Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

me wrote:

"Bob Eld" wrote in
t:


"flipper" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:27:15 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not simi
auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not that I
care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see this
CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment as
they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the first,
fourth and fifth, just the second!



Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of the
art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.


--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Software Engineering is like looking for a black cat in a dark room.
Systems Engineering is like looking for a black cat in a dark room
in which there is no cat.
Knowledge Engineering is like looking for a black cat in a dark room
in which there is no cat and somebody yells, "I got it!"

Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

me wrote:
"Bob Eld" wrote
"flipper" wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not simi
auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not that I
care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see this
CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment as
they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the first,
fourth and fifth, just the second!

Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of the
art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.

Personal phasers ?

Graham

Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:15:27 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Gave us:

me wrote:

"Bob Eld" wrote in
t:


"flipper" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:27:15 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not simi
auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not that I
care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see this
CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment as
they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the first,
fourth and fifth, just the second!



Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of the
art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.


Damn! You actually got something right!

Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:30:03 +0000, Eeyore
Gave us:



"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

me wrote:
"Bob Eld" wrote
"flipper" wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not simi
auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not that I
care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see this
CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment as
they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the first,
fourth and fifth, just the second!

Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of the
art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.

Personal phasers ?

If I made one, I'd carry it.

Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:50:35 -0600, flipper Gave
us:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:30:03 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

me wrote:
"Bob Eld" wrote
"flipper" wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not simi
auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not that I
care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see this
CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment as
they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the first,
fourth and fifth, just the second!

Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of the
art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.

Personal phasers ?

A stun setting would be a heck of an improvement, doncha think?


The best close quarters, non-lethal weapon man could ever devise
would be a good curare dart gun.

Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

flipper wrote:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:30:03 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

me wrote:
"Bob Eld" wrote
"flipper" wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not simi
auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not that I
care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see this
CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment as
they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the first,
fourth and fifth, just the second!

Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of the
art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.

Personal phasers ?

A stun setting would be a heck of an improvement, doncha think?


Graham


Who would notice the difference with the Donkey?


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

Eeyore wrote:



"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

me wrote:
"Bob Eld" wrote
"flipper" wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not simi
auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not that I
care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see this
CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment as
they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the first,
fourth and fifth, just the second!

Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of the
art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.

Personal phasers ?

Graham

And exactly how is that any less deadly than a blunderbus?

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

flipper wrote:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:30:03 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:

me wrote:
"Bob Eld" wrote
"flipper" wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

In a ruling today, with regard to gun-restrictive laws in DC, The
Court said that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right for
INDIVIDUALS to bear arms ;-)

Read it and weep, liberal ****.

...Jim Thompson

Funny how everyone knew that for 200 years till the left magically
'discovered' that the founding fathers didn't know what they wrote.

That's bull ****, of course. The founding fathers were writing about
flint locks, match locks and other single shot muzzle loaders not
simi auto nine mm pistols or any other kind of modern weapon. Not
that I care, I have many guns but just to make a point. Now lets see
this CONservative court pay as much attention to the fourth amendment
as they just did to the second. Oh I forgot, cons don't like the
first, fourth and fifth, just the second!

Nonsense. They were writing about the (then) most modern, state of
the art firearms. The deadliest technology ever seen.

Yep. Furthermore, at about that time, the rifled musket was just
becoming available. So they surely were familiar with the concept that
what they were writing into law would have to apply to future and far
deadlier technologies.

Personal phasers ?

A stun setting would be a heck of an improvement, doncha think?


Graham

I thought that is what tasers were for. Mostly non-lethal, normally quite
incapacitating (except for someone high on PCP).

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller

Supreme Court Ruling Today
 

joseph2k wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Personal phasers ?

And exactly how is that any less deadly than a blunderbus?

Did I say it wasn't ?

Graham