Don't vote for John McCain!!!
Darrell
It is sometimes said that the road to hell is paved with good
intentions. And, I'm sure that McCain has good intentions in
calling for campaign finance reform. Afterall, big money causes
corruption, right?
Wrong! The cause of corruption is our bloated, do-it-all
government. But, more important, the result of campaign finance
reform is to limit the right of all Americans to free speech.
Yes, a person would still be able to stand on the corner and
proselytize. But saying that a person cannot pay the candidate
of his choice to get his message across is fundamentally to limit
that person's right to free speech. Not to mention the right to
dispose of his property as he or she sees fit.
Once the government begins funding elections, do you think that
people with "politically incorrect" views will be able to run a
campaign? The powers that be will find some way of denying that
person funding. Big brother will truly control who can or cannot
be elected. This is the road to hell. No libertarian or
independent should vote for McCain.
And what will the practical result be in the short run? Campaign
finance reform will hurt the Republican Party. Republicans have
always made up for their lack of appeal to the jealous masses
with superior fundraising ability.
Some libertarians and independents might rejoice at the prospect
of harming the Republicans. Afterall, the Republican party is
hardly libertarian. But who is naive enough to believe that the
support lost by the Republican Party will shift to the
Libertarian Party? It won't. You know it won't. The balance of
power will shift to the Democrats and their big government,
socialist, distribute the wealth, policies and programs. We will
feel the pinch in the pocketbook long before we realize that it
is our fundamental freedoms that have been lost.
If you believe in the right of free speech. If you care at all
about property rights. Don't vote for McCain!
Please help me get this message out. Feel free to copy it
wherever you want. Send it to the newspapers. Copy it to the
news groups. Send it to the talk show hosts. We need to get the
message out before it is too late. Bush cannot win if only
Republicans vote for him. It is time for the independents and
libertarians to wake up and realize that Bush is far closer to
being their friend than McCain ever was.
Darrell
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
BretCahill
Message-id: <39331a4c...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com> writes:
>To all freedom loving people,
You're obviously confused. You are on the
wrong newsgroup.
Libertopists don't know what freedom is.
>It is sometimes said that the road to hell is paved with good
>intentions.
That doesn't mean the road to heaven is
paved with bad intentions.
> And, I'm sure that McCain has good intentions in
>calling for campaign finance reform.
True.
>Afterall, big money causes
>corruption, right?
Wrong.
>Wrong!
That's what I just said.
>The cause of corruption is our bloated, do-it-all
>government.
No, it's censorship of economic
information, ignorance if rights.
It's GOP bottom chumming.
>But, more important, the result of campaign finance
>reform is to limit the right of all Americans to free speech.
No, to limit the spam of monied interests.
>Yes, a person would still be able to stand on the corner and
>proselytize.
Good enough for me.
Next issue?
> But saying that a person cannot pay the candidate
>of his choice to get his message across is fundamentally to limit
>that person's right to free speech.
Spam ain't free speech.
> Not to mention the right to
>dispose of his property as he or she sees fit.
I wouldn't mention it either because there
is no right to do that.
>Once the government begins funding elections, do you think that
>people with "politically incorrect" views will be able to run a
>campaign?
Yes.
> The powers that be will find some way of denying that
>person funding.
But is he's not pc, he won't get funding
anyway.
> Big brother will truly control who can or cannot
>be elected.
Is this worse than the rich controlling it?
> This is the road to hell. No libertarian or
>independent should vote for McCain.
He's better than the establishment statist
quo candidates.
>And what will the practical result be in the short run?
The GOP cabal get's hopping mad.
>Campaign
>finance reform will hurt the Republican Party.
Why can't the GOP go bottom fishing with
the same dough as everyone else?
>Republicans have
>always made up for their lack of appeal to the jealous masses
>with superior fundraising ability.
(The rich dumb down the wage slaves.)
>Some libertarians and independents might rejoice at the prospect
>of harming the Republicans.
Answer one question: Who is worse?
Al Gore or John McCain?
> Afterall, the Republican party is
>hardly libertarian.
Which is why we can all rejoice that's it's
going onto the ash heap of history.
> But who is naive enough to believe that the
>support lost by the Republican Party will shift to the
>Libertarian Party? It won't.
The LP wasn't even successful at getting
the protest vote which went to Perot.
> You know it won't.
True.
> The balance of
>power will shift to the Democrats and their big government,
>socialist, distribute the wealth, policies and programs.
This would happen with out without John
McCain.
>We will
>feel the pinch in the pocketbook long before we realize that it
>is our fundamental freedoms that have been lost.
Because of GOP bottom fishing.
>If you believe in the right of free speech. If you care at all
>about property rights. Don't vote for McCain!
DO vote for McCain. Bush has already
come out against free speech.
>Please help me get this message out. Feel free to copy it
>wherever you want. Send it to the newspapers. Copy it to the
>news groups. Send it to the talk show hosts. We need to get the
>message out before it is too late. Bush cannot win if only
>Republicans vote for him.
Then he cannot win.
> It is time for the independents and
>libertarians to wake up and realize that Bush is far closer to
>being their friend than McCain ever was.
Bush is only a friend of deep pockets.
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
Highlander
BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000224215618...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> Darrell <darrell.r.ho...@lmco.com.invalid> in
> Message-id: <39331a4c...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com> writes:
>
> >To all freedom loving people,
>
> You're obviously confused. You are on the
> wrong newsgroup.
>
> Libertopists don't know what freedom is.
>
That doesn't mean they don't love it.
> >It is sometimes said that the road to hell is paved with good
> >intentions.
>
> That doesn't mean the road to heaven is
> paved with bad intentions.
>
> > And, I'm sure that McCain has good intentions in
> >calling for campaign finance reform.
>
> True.
>
> >Afterall, big money causes
> >corruption, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> >Wrong!
>
> That's what I just said.
>
> >The cause of corruption is our bloated, do-it-all
> >government.
>
> No, it's censorship of economic
> information, ignorance if rights.
>
Well, the bloated government enables censorship of information, and perhaps
it got bloated from big money, and it won't un-bloat if the milk is still
flowing.
> It's GOP bottom chumming.
>
GOP bottom chumming at places like Bob Jones U. has nothing to do with it.
> >But, more important, the result of campaign finance
> >reform is to limit the right of all Americans to free speech.
>
> No, to limit the spam of monied interests.
>
Bretts right, anyone who gives money to both parties is not interested in
their speech. If they were, they would give more money to third parties,
they don't because those parties don't get elected, and don't do anything in
government - and they get no money from special interests.
> >Yes, a person would still be able to stand on the corner and
> >proselytize.
>
> Good enough for me.
>
> Next issue?
>
> > But saying that a person cannot pay the candidate
> >of his choice to get his message across is fundamentally to limit
> >that person's right to free speech.
>
> Spam ain't free speech.
>
It hurts me to say it, Bretts correct
> > Not to mention the right to
> >dispose of his property as he or she sees fit.
>
> I wouldn't mention it either because there
> is no right to do that.
>
> >Once the government begins funding elections, do you think that
> >people with "politically incorrect" views will be able to run a
> >campaign?
>
> Yes.
>
> > The powers that be will find some way of denying that
> >person funding.
>
Er, they already have, what do you think matching funds are ?? What about
denying every candidates participation in a debate ?
> But is he's not pc, he won't get funding
> anyway.
>
> > Big brother will truly control who can or cannot
> >be elected.
>
> Is this worse than the rich controlling it?
>
Are you saying those things are not happening now ?
> > This is the road to hell. No libertarian or
> >independent should vote for McCain.
>
> He's better than the establishment statist
> quo candidates.
>
Campaign Finance reform is the only way libertarians can hope to compete in
elections, While the idea of government matching funds is clearly not
consistent with libertarian principles, it is arguable that campaign finance
laws are not inconsistent. If someone is conspiring to commit fraud, or
bribery, it initiates force. Are you naive enought to believe that the
multinationals donate to both parties because they want to see a good TV
debate and lots of high quality commercials ?
> >And what will the practical result be in the short run?
>
> The GOP cabal get's hopping mad.
>
> >Campaign
> >finance reform will hurt the Republican Party.
>
Good, and help libertarians
> >Some libertarians and independents might rejoice at the prospect
> >of harming the Republicans.
>
Yes - but the Dems will be harmed too, Bush is wrong when he says it hurts
republicans worse.
> Answer one question: Who is worse?
>
> Al Gore or John McCain?
>
easy, Al Gore
> > But who is naive enough to believe that the
> >support lost by the Republican Party will shift to the
> >Libertarian Party? It won't.
Depends, Lets look at a case in point - where did the independents go in
Minnesota ??
They'll go to other moderate conservative, candidates, liberal on social
issues, Conservative on economic issues, with some decent name recognition.
Jackson Harvey
> Libertopists don't know what freedom is.
Who cares? Libertopists exist only in your imagination.
> > Not to mention the right to
> >dispose of his property as he or she sees fit.
>
> I wouldn't mention it either because there
> is no right to do that.
You do not believe people have a right to own property? Ownership is
control.
> > The powers that be will find some way of denying that
> >person funding.
>
> But is he's not pc, he won't get funding
> anyway.
Nonsense. PC means agreeing with the majority. Many people who espouse
views that the majority do not agree with get funding, and even win
elections.
> > Big brother will truly control who can or cannot
> >be elected.
>
> Is this worse than the rich controlling it?
Yes, much worse. Government acts by force.
> Answer one question: Who is worse?
>
> Al Gore or John McCain?
Worse how? They are both statists. They both mean well, and probably
both believe they are the best choice for President. They both seem to
be decent men, with some flaws, just like the rest of us. They both
would violate our rights.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
BretCahill
Message-id: <K_xt4.1038$sE3.1...@news.sgi.net> writes:
>
>
>BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000224215618...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
>> Darrell <darrell.r.ho...@lmco.com.invalid> in
>> Message-id: <39331a4c...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com> writes:
. . .
>> >The cause of corruption is our bloated, do-it-all
>> >government.
>> No, it's censorship of economic
>> information, ignorance if rights.
>Well, the bloated government enables censorship of information,
You're confusing cause and effect.
Free speech is *always* a precondition to
any solution to any problem.
This truth is self evident.
. . .
>> >But, more important, the result of campaign finance
>> >reform is to limit the right of all Americans to free speech.
>>
>> No, to limit the spam of monied interests.
>Bretts right, anyone who gives money to both parties is not interested in
>their speech.
This is all I've been saying the entire
time I've been on Usenet.
Why don't you help me beat this into the
pea brains of libertopists?
. . .
>> Spam ain't free speech.
>It hurts me to say it, Bretts correct
Still, it seems to protected under the
1st amend.
Goebbels was correct that if a lie is
spammed enough, the people will believe
it IF no one contradicts it.
The difference between Nazi Germany
and the U. S. despotism today is that
the Nazis would actually shoot you if
you stood up and contradicted their lies.
Here they just try to call you a right wing
conspiracy theorist.
. . .
>> > Big brother will truly control who can or cannot
>> >be elected.
>> Is this worse than the rich controlling it?
>Are you saying those things are not happening now ?
I'm saying both are happening now. The
rich ARE Big Brother.
Libertopists are too dumb to figger it out.
>> > This is the road to hell. No libertarian or
>> >independent should vote for McCain.
>> He's better than the establishment statist
>> quo candidates.
>Campaign Finance reform is the only way libertarians can hope to compete in
>elections,
Depends on what you mean by compete
in elections.
As both Jefferson and Detocqueville
pointed out you can have at most, only
two political parties, one for the statist
quo and one for liberty.
A third party will never be able to make a
difference.
But this doesn't mean libertarians cannot
compete, even without finance reform.
Nowdays it's the guy with the ideas who
wins, not the guy with the money.
The internet changes a lot of things but the
biggest changes of all are political.
. . .
> Are you naive enought to believe that the
>multinationals donate to both parties because they want to see a good TV
>debate and lots of high quality commercials ?
Libertopists are, or pretend to be, the
most naive people on earth.
. . .
>> >Campaign
>> >finance reform will hurt the Republican Party.
>Good, and help libertarians
Rockefeller Republicans are already
swarming out of the woodwork.
>> >Some libertarians and independents might rejoice at the prospect
>> >of harming the Republicans.
>Yes - but the Dems will be harmed too, Bush is wrong when he says it hurts
>republicans worse.
Hurts the Gipper saluting GOP cabal, but
they are on the ash heap of history
anyway.
In the short term it may help the Dems.
Al Gore is the next president, no matter
what.
It will be pretty interesting or even funny
because Gore isn't even a politician.
. . .
>Depends, Lets look at a case in point - where did the independents go in
>Minnesota ??
Some guy who no longer has a political
party and hasn't been won over by the LP.
BretCahill
Message-id: <38B6F922...@tc.umn.edu>
. . .
>You do not believe people have a right to own property? Ownership is
>control.
The government pretty much controls any
property it wants.
Visit the real libertarians:
Jackson Harvey
> Free speech is *always* a precondition to
> any solution to any problem.
Nonsense. Many problems are solved without free speech.
> I'm saying both are happening now. The
> rich ARE Big Brother.
>
> Libertopists are too dumb to figger it out.
No-one cares about your imaginary friends.
> Libertopists are, or pretend to be, the
> most naive people on earth.
Again, no-one cares about your imaginary friends.
> Al Gore is the next president, no matter
> what.
I will remember this prediction. Right or wrong, I will remind you of this.
> It will be pretty interesting or even funny
> because Gore isn't even a politician.
In what way is Gore not a politician?
> >Depends, Lets look at a case in point - where did the independents go in
> >Minnesota ??
>
> Some guy who no longer has a political
> party and hasn't been won over by the LP.
I hope you are not suggesting that Ventura is a libertarian? It seems that
being a libertarian should precede becoming a Libertarian (LP party member).
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
> >You do not believe people have a right to own property? Ownership is
> >control.
>
> The government pretty much controls any
> property it wants.
I should have been more precise. Ownership is the right to control. The
government has no right to control things I own (by definition). When
they attempt to do so, they are violating my rights.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
David Carrell
<20000301094245...@ng-bh1.aol.com>:
The same ones who say "Law-abiding individuals should have the
right to own hand-held weapons, including rifles and pistols."
And they also say, "A central reason the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms is to protect citizens
against the possibility of their government becoming undemocratic or
oppressive, and committing crimes, such as bursting into innocent
peoples' homes. The Second Amendment also provides a further check
against abuse of federal government power..."
Wow Bret, those positions seem to be very much aligned with the very
ones you have argued against repeatedly in this forum.
DAC
--
speaking only for me
______________________________________________________________
Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
BretCahill
Message-id: <8EEBDFC4...@news1.uncensored-news.com> writes:
>
>BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in
><20000301094245...@ng-bh1.aol.com>:
>>
>>Visit the real libertarians:
>>
>>http://www.progress.org/dfc/
>>
>
>The same ones who say "Law-abiding individuals should have the
>right to own hand-held weapons, including rifles and pistols."
>
>And they also say, "A central reason the Second Amendment to the U.S.
>Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms is to protect citizens
>against the possibility of their government becoming undemocratic or
>oppressive, and committing crimes, such as bursting into innocent
>peoples' homes. The Second Amendment also provides a further check
>against abuse of federal government power..."
>Wow Bret, those positions seem to be very much aligned with the very
>ones you have argued against repeatedly in this forum.
How do you know what my positions are?
I cannot even get libertopists to answer
the first question on my gun wacko test:
Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
wife beaters lose?
Curt Howland
BratCahill wrote:
> I cannot even get libertopists to answer
> the first question on my gun wacko test:
So the voices in your head don't answer? How
very interesting. People, including me, have
answered you repeatedly. Proof that we're not
libertopists.
Curt-
--
"Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.
Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there."
---The Warrior Creed, Robert L. Humphrey, USMC
David Carrell
<20000304102818...@ng-cm1.aol.com>:
>>Wow Bret, those positions seem to be very much aligned with the
>>very ones you have argued against repeatedly in this forum.
>
>How do you know what my positions are?
I can only base my understanding of you positions from your repeated
posts here. Are you now saying that you feel there is an individual
RKBA? Are you also saying that this individual RKBA is a check on
federal power?
Those ARE positions this group believes and supports. And these ARE
positions YOU have argued against in the past, here in this forum. Do
you deny you have argumented against these positions? Do you now
support them?
>
>I cannot even get libertopists to answer
>the first question on my gun wacko test:
I see Bret attempting to divert the issue again/still. Here he brings
in his imaginary friends again.
>
>Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
>wife beaters lose?
First Bret, this is off topic and non-responsive to the subject being
discusses (i.e. Bret's typical dodge.)
Second in threads where this question is/was on topic, my self and
others have answered this question. Wife beaters (as well as other
criminals) do not lose ANY rights but under certain circumstances the
gov't can and does use its POWER to limit certain individuals from the
free exercise of their rights.
BretCahill
Message-id: <8EEEEF7F...@news1.uncensored-news.com> writes:
>
>BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in
><20000304102818...@ng-cm1.aol.com>:
. . .
>>Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
>>wife beaters lose?
>First Bret, this is off topic
Don't dodge the question.
Pat Hines
>
> car...@netcommander.com (David Carrell) in
> Message-id: <8EEEEF7F...@news1.uncensored-news.com> writes:
> >
> >BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in
> ><20000304102818...@ng-cm1.aol.com>:
>
> . . .
>
> >>Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
> >>wife beaters lose?
>
> >First Bret, this is off topic
>
> Don't dodge the question.
They lose no rights.
Jackson Harvey
> The reason they cannot keep and bear
> firearms is because they never had that as a const. right.
Do you claim they never had the right, or just that the right is not
Constitutionally protected? If the right is not Constitutionally
protected, who is "The people" that are referred to in the second
amendment?
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Curt Howland
BratCahill wrote:
> The reason they cannot keep and bear
> firearms is because they never had that as a const. right.
Felons certainly can keep and bear arms. 75%
of the murders in America are committed by
individuals already convicted of felonies.
You're lying again, Brat.
BretCahill
The reason they cannot keep and bear
firearms is because they never had that as a const. right.
Like driving it can be revoked.
Pat Hines
>
> Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> in
> Message-id: <38C72E9D...@home.com> writes:
> >
> >BretCahill wrote:
> >>
> >> car...@netcommander.com (David Carrell) in
> >> Message-id: <8EEEEF7F...@news1.uncensored-news.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in
> >> ><20000304102818...@ng-cm1.aol.com>:
> >>
> >> . . .
> >>
> >> >>Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
> >> >>wife beaters lose?
> >>
> >> >First Bret, this is off topic
> >>
> >> Don't dodge the question.
> >
> > They lose no rights.
>
> The reason they cannot keep and bear
No, they lose access to what ever rights we wish to deprive them of
while their sentence is carried out.
> firearms is because they never had that as a const. right.
Well yes, everyone in America has a right to any arm, just as everyone
does worldwide. In America, the Constitution requires that the
government protect that right.
If, as you say, there was no requirement for government protection of
the intrinsic human civil right to be armed, and that there has never
been such a protected right, just how did all those firearms arrive in
over 50% of private homes all across America, the tooth fairy?
> Like driving it can be revoked.
Actually, the driver's license is on constitutionally shaky ground.
The SCOTUS has ruled that Americans do have a right to travel freely
within the US on the highways.
You don't know much about rights, do you?
Pat Hines
BretCahill
Message-id: <38C87FB0...@tc.umn.edu> writes:
>
>BretCahill wrote:
>
>> The reason they cannot keep and bear
>
>Constitutionally protected?
Just what I said: Individualist ownership of
firearms ain't no constitutional right.
>If the right is not Constitutionally
>protected, who is "The people" that are referred to in the second
>amendment?
The "well regulated militia."
Try reading the entire amendment and you
won't be so confused.
BretCahill
Message-id: <38C88BB0...@home.com> writes:
>
>BretCahill wrote:
>>
>> Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> in
>> Message-id: <38C72E9D...@home.com> writes:
>> >
>> >BretCahill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> car...@netcommander.com (David Carrell) in
>> >> Message-id: <8EEEEF7F...@news1.uncensored-news.com> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in
>> >> ><20000304102818...@ng-cm1.aol.com>:
>> >>
>> >> . . .
>> >>
>> >> >>Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
>> >> >>wife beaters lose?
>> >> >First Bret, this is off topic
>> >> Don't dodge the question.
>> > They lose no rights.
You're still dodging the question:
Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
wife beaters lose?
. . .
>> Like driving it can be revoked.
> Actually, the driver's license is on constitutionally shaky ground.
>The SCOTUS has ruled that Americans do have a right to travel freely
>within the US on the highways.
Not by motorized travel.
You ain't got no book larnin' do you?
BretCahill
Message-id: <38C8A256...@Priss.com> writes:
. . .
>Felons certainly can keep and bear arms. 75%
>of the murders in America are committed by
>individuals already convicted of felonies.
Why do libertopists want to arm criminals?
Jackson Harvey
> >Felons certainly can keep and bear arms. 75%
> >of the murders in America are committed by
> >individuals already convicted of felonies.
>
> Why do libertopists want to arm criminals?
First, libertopists exist only in your head.
Second, you are setting up a straw man. No-one said that they wanted to
arm criminals. The post to which your replied implies that criminals
will be armed whether it is legal or not. It does not imply that it
should be legal for felons to bear arms.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
> >Do you claim they never had the right, or just that the right is not
> >Constitutionally protected?
>
> Just what I said: Individualist ownership of
> firearms ain't no constitutional right.
To quote a prolific poster "Don't do the cowardly dodge." Did felons
never have the right to keep and bear arms, or was their right to keep
and bear arms just not Constitutionally protected? Try to answer the
question this time, please. You could just simply say "the former" or
"the latter" or "both" or "neither."
> >If the right is not Constitutionally
> >protected, who is "The people" that are referred to in the second
> >amendment?
>
> The "well regulated militia."
That is all males, aged 17 to 45.
> Try reading the entire amendment and you
> won't be so confused.
I'm not confused. The people means each and every one of the people.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
> > > > They lose no rights.
>
> You're still dodging the question:
>
> Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
> wife beaters lose?
The poster answered your question.
Rights cannot be lost, or gained.
> You ain't got no book larnin' do you?
That makes a wonderful quote. You claim we have no sense of humor, but I
actually laughed aloud at that sentence.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Curt Howland
BratCahill wrote:
> Why do libertopists want to arm criminals?
Have you asked them?
Pat Hines
>
> Jackson Harvey <harv...@tc.umn.edu> in
> Message-id: <38C87FB0...@tc.umn.edu> writes:
> >
> >BretCahill wrote:
> >
> >> The reason they cannot keep and bear
> >> firearms is because they never had that as a const. right.
> >
> >Constitutionally protected?
>
> Just what I said: Individualist ownership of
> firearms ain't no constitutional right.
"Individualist", taken to mean individual in english, do in fact have
an intrinsic right to keep and bear ANY arm. It's innate to our
existence as humans. The Constitution merely requires the government to
protect that right.
However, the founders, those clever white guys in the late 18th
century, knew full well that in time someone would attempt to thwart
that right. So they wrote a lot of very clear articles which said that
if anyone attempted to take away private, individually owned firearms
these same firearms should be used vigorously to stop that action.
In short, use your rifle to kill the sorry bastards.
> >If the right is not Constitutionally
> >protected, who is "The people" that are referred to in the second
> >amendment?
>
> The "well regulated militia."
The "well regulated militia" is the whole body of the people, and
nothing less.
> Try reading the entire amendment and you
> won't be so confused.
Try learning english, so you won't be confused. Right now, not only
can't you spell, you are confused about commonly understood words and
their meanings, and the Second Amendment.
Bret Cahill is confused.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> BretCahill wrote:
>
> > >Do you claim they never had the right, or just that the right is not
> > >Constitutionally protected?
> >
> > Just what I said: Individualist ownership of
> > firearms ain't no constitutional right.
>
> never have the right to keep and bear arms, or was their right to keep
> and bear arms just not Constitutionally protected? Try to answer the
> question this time, please. You could just simply say "the former" or
> "the latter" or "both" or "neither."
>
> > >protected, who is "The people" that are referred to in the second
> > >amendment?
> >
> > The "well regulated militia."
>
I think you are mixing the law, US Code title 10, section 311 with the
Second Amendment. In the federal law, there are organized and
unorganized militias. Those two groups of militia are a subset of the
well regulated militia mentioned in the Second Amendment which is a
reference to the whole body of the people.
> > Try reading the entire amendment and you
> > won't be so confused.
>
> I'm not confused. The people means each and every one of the people.
Yes, that's correct.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> in
> Message-id: <38C88BB0...@home.com> writes:
> >
> >BretCahill wrote:
> >>
> >> Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> in
> >> Message-id: <38C72E9D...@home.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >BretCahill wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> car...@netcommander.com (David Carrell) in
> >> >> Message-id: <8EEEEF7F...@news1.uncensored-news.com> writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >BretCahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote in
> >> >> ><20000304102818...@ng-cm1.aol.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> . . .
> >> >>
> >> >> >>wife beaters lose?
>
>
> >> >> Don't dodge the question.
>
>
> You're still dodging the question:
>
> Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
> wife beaters lose?
I answered the question, they lose no rights. How much plainer do you
wish to have it said, are you thick?
> . . .
>
> >> Like driving it can be revoked.
>
> > Actually, the driver's license is on constitutionally shaky ground.
> >The SCOTUS has ruled that Americans do have a right to travel freely
> >within the US on the highways.
>
> Not by motorized travel.
Yes, by motorized travel.
> You ain't got no book larnin' do you?
The odds are quite high that I have substantially more "larnin'" than
do you.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> Curt Howland <How...@Priss.com> in
> Message-id: <38C8A256...@Priss.com> writes:
>
> . . .
>
> >of the murders in America are committed by
> >individuals already convicted of felonies.
>
I have no idea what you said or asked in the above.
Try to use complete sentences and ask questions that will clear up the
lack of knowledge so well displayed by your posts.
Pat Hines
Jackson Harvey
> >> The "well regulated militia."
>
> >That is all males, aged 17 to 45.
>
> >> Try reading the entire amendment and you
> >> won't be so confused.
>
> >I'm not confused. The people means each and every one of the people.
>
> Well, which is it? "Each and every one," or just those aged 17 to 45? Only
> males?
>
> You'd better hope that a smart woman doesn't see this, especially one who
> falls outside your coveted age range, because you will *never* be that unhappy
> again.
My answer is perfectly consistent. Legally, the militia is all able-bodied males, aged 17
to 45. The people is each and every individual. Bret believes that the second amendment
protects the right to keep and bear arms only for militia members, while I believe that
the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means
that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If my post
offended any women, I can only assume that I was not clear or that they did not read it
carefully.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
BretCahill
Message-id: <38C9B791...@home.com> writes:
. . .
> In short, use your rifle to kill the sorry bastards.
But does this include wife beaters?
BretCahill
. . .
> In short, use your rifle to kill the sorry bastards.
But gun wackos ain't got no stopping
power to check no feds.
Them evil feds jes camp out at the end of
you driveway for a few weeks with cell
phones and then they cut the juice so
you can't heat the ramen noodles in the
microwave anymore.
Then you guys jes throw down your guns
and come out with your hands HIGH
above your heads.
Seems you Montana Freemen types like
gittin' AIDS in the Greybar Hotel more than
eating cold ramen noodles.
That's why we think you are looney.
If you ever want to cop an insanity plea,
jes let me know. I'll testify on your behalf.
BretCahill
Message-id: <38C9B8F1...@home.com> writes:
>
>BretCahill wrote:
. . .
>> Which rights in the Bill of Rights do all
>> wife beaters lose?
> I answered the question, they lose no rights.
True.
Wife beaters ain't losin' no const. rights
when them feds take away their guns.
Them Gipper appointees done let that law
stand.
Why?
'Cause ain't NO individualist losin' no
const. rights when them feds start gun
grabbing.
Ain't no individualist right to keep and bear
guns written anywhere in the const.
Jackson Harvey
> Ain't no individualist right to keep and bear
> guns written anywhere in the const.
I quote from the second amendment: "the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is obvious that this means that
citizens shall not be prohibited from owning arms. Have you read the
Bill of Rights?
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
> Seems you Montana Freemen types like
> gittin' AIDS in the Greybar Hotel more than
> eating cold ramen noodles.
It seems you are confused regarding in which newsgroup you are posting.
This is talk.politics.libertarian, not talk.politics.gun-nuts, nor
talk.politics.montana-freemen. There are few wackos here of any kind,
although I have noticed a correlation between the frequency of posts by
certain posters and the frequency of posts that would lead some to
believe that the poster needed to seek medical help.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Jackson Harvey
> But you got plenty of libertopic gun
> wacko types here.
No-one who posts here fits your own definition of libertopists. In
addition, no-one fits your own definition of gun nuts. Do you have a
definition of gun wackos? Regardless, by your own definitions, there are no
libertopic gun wackos posting here. You must again be confused regarding to
which group you are posting.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
BretCahill
Message-id: <38CC25A0...@tc.umn.edu> writes
>
>BretCahill wrote:
>
>> Seems you Montana Freemen types like
>> gittin' AIDS in the Greybar Hotel more than
>> eating cold ramen noodles.
>
>It seems you are confused regarding in which newsgroup you are posting.
>This is talk.politics.libertarian, not talk.politics.gun-nuts,
But you got plenty of libertopic gun
wacko types here.
JohnGalt
>Pat Hines <fas...@home.com> in
>Message-id: <38C9B791...@home.com> writes:
>
>. . .
>
>> In short, use your rifle to kill the sorry bastards.
>
>But gun wackos ain't got no stopping
>power to check no feds.
>
>Them evil feds jes camp out at the end of
>you driveway for a few weeks with cell
>phones and then they cut the juice so
>you can't heat the ramen noodles in the
>microwave anymore.
>
>Then you guys jes throw down your guns
>and come out with your hands HIGH
>above your heads.
>
>Seems you Montana Freemen types like
>gittin' AIDS in the Greybar Hotel more than
>eating cold ramen noodles.
>
>That's why we think you are looney.
>
>If you ever want to cop an insanity plea,
>jes let me know. I'll testify on your behalf.
>
I'll put you on the witness list right after Klinton.:>)
>
>Bret Cahill
>
>
>All conservatism is based on censorship of
>economic information.
> -- Bret Cahill
JohnGalt
NRA Life
Libertarian
remove notreet to reply via e-mail