Senate Democrats Block Rollback of D.C. Gun Laws
Cole Firearms Inc.
Senate Democrats objected Thursday to an attempt by Kay Bailey
Hutchinson, R-Texas, to take up House-passed legislation that would roll
back District of Columbia gun laws.
Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin
<http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000176> ,
D-Ill., objected, calling the bill an attempt “take away the authority”
of the city to write its own gun laws.
Hutchinson said it is “the prerogative of Congress” to make laws
affecting the District.
Gun-rights advocates say the District government is not abiding by a
Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that voided the
city’s handgun ban in June. The D.C. City Council promulgated temporary
laws in July, and another set of temporary laws Sept. 16. City officials
are working on permanent ones.
Durbin said he was acting on behalf of 11 Democratic senators who signed
a letter expressing concern “about proceeding to this bill without
hearing from local and federal law enforcement officials and other
interested parties.”
The senators who signed the letter include Hillary Rodham Clinton
<http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000007201> of
New York and Dianne Feinstein
<http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000080> of
California, who had vowed to filibuster the measure after the House
passed it 266-152 on Sept. 17.
Hutchinson and 46 other senators wrote a letter on Sept. 18 to Majority
Leader Harry Reid
<http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-000000000337> ,
D-Nev., asking for floor time for the measure before the end of the
110th Congress.
slate_leeper
<colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Senate Democrats objected Thursday to an attempt by Kay Bailey
>Hutchinson, R-Texas, to take up House-passed legislation that would roll
>back District of Columbia gun laws.
At least she got the Democrats to show their true colors, not their
election year pro-2nd camouflage, before the elections have taken
place.
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
Wayne
"Dr. Jon-Pierre Pigglesworth" <gree...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18vtd49retsi2080b...@4ax.com...
>
>
The problem is that Obama and Biden are running around the country telling
everyone how pro-gun they are. Biden recently claimed that nobody is going
to take away his Beretta.
So the presidential and vice presidential candidates are taking a pro-gun
stance and their own party is supporting DC's open defiance of a pro gun
Supreme Court ruling. The most likely scenario is that Obama and Biden are
lying.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:27:22 GMT, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>I don't know about the Baretta, but Obama has long said he wants to do
>away with firearms like AK 47's and certain automatic type weapons.
And those are - and have been since the 1920's - heavily regulated.
If "stupid" was money, you would be wealthy.....
Benj
wrote:
> I don't know about the Baretta, but Obama has long said he wants to do
> away with firearms like AK 47's and certain automatic type weapons.
Of course you mean "semi-automatic". And given the interpretation in
Oz, I presume that means pump and lever guns as well. Who needs a gun
to hunt? Lots of people "hunt" just fine in Kalifornia with just a
credit card and your keys attached in just the right place. I'll bet
that includes you, piggy.
RSweeney
"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AYCDk.1862$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Senate Democrats Block Rollback of D.C. Gun Laws
>
> Senate Democrats objected Thursday to an attempt by Kay Bailey Hutchinson,
> R-Texas, to take up House-passed legislation that would roll back District
> of Columbia gun laws.
As predicted.
Democrats can not be trusted in ANY respect.
Jim Yanik
news:upUDk.597$kI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
worse,Obama supports the "right" of each state to choose it's own
infringements on the 2nd;"what works in a rural state may not work in an
urban setting" is his reasoning.Essentially,he says Constitutional rights
can be overridden by state laws.
What a crappy lawyer he must be.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jim Yanik
news:opd0e4p5v4igc1fcg...@4ax.com:
Obama is on record as supporting a ban on handguns.
He just doesn't think it can be done *politically*.
(that the votes are not there)
>
> And those are - and have been since the 1920's - heavily regulated.
Except he also wants to ban the SEMI-AUTO versions,and bullets capable of
penetrating soft body armor(eliminating most hunting cartridges).
>
> If "stupid" was money, you would be wealthy.....
--
RD (The Sandman)
>
Of course they are. Here is Obama's record on guns:
Wants to bring back the failed Clinton Gun Ban;
Endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership;
Supports local gun bans like DC did and Chicago still does;
Supports mandatory licensing and registration;
Opposes right to carry laws;
Wants to ban the manufacture and sale of inexpensive handguns;
Supports mandatory micro-stamping;
Supports mandatory ballistic fingerprinting;
Supports mandatory waiting periods;
Supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions;
Supports banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic
weapons;
Supports an increase in state restrictions on the purchase and possession
of firearms;
Supports a requirement that all manufacturers to provide child-safety
locks with firearms;
Supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or
park;
Feels that middle class America is "clinging to guns and religion" due to
being embittered by the economy;
Voted against a bill that would have allowed someone who used a handgun
to deter or defend against an intruder in their homes to assert self
defense if charged for violating local handgun bans;
Wouldn't sign the petition to the USSC that RKBA is an individual
right....
That is his history. His claims now that he is pro 2A is so much crap.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."
Bama Brian
Bingo! Obama is the worst possible candidate for president. Bread and
Circuses all the way for everyone.
Sadly, McCain is only "some" better than Obama at protecting the RKBA.
His McCain/Lieberman gun show bill was terribly misguided. And I am
*NOT* a happy camper about his McCain/Feingold campaign finance bill -
as clearly an assault on the 1st Amendment as the Sedition Acts.
AFAICT, the real problem is that by the time professional politicians
have compromised enough to be re-elected a few times, they have
completely sold out all of their original ethics.
Too bad Ron Paul stands only the proverbial snowball's chance. I think
the best choice this time is Bob Barr - another shrinking snowball.
Still, no candidate has a chance if we don't vote for them.
--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
RD (The Sandman)
news:VLidnXrIhpPEgX_V...@earthlink.com:
Here is McCain's record on guns:
McCain....
Supported legislation to close the "gun show loophole";
Supported gun owners on Emergency Powers (Think Katrina's gun seizures);
Supported gun owners on the firearms industry lawsuit exemption;
Been against Kennedy's proposed ammunition ban;
Been against the initial Clinton Gun Ban and renewal attempts;
Been against government funded "gun buybacks";
Been against the Hi-cap magazine import ban;
Been abainst mandated waiting periods;
Opposed the Brady Bill;
Has spoken in favor of hunting in the Mojave National Monument.....
That makes the choice (as far as gun rights are concerned) very clear.
> AFAICT, the real problem is that by the time professional politicians
> have compromised enough to be re-elected a few times, they have
> completely sold out all of their original ethics.
>
> Too bad Ron Paul stands only the proverbial snowball's chance. I
> think the best choice this time is Bob Barr - another shrinking
> snowball. Still, no candidate has a chance if we don't vote for them.
However, in this race, as much as I hate to say it, any vote for a third
party player like Ron Paul or Bob Barr simply moves Obama closer to the
White House.
Bama Brian
Maybe. But it only takes one major piece of anti-gun legislation to
destroy his entire voting record. Remember Jim Zumbo? Would you vote
for him, were he running?
>> AFAICT, the real problem is that by the time professional politicians
>> have compromised enough to be re-elected a few times, they have
>> completely sold out all of their original ethics.
>>
>> Too bad Ron Paul stands only the proverbial snowball's chance. I
>> think the best choice this time is Bob Barr - another shrinking
>> snowball. Still, no candidate has a chance if we don't vote for them.
>
> However, in this race, as much as I hate to say it, any vote for a third
> party player like Ron Paul or Bob Barr simply moves Obama closer to the
> White House.
That assumes that third party voters only come from one side. That's
never so. Look at all the pro-Hillary folks who now plan to vote for
McCain/Palin.
Exit polls after Perot showed that those 3rd party voters were almost
equally drawn from both Dems and Repubs. But no one ever believes this,
even when cites are provided. It's almost like trying to convert a
Muslim to a Baptist - just ain't a-gonna happen because of the mindset.
And when the minds get to be as old as yours and mine, "A mind is a
terrible thing to change..., er, waste." ;P
RD (The Sandman)
Or mostly from one side. Obama types may vote for Nader who would hardly
eever draw votes from the conservative side. ;)
That's
> never so. Look at all the pro-Hillary folks who now plan to vote for
> McCain/Palin.
A political rarity because they think that their queen got screwed and
they are pissed. More than likely many of them will cool off before
November.
> Exit polls after Perot showed that those 3rd party voters were almost
> equally drawn from both Dems and Repubs. But no one ever believes
> this, even when cites are provided.
I believe it but Ross was not the only third party candidate. There was
an American Flag Party(?) candidate, a Green candidate and the ubiquitous
Libertarian.
It's almost like trying to
> convert a Muslim to a Baptist - just ain't a-gonna happen because of
> the mindset.
Probably not, but I got tired of protest votes a while ago and now am
reduced to choosing between the two evils since I know that a third party
ticket is doomed to fail at that level. Local, state and, perhaps, for
Congresscritter but that's about it.
> And when the minds get to be as old as yours and mine, "A mind is a
> terrible thing to change..., er, waste." ;P
;)
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>so?
An excellent example of Obama's dangerous, anti-freedom ideas....
Jim Yanik
news:1qf5e4h6u64s03d5k...@4ax.com:
and yet they claim they are not going to take away peoples hunting
rifles...they are just going to ban the ammo they use.
How honest and open...NOT!
Bama Brian
Ralph who? The jackass who killed the Corvair?
> That's
>> never so. Look at all the pro-Hillary folks who now plan to vote for
>> McCain/Palin.
>
> A political rarity because they think that their queen got screwed and
> they are pissed. More than likely many of them will cool off before
> November.
It'll be interesting to see what the pundits say after this election.
People who are that emotional over the sex of the candidate may stay mad
and do their own version of a protest vote.
>
>> Exit polls after Perot showed that those 3rd party voters were almost
>> equally drawn from both Dems and Repubs. But no one ever believes
>> this, even when cites are provided.
>
> I believe it but Ross was not the only third party candidate. There was
> an American Flag Party(?) candidate, a Green candidate and the ubiquitous
> Libertarian.
But only Perot got enough votes to matter. Sadly he might have been the
absolute last gasp of any serious third party. Look what happened to
his AI party after the second try. Went up in smoke, like throwing a
match on a wino: Fooonnnt!
Perot took the blame for the Clinton win, but Bush the senior did a
wonderful job of shooting himself in the lips over taxes. For the
average voter, it only takes that one effective sound byte.
What I find most interesting about the whole third party issue is how so
many people assume that only nut cases run as third party candidates,
yet when we look at the results after each election when the new
president has had a chance to show his stuff, it's always been quite
disappointing.
I recently read that it's no longer possible to pick the "right"
candidate because they're all going to do the wrong thing once elected.
So all that we can do is to constantly pressure the politicians, just
as the public did to kill the $700 billion bailout. If we ignore the
politicians, we do so at our own peril.
> It's almost like trying to
>> convert a Muslim to a Baptist - just ain't a-gonna happen because of
>> the mindset.
>
> Probably not, but I got tired of protest votes a while ago and now am
> reduced to choosing between the two evils since I know that a third party
> ticket is doomed to fail at that level. Local, state and, perhaps, for
> Congresscritter but that's about it.
I never get tired of voting for the best candidate. He might not win,
but I never have to apologize later. And I'm still childish enough to
enjoy saying, "Nyah nyah nyah!" ;P
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'll ask again. So?
I fully understand your fear of freedom.
>
>Why do we need semi-automatic weapons in a so-called civilized
>society?
To defend out civilized society piglet.
> Want that kind of artilerry, make yourself useful and join
>the military.
Already served pigletl have you?
> They take any old body now.
Then you should join - perhaps there is a chance you would learn
something.
Dr. - that's a joke.
>
>
> "Sometimes being a bitch is
> all that a woman has to hold on to...."
Wayne
-
There are plenty of non-gun jobs. With your phd, you might be quite
valuable.
(At Ft. Benning, phds were very good at driving wheel barrows)
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't have an unnatural fixation with guns.
Actually you do. But one doesn't have to just like guns - the
military has computers, tanks, toilets - all sorts of fascinating
things.
They can find something for you.
>>
>>
>>> They take any old body now.
>>
>>Then you should join - perhaps there is a chance you would learn
>>something.
>>
>>
>>
>>Dr. - that's a joke.
>>
>
>You're a joke.
Now piglet, don't get you tail in a knot. You got to be able to take
it if you dish it out.
ozark...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Only after you explained the concept very slowly to them.......
The Lone Weasel
> Senate Democrats Block Rollback of D.C. Gun Laws
>
> Senate Democrats objected Thursday to an attempt by Kay
> Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, to take up House-passed
> legislation that would roll back District of Columbia gun
> laws.
>
> Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin
> <http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-0000000
> 00176> , D-Ill., objected, calling the bill an attempt
> �take away the authority� of the city to write its own gun
> laws.
>
> Hutchinson said it is �the prerogative of Congress� to make
> laws affecting the District.
>
> Gun-rights advocates say the District government is not
> abiding by a Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia
> v. Heller that voided the city�s handgun ban in June. The
> D.C. City Council promulgated temporary laws in July, and
> another set of temporary laws Sept. 16. City officials are
> working on permanent ones.
>
> Durbin said he was acting on behalf of 11 Democratic
> senators who signed a letter expressing concern �about
> proceeding to this bill without hearing from local and
> federal law enforcement officials and other interested
> parties.�
Either DC or Congress makes the law in DC; see Art I Sect 8 Cl
17...
Point proven!
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Far out!
Indeed - weasel is "far out" - usually in left field....
The Lone Weasel
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:04:41 -0700, Dr. Jon-Pierre
> Pigglesworth <gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:27:34 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>><thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net> said:
>>>> Senate Democrats Block Rollback of D.C. Gun Laws
>>>>
>>>> Senate Democrats objected Thursday to an attempt by Kay
>>>> Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, to take up House-passed
>>>> legislation that would roll back District of Columbia
>>>> gun laws.
>>>>
>>>> Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin
>>>> <http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-0000
>>>> 000 00176> , D-Ill., objected, calling the bill an
>>>> attempt “take away the authority” of the city to write
>>>> its own gun laws.
>>>>
>>>> Hutchinson said it is “the prerogative of Congress” to
>>>> make laws affecting the District.
>>>>
>>>> Gun-rights advocates say the District government is not
>>>> abiding by a Supreme Court decision in District of
>>>> Columbia v. Heller that voided the city’s handgun ban in
>>>> June. The D.C. City Council promulgated temporary laws
>>>> in July, and another set of temporary laws Sept. 16.
>>>> City officials are working on permanent ones.
>>>>
>>>> Durbin said he was acting on behalf of 11 Democratic
>>>> senators who signed a letter expressing concern “about
>>>> proceeding to this bill without hearing from local and
>>>> federal law enforcement officials and other interested
>>>> parties.”
>>>
>>>Either DC or Congress makes the law in DC; see Art I Sect
>>>8 Cl 17...
>>>
>>>Point proven!
>>
>>Far out!
>
> Indeed - weasel is "far out" - usually in left field....
Have you read Art I Sect 8 Clause 17 of the US Constitution,
Shillbillie? Do you know which branch of government has
plenary legislative power over the federal district?
Read it. You boys couldn't stand to read DC v Heller when
Scalia kicked your ass, now you can't stand to read the
Constitution because it simply contradicts your governmental
and legal superstitions...
Pussywillows.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You mean the part where the 2A protects the individual right to be
armed?
Enjoy weaselboy.....
The Lone Weasel
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:40:05 -0500, The Lone Weasel
> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:04:41 -0700, Dr. Jon-Pierre
>>> Pigglesworth <gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:27:34 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>>>><thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>said:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Senate Democrats Block Rollback of D.C. Gun Laws
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Senate Democrats objected Thursday to an attempt by
>>>>>> Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, to take up
>>>>>> House-passed legislation that would roll back District
>>>>>> of Columbia gun laws.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin
>>>>>> <http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile-00
>>>>>> 00 000 00176> , D-Ill., objected, calling the bill an
What have you done with that specific Second Amendment right
today that you can't already do with your state gun rights?
>> now you can't stand to read the
>>Constitution because it simply contradicts your
>>governmental and legal superstitions...
Pussywillows.
tankfixer
gree...@yahoo.com says...
Actually you do.
And you are in serious denial about the issue.
Get help, soon.
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
tankfixer
gree...@yahoo.com says...
That won't cure your delusions.
Only some serious professional help will do that.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
LOL Buy a new handgun in Washington DC.
Really gets your goat, dosn't it weasel?
What is it you say? Point Proven!!!
Jim Yanik
news:r3sfe4ha2omem6qll...@4ax.com:
I can't bear arms wherever I please,within reason.
many Federal lands open to the public are "off-limits" without good reason.
Yet i am still vulnerable there to predators both 2 legged and 4 legged.
I also need a PERMIT to carry,which reduces my RKBA to only a privelege
granted by the State.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>so what?? deal with it, pussy!
LOL piggietroll has nothing but flatus
>
>
> Semi-Honorable Judge J. P. Pigglesworth
Now he is a "judge"?? What a riot. And "honorable certainly needs to
be omitted
The Lone Weasel
> ozark...@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:r3sfe4ha2omem6qll...@4ax.com:
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 00:24:54 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>><thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:40:05 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>>>> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:04:41 -0700, Dr. Jon-Pierre
>>>>>> Pigglesworth <gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:27:34 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>>>>>>><thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Cole Firearms Inc." <colefir...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>said:
>>>>>>>>> Senate Democrats Block Rollback of D.C. Gun Laws
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Senate Democrats objected Thursday to an attempt by
>>>>>>>>> Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas, to take up
>>>>>>>>> House-passed legislation that would roll back
>>>>>>>>> District of Columbia gun laws.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=profile
>>>>>>>>> -00 00 000 00176> , D-Ill., objected, calling the
You could bear arms in the well-regulated militia aka the
National Guard if you weren't such a cowardly crybaby.
> many Federal lands open to the public are "off-limits"
> without good reason.
Maybe because hikers and vacationing families have a right not
to be slaughtered by idiotic gunloons like you, Mr. Yankit.
> Yet i am still vulnerable there to
> predators both 2 legged and 4 legged.
Cows and Robin Red-Breasts are more afraid of you than you are
of them. Just leave them alone.
> I also need a PERMIT to carry,which reduces my RKBA to only
> a privelege granted by the State.
You say that fake Second Amendment gun right isn't working out
for you?
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
The Lone Weasel
Not a semi-auto though, just a revolver, eh Shillbillie?
Nancy Pelosi really kicks gunloon ass.
> Really gets your goat, dosn't it weasel?
Keeping goats in this town is illegal, otherwise I'd rent a
few to keep the weeds down instead of using a puking internal
combustion Sears lawn mower.
> What is it you say?
That NRA inducees are "pussywillows"?
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yep: But he doesn't have top be in the militia - or the NG - you see,
it is an indivdual right not related to either of those groups.
>
>> many Federal lands open to the public are "off-limits"
>> without good reason.
>
>Maybe because hikers and vacationing families have a right not
>to be slaughtered by idiotic gunloons like you, Mr. Yankit.
weasel with no repsonse resorts to insults.
>
>> Yet i am still vulnerable there to
>> predators both 2 legged and 4 legged.
>
>Cows and Robin Red-Breasts are more afraid of you than you are
>of them. Just leave them alone.
LOL poor little weasel. Heller hurts you, dioesn't it?
>
>> I also need a PERMIT to carry,which reduces my RKBA to only
>> a privelege granted by the State.
>
>You say that fake Second Amendment gun right isn't working out
>for you?
LOL Fake? The SC doesn't agree with yoyu - does it....
>
>POINT PROVEN!
Yep, the SC did that by protecting our individual right.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:15:04 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>I have never heard of a law that didn't allow you to shave your arms!
There is a lot yyou haven't heard of piglet
>
> By the power vested to me by the
> State of Confusion
LOL You certainly are confused piglet
> It gives me great heartburn
> to call this court to order
>the Semi-Honorable Judge J. P. Pigglesworth, presiding
>
>
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Heller hurts, doesn't it weasel. Take some Tylenol and cover your head
with a pillow....
Point Proven!!!
snip weasel garbage
The Lone Weasel
Heller wasn't granted the privilege of registering his semi-
auto pistol - but when Heller asked nicely to register his
revolver he was permitted to do so.
That's what your Second Amendment gun right does, eh
Shillbillie? I see nothing wrong with banning semi-autos
while permitting revolvers...
And neither do you, eh Snuffy Smith?
That's a good lil gunloon...
POINT PROVEN!
The Lone Weasel
>>>>>>>>>>> le -00 00 000 00176> , D-Ill., objected, calling
Okay Shillbert: just tell us a few new gun rights you have
that you don't already have under state law.
And these new gun rights will apply across the nation in every
state thanks to the Supremcay Clause.
So what are those new gun rights that you are now exercising
in Missouri.
Take your time.
>>many Federal lands open to the public are "off-limits"
>>>without good reason.
>>
>> Maybe because hikers and vacationing families have a right
>> not to be slaughtered by idiotic gunloons like you, Mr.
>> Yankit.
>
>weasel with no repsonse resorts to insults.
You have no right to endanger citizens with your revolver.
>>>Yet i am still vulnerable there to
>>>predators both 2 legged and 4 legged.
>>
>> Cows and Robin Red-Breasts are more afraid of you than you
>> are of them. Just leave them alone.
>
>LOL poor little weasel. Heller hurts you, dioesn't it?
Scalia's opinion in DC v. Heller is the best thing that's
happened to reasonable gun control - and the worst thing
that's happened to the NRA - in decades.
For other constitutional reasons I believe Scalia should be
impeached and barred from ever serving as a judge again.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Silly boy - no need. The 2A was written to protect my individual
right. That is what the SC also said.
Point Proven!!!!
snip weasels little yemper tantrum
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
LOL The only point proven is that there are still anti-freedom loons
such as you.
Keep dancing weasel. Complain about my indivdual right....
LOL
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:10:54 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>No one in the public sector has need of automatic weapons of any kind.
>
>Single shots and rifles should work just fine.
Of course not!! Hitler, Stalin and Mao agree with you!!!
>
> By the power vested to me by the
> State of Confusion
The Lone Weasel
>>>>>>>>>>>> il e-
Tell us how your fake Second Amendment right lets you do
anything your state gun rights don't let you do...
Still waiting, Shillbillie. None of you idiot gunloons can
think of a single new gun right granted by Scalia.
There's a good reason for that. So what is it?
The Lone Weasel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fi le -00 00 000 00176> , D-Ill., objected,
So you should have no trouble just naming a new gun right of
yours under the Second Amendment that does not exist under
state law, eh sucker?
I can name several gun control regulations that are now
undoubtedly constitutional when the NRA claimed for decades
that they were unconstitutional.
1. Bans on CCW are constitutional.
2. Bans on strange and unusual (aka military) weapons like .50
sniper rifles are constitutional.
3. Licensing and registration of guns and gun owners is
absolutely constitutional.
4. Requirements that all gun transactions must get background
checks including private transactions of any kind are
constitutional.
Those are just the obvious wins for reasonable gun control
supporters. Now tell us some of the new gun rights you won in
DC v. Heller, gun rights that your own state does not provide.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip garbage
>>
>> Silly boy - no need. The 2A was written to protect my
>> individual right. That is what the SC also said.
>
>So you should have no trouble just naming a new gun right of
>yours under the Second Amendment that does not exist under
>state law, eh sucker?
LOL Heller wasn't about a new law, weasel moron.
It ended an unconstitutional law.
Point Proven!!!!!
snip
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>>
>>LOL The only point proven is that there are still
>>anti-freedom loons such as you.
>>
>>Keep dancing weasel. Complain about my indivdual right....
>
>Tell us how your fake Second Amendment right lets you do
>anything your state gun rights don't let you do...
It wasn't about a "new law"; Heller ended an unconsitutional law
weaselmoron. Do try to use your limited mental capacity to stay
focused.....
Point Proven
snip
The Lone Weasel
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:20:33 -0500, The Lone Weasel
> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>>>
>>>LOL The only point proven is that there are still
>>>anti-freedom loons such as you.
>>>
>>>Keep dancing weasel. Complain about my indivdual right....
>>
>> Tell us how your fake Second Amendment right lets you do
>> anything your state gun rights don't let you do...
>
>It wasn't about a "new law"; Heller ended an
>unconsitutional law weaselmoron.
Then how can DC ban semi-auto pistols and register revolvers,
Nillbillie?
The Lone Weasel
IF DC'S GUN LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL HOW CAN DC DENY
REGISTRATION OF SEMI-AUTO PISTOLS?
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
RD (The Sandman)
news:0njge45mdf44kosf4...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:10:54 -0500, The Lone Weasel
> No one in the public sector has need of automatic weapons of any kind.
Automatic weapons have been controlled since 1934, Snuffy..
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Be who you are and say what you feel...Because those that
matter...don't mind...And those that mind...don't matter."
heekster
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Short answer is that you are incoherent, ignorant, and stark raving
insane.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:33:08 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip garbage
>>>>
>>>> Silly boy - no need. The 2A was written to protect my
>>>> individual right. That is what the SC also said.
>>>
>>>So you should have no trouble just naming a new gun right
>>>of yours under the Second Amendment that does not exist
>>>under state law, eh sucker?
>>
>> LOL Heller wasn't about a new law, weasel moron.
>>
>> It ended an unconstitutional law.
>
>IF DC'S GUN LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL HOW CAN DC DENY
>REGISTRATION OF SEMI-AUTO PISTOLS?
>
>ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Because they are trying to circumvenbt the SC - just as you advocate.
There are always bigoted fascists around - it is a perpetual battle to
protect freedom, weasel. That's why I slap you around so much.
Just go with Heller and be happy!
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:20:33 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>>
>>>>LOL The only point proven is that there are still
>>>>anti-freedom loons such as you.
>>>>
>>>>Keep dancing weasel. Complain about my indivdual right....
>>>
>>> Tell us how your fake Second Amendment right lets you do
>>> anything your state gun rights don't let you do...
>>
>>It wasn't about a "new law"; Heller ended an
>>unconsitutional law weaselmoron.
>
>Then how can DC ban semi-auto pistols and register revolvers,
>Nillbillie?
because they - like you - are still against freedom.
RD (The Sandman)
> Much to the chegrin if the gun pushers.
I assume you are having trouble typing.......
> I'm making an observation, whether they're controlled or not.
> They don't belong in the hands of the public.
Makes a difference which members of the public that is. In any case, it
is out of your hands.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:35:23 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> The Court does not recognize the little person with the overly large
> ego.
Which is why it is out of your hands. ;)
The Lone Weasel
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:43:44 -0500, The Lone Weasel
> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:33:08 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>>> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip garbage
>>>>>
>>>>> Silly boy - no need. The 2A was written to protect my
>>>>> individual right. That is what the SC also said.
>>>>
>>>>So you should have no trouble just naming a new gun right
>>>>of yours under the Second Amendment that does not exist
>>>>under state law, eh sucker?
>>>
>>> LOL Heller wasn't about a new law, weasel moron.
>>>
>>> It ended an unconstitutional law.
>>
>>IF DC'S GUN LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL HOW CAN DC DENY
>>REGISTRATION OF SEMI-AUTO PISTOLS?
>>
>>ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>
> Because they are trying to circumvenbt the SC
Where did Scalia say that banning semi-auto pistols was
unconstitutional when you can have revolvers?
Grow up Nillbillie.
The Lone Weasel
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:42:04 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> The witness will speak when spoken to or be held in contempt.
> He will be put into a temporary holding cell for 3 days until his
> behavior improves. And THAT is in this Court's hands! ;)
Oh, well, good thing that judgeships aren't as easy to get as simply
entering it on the internet.
Scout
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a9fie4h8n9ls15r1k...@4ax.com...
Who knows, in time we may even have to call in the National Guard to enforce
the ruling........just like we had to do with Brown vs. Board of Education.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:43:44 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:33:08 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>>>> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip garbage
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Silly boy - no need. The 2A was written to protect my
>>>>>> individual right. That is what the SC also said.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you should have no trouble just naming a new gun right
>>>>>of yours under the Second Amendment that does not exist
>>>>>under state law, eh sucker?
>>>>
>>>> LOL Heller wasn't about a new law, weasel moron.
>>>>
>>>> It ended an unconstitutional law.
>>>
>>>IF DC'S GUN LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL HOW CAN DC DENY
>>>REGISTRATION OF SEMI-AUTO PISTOLS?
>>>
>>>ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>>
>> Because they are trying to circumvenbt the SC
>
>Where did Scalia say that banning semi-auto pistols was
>unconstitutional when you can have revolvers?
He didn't need to, weaseldummy.
>
>Grow up Nillbillie.
Heller hurts, dosn't it? Grow up and deal with it.
And, as noted, I have a protected individual right to be armed.
Point Proven!!!
The Lone Weasel
The Lone Weasel
We don't need the National Guard, you're already conforming to
state gun regulations and you don't have any enforceable gun
rights under the Second Amendment, Tom W. "Snout" Glaser.
> just like we had to do
> with Brown vs. Board of Education.
Your state gun rights aren't divided between any advantaged
and disadvantaged gunloons. All Floridians have the same gun
rights unless they commit a felony and lose the right to have
guns. Does that apply to you, Mr. Glaser?
And besides, you can't identify any supposed Second Amendment
gun rights you can't get under state law. Further, you're an
unamerican slob for pissing on the well-regulated militia -
the National Guard - just to promote an extreme rightwing
agenda that has nothing to do with gun rights.
tankfixer
thelon...@yahoo.com says...
They can't, for long.
--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sadly for you, the SC disagrees.
Point Proven!!
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said:
>
>>
>> <ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:a9fie4h8n9ls15r1k...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:33:15 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>>> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ozark...@yahoo.com said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:20:33 -0500, The Lone Weasel
>>>>> <thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>LOL The only point proven is that there are still
>>>>>>>anti-freedom loons such as you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Keep dancing weasel. Complain about my indivdual
>>>>>>>right....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell us how your fake Second Amendment right lets you
>>>>>> do anything your state gun rights don't let you do...
>>>>>
>>>>>It wasn't about a "new law"; Heller ended an
>>>>>unconsitutional law weaselmoron.
>>>>
>>>>Then how can DC ban semi-auto pistols and register
>>>>revolvers, Nillbillie?
>>>
>>> because they - like you - are still against freedom.
>>
>> Who knows, in time we may even have to call in the National
>> Guard to enforce the ruling........
>
>We don't need the National Guard
Sometimes you do - remember Little Rock?
snip weasel pointless rambling
Scout
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9taje45c24jooc8ni...@4ax.com...
and Congress disagrees
Point Proven!!!
and the Attorney General disagrees
Point Proven!!
Looks like all 3 branches of the federal government agree that the 2nd
Amendment protects the individual right for a person to be armed.
Seems the only point Lee can make is that is NEVER going to be able to read
and understand the English language and can never be bothered to verify his
facts before making BS assertions.
The Lone Weasel
This is the federal government that gave us The attempt to
legalize torture, infringements of Fourth Amendment rights by
the millions, the ultra-politicization of US Attorneys and the
economic collapse we're enjoying right now, and the phoney war
in Iraq based on a pack of goddamn lies vigorously spread by
the Vice-President in charge of spending 10 billion dollars a
month and sending more than 4 thousand US troops to their
deaths, or life-long physical disabilities with attempts by
your heroes to cut off medical and financial support to these
troops, YOUR HEROES - eh Mr. Glaser?
You're a pig, Tom W. "Snout" Glaser, rolling in your own shit.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
LOL And he is dead right.
Deal with it.
Point Proven!!!!!!
Scout
<ozark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:08kle4dlqipcnm1ob...@4ax.com...
I was also right in the part Lee snipped out too...
"Seems the only point Lee can make is that is NEVER going to be able to read
and understand the English language and can never be bothered to verify his
facts before making BS assertions."
After all, he has yet to manage to understand that I'm not a Mr. Glaser,
don't live in Florida, and the only 'evidence' he has is his opinion that an
editorial written by Mr. Glaser sounds like something I would write.
Yea, with that sort of thoughtful, carefully research and well documented
proof is it any wonder that people question the validity of his assertions?
The Lone Weasel
"yeah" "researched"
> well documented proof is it any wonder that people question
"well-documented"
> the validity of his assertions?
I just told you what the Founders said. It's the Founders you
hate, Tom W. "Snout" Glaser...
"The Chittering Chitterling"...
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
The Lone Weasel
"he"
> is NEVER going
> to be able to read and understand the English language and
> can never be bothered to verify his facts before making BS
"BA"
> assertions."
>
> After all, he has yet to manage to understand that I'm not
> a Mr. Glaser, don't live in Florida, and the only
> 'evidence' he has is his opinion that an editorial written
> by Mr. Glaser sounds like something I would write.
Why do you say - "SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING I WOULD WRITE" - Tom
W. SNOUT Glaser?
Because YOU heard the words AS YOU MUTTERED THEM IN THE ACT OF
WRITING that idiotic editorial.
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<thelon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Another protection for our individual right to bear arms.
Deal with it.
Point Proven!!!!!!
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The government giveth...
> the government taketh away...
>
>
>now they taketh your money and life savings!
They haven't piglet.
All you seem to have is lies, piggy
>
>How will you gun fix that? LOL!!!
>
>Dang, you've been had!
Nope, sorry. Thanks for playing.
>
>
> Eu gosto muito do preto POTUS
> que ele próprio chama Obama
>
> The Semi-Honorable Judge J. P. Pigglesworth, presiding
>
>
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The government giveth...
>>> the government taketh away...
>>>
>>>
>>>now they taketh your money and life savings!
>>
>>They haven't piglet.
>>
>>All you seem to have is lies, piggy
>>
>
>Maybe you'd better wake up loser. Banks and financial institutions
>going broke and you don't see it. That's ok.
Yep - it is. They gambled and lost. Now they are being rewarded for
bad behavior.
>Let it be a surprise for you.
No surprise piglet. Things always go in cycles.
Heck, you are an excellent example. You go from stupid to more stupid
- then back to just stupid again.
Go back to your TV set piglet.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:31:23 GMT, ozark...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:43:03 -0700, Judge J. P. Pigglesworth
>><gree...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The government giveth...
>>>>> the government taketh away...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>now they taketh your money and life savings!
>>>>
>>>>They haven't piglet.
>>>>
>>>>All you seem to have is lies, piggy
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe you'd better wake up loser. Banks and financial institutions
>>>going broke and you don't see it. That's ok.
>>
>>Yep - it is. They gambled and lost. Now they are being rewarded for
>>bad behavior.
>>
>>
>>>Let it be a surprise for you.
>>
>>No surprise piglet. Things always go in cycles.
>>
>>Heck, you are an excellent example. You go from stupid to more stupid
>>- then back to just stupid again.
>>
>>Go back to your TV set piglet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>The Court has you on trial for being mentally retarded. It is your
>responsiblity to prove that you're not. You will speak when
>addressed!
LOL The court has been soundly spanked and shown to be a fool.
I will speak when I choose, piglet.
ozark...@yahoo.com
<albri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You do not give direction in this Court!
I just did piglet.
>You have been shown as a
>criminal gun pusher
No I haven't.
> who is petrified at the outcome of the election.
LOL hardly
>You will contain yourself BOY!
My goodness, piglet; resorting to a racial slur? What would your
demi-god think of that!!!