise
:>upon him only? It means therefore if it is as clear to you
:>as the sun that it is impossible to be at peace with him,
:>then you may kill him, but not otherwise."
What is the case of the "sun risen upon him"?
:>Talmud. Tract Sanhedrin, Chapter 8, pp 214-215
Snicker.
Most interesting reference attempt. Obviously not from an educated person.
:>>:>Jewish law is on my side.
:>> Source?
:>If you refuse to read it, too bad.
Sorry, I don't have your reformed textbooks.
:>> What did your reformed clergyman give you as proof?
:>I'm a Reformed Animist, not a Reformed Jew.
:>Sorry for your obvious confusion.
Both equally tend to know nothing about Judaism.
Susan Cohen
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> flav...@verizon.net said:
>
>>
>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns961C6DC429B9l...@130.133.1.4...
>>> flav...@verizon.net said:
>>>
>>>> There's plentry of indecent loons of all types on Usenet.
>>>> & nothing you post below is anti-gun.
>>>> I could just as well quote the Talmud as *pro* gun by pointing out
> that
>>>> Jewish law states "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
>>>
>>> Well, who's coming to kill you now?
>>
>> Are you saying that people have to be psychic to own a gun?
>
> No, but they should be able to identify a specific, credible threat before
> they carry a gun around looking for something to shoot at.
You are changing the subject, of course.
>
> Jewish law is on my side. Are you Jewish?
I am Jewish & Jewish law is NOT on your side.
>
>>> If you're living in Israel you might have a good reason to carry a gun;
>>> but if you don't the Israeli government will let you know.
>>>
>>> The gunlobby's hired professional liars,
>>
>> Never mind.
>
> If you minded what you believe before checking it out, you'd realize they
> made a sucker out of you.
You wish, of course.
I haven;t bothered to check what *they* are saying.
I am focusing on what you are saying, & you are wrong.
>
> Of course you don't care. Sucker!
Yes, I'd say that name-calling is just about all you really can do.
Susan
Susan Cohen
"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns961C811DD29F4...@130.133.1.4...
> post...@dissensoftware.com said:
>> On 17 Mar 2005 17:51:55 GMT The Lone Weasel <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>:>No, but they should be able to identify a specific, credible threat
>>:>before they carry a gun around looking for something to shoot at.
>>
>> Proof?
>
> In fact, using the example of the burglar, the Tract Sanhedrin advises
> caution in killing a burglar, that you should give yourself time to calm
> down before killing a burglar.
>
Nothing in the Talmud is against having or using a gun.
Susan
The Lone Weasel
> You are, of course, still trying to change the subject.
> Nothing in the Talmud is against having or using a gun.
Keeping a dangerous weapon when it's unnecessary is against the regulation
that says "One should be more careful about possible dangerous things,
than about possible forbidden things" and "One should take great care from
all things which bring one into danger. Because [Chullin 10a]: '(The
regulations instituted because of possible) danger are stricter than
prohibitions.'"
Stricter than prohibitions. That obvious means nothing to you.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Bill Levinson
Susan Cohen wrote:
> "Bill Levinson" <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
> news:UaJZd.4683$qW....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>>Susan Cohen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bill Levinson" <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
>>>news:rnEZd.4453$qW....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Susan Cohen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:Xns961A36ECE1D1l...@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[snips]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>The analogy is valid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In that it doesn't say you can't have an attack dog, yes.
>>>>>>>No decent gun-owner would say that their weapons should be left lying
>>>>>>>around any more than a decent dog owner would let his dog run around
>>>>>>>loose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We have plenty of indecent gunloons posting in talk.politics.guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There's plentry of indecent loons of all types on Usenet.
>>>>>& nothing you post below is anti-gun.
>>>>>I could just as well quote the Talmud as *pro* gun by pointing out that
>>>>>Jewish law states "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
>>>>>
>>>>>Susan
>>>>
>>>>Welcome back, Susan. (I see that you are the real one and not the phony
>>>>that is posting in soc.culture.israel) :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a real testament to just how much they fear me - and it shows just
>>>how pathetic they are!!!
>>>
>>>Susan
>>
>>Nonetheless, whoever it is is making it harder to find YOUR postings.
>>Maybe we should start reporting them to their service provider-- I think
>>the "Reverend" got kicked off Tiscali and Google a couple of times for
>>this sort of thing.
>
>
> Google refuses to do anything about it, saying that it's not a "forge" but a
> "spoof" because his e-mail is radically different than mine.
> I have been told to sue Google but I can't really see that going
> anywhere....
> His ISP doesn't give a rat's butt.
> But he's ticking off more & more people, & they seem to be zeroing in on
> him, so, we'll see....
>
> Susan
>
It is very clear that his intention is not to post under a pseudonym
(which he is entitled to do) but to impersonate a newsgroup regular and
disrupt the newsgroup. This is abusive conduct as far as I am concerned.
--Bill
The +Revd
<flav...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns961C78B26D410...@130.133.1.4...
>> flav...@verizon.net said:
>>
>>>
>>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns961C6DC429B9l...@130.133.1.4...
>>>> flav...@verizon.net said:
>>>>
>>>>> There's plentry of indecent loons of all types on Usenet.
>>>>> & nothing you post below is anti-gun.
>>>>> I could just as well quote the Talmud as *pro* gun by pointing out
>> that
>>>>> Jewish law states "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
>>>>
>>>> Well, who's coming to kill you now?
>>>
>>> Are you saying that people have to be psychic to own a gun?
>>
>> No, but they should be able to identify a specific, credible threat before
>> they carry a gun around looking for something to shoot at.
>
>You are changing the subject, of course.
>>
>> Jewish law is on my side. Are you Jewish?
>
>I am Jewish & Jewish law is NOT on your side.
No, you're not. You're a foul-mouthed Irish shitske fishwife.
<b'rissed>
The +Revd
<lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
Suzy's a thick Irish cunt who desperately wants to be jewish but never
can be.
<b'rissed>
The +Revd
Oy vey. You people are always kvetching.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Oy vey. You people are always kvetching.
Nazis are always molesting children.
What is a Nazi?
A Nazi is above all else, a craven coward.
A Nazi is afraid to compete with others as
equals because he knows he can't measure up.
A Nazi is afraid of his own inadequacy, so
he wants to murder his betters.
A Nazi is afraid of the truth, so he wants
to murder those who tell it.
A Nazi is afraid of history, so he wants to
murder the past, to wipe out the knowledge
of the degeneracy, cowardice and failure of
National Socialism.
Finally, a Nazi is afraid of the power of
educated, informed adults. Freedom of
choice terrifies him... which is why he
chooses minor children as sexual partners.
He can't interact with competent adults in
a consensually sexual way. He needs to be
able to impose himself on a helpless victim,
be it a prepubescent boy, or a patient in a
mental hospital.
These are the things that a Nazi is, and
there's nothing polite or honest about it.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Check out: http://machjr.blogspot.com
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:17:42 GMT, "Suzy the convert"
How's that NAMBLA thing working out for you?
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>On 17 Mar 2005 17:51:55 GMT, The Lone Weasel
Speaking of "thick", you two seem to be as thick as thieves... or in
this case, Nazis.
The +Revd
wrote:
What is a Godwin?
C'mon, boy. Do tell.
The +Revd
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:08:21 GMT, ren#gd@anglic#n.org (The +Revd)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:17:42 GMT, "Suzy the convert"
>><flav...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns961C78B26D410...@130.133.1.4...
>>>> flav...@verizon.net said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Lone Weasel" <lonewe...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns961C6DC429B9l...@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>> flav...@verizon.net said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's plentry of indecent loons of all types on Usenet.
>>>>>>> & nothing you post below is anti-gun.
>>>>>>> I could just as well quote the Talmud as *pro* gun by pointing out
>>>> that
>>>>>>> Jewish law states "When someone comes to kill you, kill him first."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, who's coming to kill you now?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that people have to be psychic to own a gun?
>>>>
>>>> No, but they should be able to identify a specific, credible threat before
>>>> they carry a gun around looking for something to shoot at.
>>>
>>>You are changing the subject, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Jewish law is on my side. Are you Jewish?
>>>
>>>I am Jewish & Jewish law is NOT on your side.
>>
>>No, you're not. You're a foul-mouthed Irish shitske fishwife.
>
>How's that NAMBLA thing working out for you?
What's the N in NAMBLA stand for, boy? Nigra?
The +Revd
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:20:43 GMT, ren#gd@anglic#n.org (The +Revd)
>wrote:
>
>>Oy vey. You people are always kvetching.
>
>Nazis are always molesting children.
Is Jacko a Nazi, boy?
>What is a nigra?
We already know, boy.
<b'rissed>