Colin Wilson wrote:
You left out "by other means"
Is there some reason you wish to hide those figures?

I see no reason to bother continuing with your feeble arguments -
your
murder rate is three times higher despite your attempts to say gun
ownership prevents crime.

And what would it be if guns in the US were banned? That's the point
you miss--you assume that if the US had laws similar to those in
whatever workers paradise you inhabit then the homicide rate would
also be similar. But you have no evidence to support that contention.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

raden wrote:
In message , J. Clarke
writes
Uh, you _want_ to get close to someone who is trying to kill you
because?

But by controlled I mean that all guns and ammunition should be
easily
identifiable and the original owner made equally responsible for
their
use or misuse, with no exceptions at all, unless that owner
could
prove that they had sold the gun/ammo to another identifiable
responsible person.
Regrettably at this time that could not happen in any country
where
the law often lets people totally avoid responsibility.
However if it could be achieved the level of gun related
crime/accidents would drop at an amazing rate.

Pie in the sky. Tell us a proven method of accomplishing all
this
"easy identification" that does not create another huge
government
beaurocracy.

Why don't you guys take this discussion to GUNS "R" US?

Hey, ask the stupid Brit that just couldn't resist stirring the
anthill.

I'm sitting here with a beer having a good laugh at you

It's just so easy

So your purpose was to start a debate for your own amusement?

plonk


May as well plonk the newsgroup you rode in on. Hell, I think I'll
plonk the whole uk. heirarchy while I'm about it.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:
willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"willshak" wrote in message

My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.

Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.


G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.


Here in the US it is called a crew cut too.


Careful. There were definite distinctions between any number of short
hair styles. IIRC a buzz cut was shorter than a crewcut, which was shorter
than a butch. The shortest of all was the baldy sour.


Back in the 50's there was a
singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I don't
know if that was by the Crew Cuts


"Sh-Boom"

Right!

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Ed Huntress wrote:

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Wayne was running on about some new bill, H.R. 1022 I think, that the
Democrats from Hell had introduced, which must be something awful.
snip

While I am a life member of the NRA, this is more fund raising
and s**t disturbing.

In most cases a single member in either house can place a "hold"
on a bill. Thus all of the gun legislation was passed with at
least the tacit cooperation of the so-called "pro gun"
legislators.

This again appears to be more punch-n-judy show for the suckers,
er... ah .. campaign contributors and voters.

Not to mention us new members. g

I forgot to mention that the sweet young thing offered me a lifetime
membership at the reduced rate of $700. I told her she'd have to reduce it a
hell of a lot more than that before it was a good deal for me...


"700$" No thanks, I always get more than that. ;-)


--
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

raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes

He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment cult.

We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic


God, are you dense. You don't DESREVE one, either. You let women
rule your country

Better than the retard that runs yours

OK rednecks, I'm bored with you now


You were boring from the moment you stuck your snout into RCM.


--
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

raden wrote:

In message ,
nick hull writes
In article , raden
wrote:

Sport aside, guns are there to kill

Funny thing, disregarding sports and target practice, most of my ammo
expended was for other purposes than killing. Probably have used a gun
as a drill more often than to kill something

Right tool for the right job, eh ?


You're a 'tool' alright.

--
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

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 7, 9:52 pm, Ken wrote:
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

Guy I knew was hanging fascia board on a two story building, no safety
equipment. He fell off and landed on a piece of #4 rebar sticking out
of a masonry footing. The bar went up his rectum. Some idiot ran over
with a cutting torch and started cutting. He stopped, and they used a
cut off wheel on a angle grinder to cut it off. He couldn't walk or
sit for three weeks. Rectum, damn near killed him.

Yow! Couldn't they just, kinda, lift him off? Gently.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?


'British' = your slang.


It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we
made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do not
understand each other

Dave


Look at what the British have done to it in the last 250 years. Talk
about *******izing! You're your own worst ennemy.


--
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

People, people.
It was Bill Brysons book about language that asserted, I don't know with what justification, that the
current US "drawl" is more like the accent used by Elizabethan English - i.e. when the Mayflower set
sail - than the current English accent that comes from a load of Germans, Dutch and Greeks that we
brought over 200 years ago to rule us.
So you guys are actually closer to original English than we, the English, are.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the First Amendment at work. Don't
like it? Then exercise your own rights rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this
thread.


William Noble wrote:

doesn't it amaze you how every thread that might possibly involve an OT subject degenerates into a
pro/anti gun arguement? don't you guys have something better with which to occupy your synapses?
"

True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is
an individual right, not a right belonging to a "well regulated militia" or to members of a
militia.

Even though the Amendment itself limits the right to a "well-regulated militia".

I guess its only a matter of time before someone says "Because the good lord made it so", and we are
then allowed to let this thread die...
'alf a mo'. I just did say it. Can we stop now?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message ...
raden wrote:
In message , J. Clarke
writes
Uh, you _want_ to get close to someone who is trying to kill you
because?

I think his point is that guns can kill at a distance, which makes it easier to reach a state of mind
where shooting someone is desirable, and where it carries less consequences.

Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we
made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do not
understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery, small pox, syphillis
and broken promises just to name a few...

....
Actually, syphilis went from the Americas to Europe in 1493.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Wayne was running on about some new bill, H.R. 1022 I think, that the
Democrats from Hell had introduced, which must be something awful.
snip

While I am a life member of the NRA, this is more fund raising
and s**t disturbing.

In most cases a single member in either house can place a "hold"
on a bill. Thus all of the gun legislation was passed with at
least the tacit cooperation of the so-called "pro gun"
legislators.

This again appears to be more punch-n-judy show for the suckers,
er... ah .. campaign contributors and voters.

Not to mention us new members. g

I forgot to mention that the sweet young thing offered me a lifetime
membership at the reduced rate of $700. I told her she'd have to reduce
it a
hell of a lot more than that before it was a good deal for me...


"700$" No thanks, I always get more than that. ;-)

You're crude. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

nick hull wrote:

| Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF
| THE ABOVE

I can't resist asking...

How much have you actually done to get the qualified candidate of your
choice onto the ballot?

:-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Dave Gordon" d@p wrote in message
...

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it is
generating more interest then anything else going on in this newsgroup
right now. That's the First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then
exercise your own rights rather than try to suppress others, by just
ignoring this thread.


William Noble wrote:

doesn't it amaze you how every thread that might possibly involve an OT
subject degenerates into a pro/anti gun arguement? don't you guys have
something better with which to occupy your synapses?
"

True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms
in the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a right belonging to
a "well regulated militia" or to members of a militia.

Even though the Amendment itself limits the right to a "well-regulated
militia".

I guess its only a matter of time before someone says "Because the good
lord made it so", and we are then allowed to let this thread die...
'alf a mo'. I just did say it. Can we stop now?

Eh, the courts have NOT consistently held that it's an individual right.
Just the opposite, in fact.

However, the issue is up for grabs again. Within this decade two Circuit
Courts of Appeals have reached opposite conclusions on this issue, one that
supports the individual right (Fifth Circuit, United States v. Emerson, 270
F.3d 203) and one that denies it (Ninth Circuit, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312
F.3d 1052). This conflict puts pressure on the Supreme Court to finally
decide the issue, but don't count your chickens. It may be very difficult to
find a test case.

FWIW, the issue has been brewing in the highest reaches of legal theorizing
since the publication, in the Yale Law Review, of Sanford Levinson's
article, "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" (1989). The article is widely
available online for anyone who's interested.

Laurence Tribe (the most famous liberal legal scholar) caused a furor a few
years by swinging, to a large degree, to the individual-rights position. It
is an extremely hot issue in legal scholarship today, part of a broader
turmoil of re-thinking various rights issues.

--
Ed Huntress

But you have no evidence to support that contention.

Nor have you to contend that guns are a panacea to prevent crime -
it's clear the stats prove you wrong.

If you want to carry this on, do it in one newsgroup only - preferably
not uk.d-i-y so I don't get to see the crap you're spouting.

In article om,
Robatoy wrote:

My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.

Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF THE
ABOVE

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

I maintain that a hunter is responsible for where his bullet/shot ends
up - absolutely and without exception. If the trajectory cannot be
known to be safe, the shot must not be fired. In my considered opinion
Cheney demonstrated his inclination to act irresponsibly at a very
fundamental level.

I not only would not hunt with the man - I would be loathe to allow
him to trade control of his shotgun for control of our nuclear
arsenal.

Sorry, Bush already gave Cheney control of all weapons of mass
destruction 5 months before 9/11.

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

willshak wrote:
on 9/12/2007 5:42 PM Dave said the following:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:


John


Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's
there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"



We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff



why would anyone want to brush a swamp?


And you septics claim to understand English ?

--
geoff




We do, whe just don't get 'British'.


'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that
we made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do
not understand each other

Dave


Now Dave, don't get your shorts all knotted up.
The main US language is still English. We both have idioms that the
other does not understand.
We also have a segment that is unintelligible even to us, like you and
your cockney, and that rhyming thing that no one understands.
Besides, you no longer talk like the Pilgrims either. And let's not
mention Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales.
They might as well have been written in German.
When it is important, we speak the same language.

Just testing the waters :-)
Just don't take me serious.

Dave

Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we
made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do not
understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

We also pioneered the abolition of it as well.

small pox, syphillis

You would have got that anyway :-(
It was not just our country that had it

and broken promises just to name a few...

You don't have politicians over there?

And you think thats a good thing?

Not necessarily

Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Dave wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?



'British' = your slang.



It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we
made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do not
understand each other

Dave



Look at what the British have done to it in the last 250 years. Talk
about *******izing! You're your own worst ennemy.

I have to agree with you here, we have taken on far too many Americanisms.

Check out this
Go figure

I could go on, but it is getting late at the world's time line marker :-)

Dave

"Dave Gordon" d@p wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 7, 9:52 pm, Ken wrote:
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

Guy I knew was hanging fascia board on a two story building, no safety
equipment. He fell off and landed on a piece of #4 rebar sticking out
of a masonry footing. The bar went up his rectum. Some idiot ran over
with a cutting torch and started cutting. He stopped, and they used a
cut off wheel on a angle grinder to cut it off. He couldn't walk or
sit for three weeks. Rectum, damn near killed him.

Yow! Couldn't they just, kinda, lift him off? Gently.
First Aid 101- with penetrating wounds, you DON'T remove the foreign
object until the IV is going and the trauma team is right there suited up,
to repair the damage. Take out the cork, the victim tends to bleed out in
minutes.

I think the story is BS, just for the sake of the last line. The odds of
landing 'just so' like that are close to zero. It does raise a valid point,
though- never do high work without proper precautions, including making sure
the space below is clear of nasties. Like if you HAVE to work above exposed
rebar, put plywood or hay bales or SOMETHING over it.

aem sends...

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
nick hull wrote:

| Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF
| THE ABOVE

I can't resist asking...

How much have you actually done to get the qualified candidate of your
choice onto the ballot?

The qualified people Don't Want the job. The only way to get qualified
people for most high government positions would be to draft them. Almost by
definition, if you WANT the position of power, you probably can't be trusted
not to abuse it.

aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote in message
news

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
nick hull wrote:

| Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF
| THE ABOVE

I can't resist asking...

How much have you actually done to get the qualified candidate of your
choice onto the ballot?

The qualified people Don't Want the job. The only way to get qualified
people for most high government positions would be to draft them. Almost
by definition, if you WANT the position of power, you probably can't be
trusted not to abuse it.

As active as this thread is, could you take it to an appropriate group - or
at least change the subject line. Please?

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


F.3d 203) and one that denies it (Ninth Circuit, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312
F.3d 1052). This conflict puts pressure on the Supreme Court to finally
decide the issue, but don't count your chickens. It may be very difficult to
find a test case.

Doesn't look as though the Dudes and Dudettes from the 9th are gonna
lose their title of most overturned circuit any time soon.

In article
,
"aemeijers" wrote:


I think the story is BS, just for the sake of the last line. The odds of
landing 'just so' like that are close to zero. It does raise a valid point,
though- never do high work without proper precautions, including making sure
the space below is clear of nasties. Like if you HAVE to work above exposed
rebar, put plywood or hay bales or SOMETHING over it.

I remember a couple of Emergency's where Gage and DeSoto did similar
stuff. Of course on primetime TV in the 70 it wasn't the same area that
was impaled.

In article
,
"aemeijers" wrote:


The qualified people Don't Want the job. The only way to get qualified
people for most high government positions would be to draft them. Almost by
definition, if you WANT the position of power, you probably can't be trusted
not to abuse it.

aem sends...
So you are a proponent of the Douglas Adams School of Politics, too.

"To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most WANT
to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to it. Anyone who is
capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be
allowed to do the job."

-Doug Adams _The Restaurant at The End of The Universe_

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


F.3d 203) and one that denies it (Ninth Circuit, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312
F.3d 1052). This conflict puts pressure on the Supreme Court to finally
decide the issue, but don't count your chickens. It may be very difficult
to
find a test case.

Doesn't look as though the Dudes and Dudettes from the 9th are gonna
lose their title of most overturned circuit any time soon.

However, keep in mind that the 5th, while it has fewer cases reviewed by the
USSC, had 100% of them overturned in a recent year. I think it was five
cases in one year.

There's no way anyone can anticipate how this one would come out. I'd put my
money on the individual-right interpretation prevailing, but I wouldn't bet
heavily.

--
Ed Huntress

Morris Dovey wrote:

nick hull wrote:

| Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF
| THE ABOVE

I can't resist asking...

How much have you actually done to get the qualified candidate of your
choice onto the ballot?


Or worked to get a crooked politician out of office? (It was easy
after the lawsuit.)


--
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

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"700$" No thanks, I always get more than that. ;-)

You're crude. d8-)


You should hear me tell off telemarketers. ;-)

I had one Heating A/C company call me 35 times in one week, insisting
that I needed their annual inspection service on a central air system.
(I didn't even have a window unit.) This was before the do not call
list.

The last time they called I told them that I had hundreds of retired
friends in town, and if they called me one more time that these people
would take turns tying up all of the company's phone lines with stupid
questions, and calling to have the company send their sales people out
to give estimates, with no intention of spending a dime and promised her
that it would be damn near impossible for a legitimate customer to get
through on their phone lines. She yelled, "That's harassment!" I
laughed and told her, 'Now you know how I feel.'

They never called back. Was it something I said?


--
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

Dave Gordon wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...

Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the First Amendment at work. Don't
like it? Then exercise your own rights rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this
thread.


William Noble wrote:


doesn't it amaze you how every thread that might possibly involve an OT subject degenerates into a
pro/anti gun arguement? don't you guys have something better with which to occupy your synapses?
"


True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is
an individual right, not a right belonging to a "well regulated militia" or to members of a
militia.

Even though the Amendment itself limits the right to a "well-regulated militia".


Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the copies I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And read
my first post above again.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"700$" No thanks, I always get more than that. ;-)

You're crude. d8-)


You should hear me tell off telemarketers. ;-)

I had one Heating A/C company call me 35 times in one week, insisting
that I needed their annual inspection service on a central air system.
(I didn't even have a window unit.) This was before the do not call
list.

The last time they called I told them that I had hundreds of retired
friends in town, and if they called me one more time that these people
would take turns tying up all of the company's phone lines with stupid
questions, and calling to have the company send their sales people out
to give estimates, with no intention of spending a dime and promised her
that it would be damn near impossible for a legitimate customer to get
through on their phone lines. She yelled, "That's harassment!" I
laughed and told her, 'Now you know how I feel.'

They never called back. Was it something I said?

That's fun, but it takes a lot of time. I just say, "Excuse me a minute,
I'll be right back." Then I put down the phone and read a book or something.
Five minutes later I just hang up the phone.

I was having fun with the young ladies from the NRA the other night, though.
I just couldn't say no in the end. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"700$" No thanks, I always get more than that. ;-)

You're crude. d8-)


You should hear me tell off telemarketers. ;-)

I had one Heating A/C company call me 35 times in one week, insisting
that I needed their annual inspection service on a central air system.
(I didn't even have a window unit.) This was before the do not call
list.

The last time they called I told them that I had hundreds of retired
friends in town, and if they called me one more time that these people
would take turns tying up all of the company's phone lines with stupid
questions, and calling to have the company send their sales people out
to give estimates, with no intention of spending a dime and promised her
that it would be damn near impossible for a legitimate customer to get
through on their phone lines. She yelled, "That's harassment!" I
laughed and told her, 'Now you know how I feel.'

They never called back. Was it something I said?

That's fun, but it takes a lot of time. I just say, "Excuse me a minute,
I'll be right back." Then I put down the phone and read a book or something.
Five minutes later I just hang up the phone.

I was having fun with the young ladies from the NRA the other night, though.
I just couldn't say no in the end. d8-)


They were tying up my business phoneline, and I only had a single line
in the shop.


--
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

Just Wondering wrote:

Dave Gordon wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...

Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the First Amendment at work. Don't
like it? Then exercise your own rights rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this
thread.


William Noble wrote:


doesn't it amaze you how every thread that might possibly involve an OT subject degenerates into a
pro/anti gun arguement? don't you guys have something better with which to occupy your synapses?
"


True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is
an individual right, not a right belonging to a "well regulated militia" or to members of a
militia.

Even though the Amendment itself limits the right to a "well-regulated militia".


Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the copies I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And read
my first post above again.



CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_documents&docid=f:sd011 .105.pdf


The Bill of Rights:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ou...lofrights.html


--
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

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:00:57 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...

"700$" No thanks, I always get more than that. ;-)

You're crude. d8-)


You should hear me tell off telemarketers. ;-)

I had one Heating A/C company call me 35 times in one week, insisting
that I needed their annual inspection service on a central air system.
(I didn't even have a window unit.) This was before the do not call
list.

The last time they called I told them that I had hundreds of retired
friends in town, and if they called me one more time that these people
would take turns tying up all of the company's phone lines with stupid
questions, and calling to have the company send their sales people out
to give estimates, with no intention of spending a dime and promised her
that it would be damn near impossible for a legitimate customer to get
through on their phone lines. She yelled, "That's harassment!" I
laughed and told her, 'Now you know how I feel.'

They never called back. Was it something I said?

That's fun, but it takes a lot of time. I just say, "Excuse me a minute,
I'll be right back." Then I put down the phone and read a book or something.
Five minutes later I just hang up the phone.

I was having fun with the young ladies from the NRA the other night, though.
I just couldn't say no in the end. d8-)
I had one collection agency caller (10 calls between 7 AM and 7:45 AM)
taken off the case and calls stopped because of the harassment they
got when they called my number.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:


Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the copies
I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And
read
my first post above again.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:


Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the copies
I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And
read
my first post above again.


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall not
be infringed.

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:


Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the
Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the
copies
I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And
read
my first post above again.


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that. The right of the people to
bear arms flows from the necessity of a well-regulated militia. There is
a hierarchy here in the flow and ordering of the statements concerning
how and why the rights are bestowed by the constitution.

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article om,
Robatoy wrote:

My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.

Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF THE
ABOVE

Nice protest, but what if it was? What if that choice got the most votes?

In article ,
"Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article om,
Robatoy wrote:

My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.

Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF THE
ABOVE

Nice protest, but what if it was? What if that choice got the most votes?

Neither wins and are not allowed to run again that round. Do another
election in that area until they get it right. I am thinking this would
happen once at most and then people would tire of playing head games
with politicians and just vote in whoever.

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
. ..
Dave Gordon wrote:
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...

Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the First Amendment at work.
Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring
this thread.


William Noble wrote:


doesn't it amaze you how every thread that might possibly involve an OT subject degenerates into a
pro/anti gun arguement? don't you guys have something better with which to occupy your synapses?
"


True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment
is an individual right, not a right belonging to a "well regulated militia" or to members of a
militia.

Even though the Amendment itself limits the right to a "well-regulated militia".


Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the Second Amendment dozens of
times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the copies I EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to
"a well regulated militia." And read my first post above again.

Its right there, in the same sentence.