Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronic Schematics (alt.binaries.schematics.electronic) A place to show and share your electronics schematic drawings. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
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!" |
#2
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#4
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
Posted to alt.binaries.schematics.electronic
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Strange Insurance Ruling | UK diy | |||
Can't get good ruling on phone line grounds | Home Repair | |||
Rayburn Supreme Enamel | UK diy | |||
Supreme Court decision on jury awards and attourny fees | Metalworking | |||
Canada wins NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber | Woodworking |