willshak wrote:

Disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun (I have a CCW permit), but....
'Arms' are a little different than they were 224 years ago. At the
time, they only had single shot muzzle loading firearms.
The subject of the other freedoms have not changed as much.


No, the definition of "arms" ["A weapon, especially a firearm"] is the same.

You are correct in that a "firearm" of today is way different from one in
1785, but so is a bow-and-arrow (compare compound composite bow with a
longbow) or a knife (ceramic vs bone).

In my view, the generational differences don't matter - the concept remains
unchanged.

DGDevin wrote:

The Bush administration decided it could listen to your phone calls
and read your e-mails without a court order, or declare a citizen an
enemy combatant and lock him up indefinitely without a trial, did you
make a peep of protest about that? But now you're incensed that the
Dems passed a law requiring you to have health insurance in the way
you already need auto insurance, and you're echoing Sharon Angle/Tea
Party claptrap that if the ballots don't work, then maybe it's time
for bullets. This cracks me up, democracy works only if your side
wins, otherwise sedition suddenly becomes a virtue, three cheers for
Tim McVeigh. What hogwash.

First, it wasn't just Bush.

Governments have been listening in on enemy communications since The Recent
Unplesantness when both Union and Confederate forces tapped their
adversaries telegraph lines.

Even before that, governments were intercepting enemy couriers carrying
hand-written military orders.

If you have a problem with snooping on enemy communications (without a
warrant?), then you would have objected to our breaking the Japanese
'Purple' code or the British building a decoding machine to replicate the
German Enigma device.

Second, enemy combatants do not get trials. The 6th Amendment states: "In
all CRIMINAL prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
trial..." Only CRIMINALS get trials, and combatants, either lawful or
unlawful, are not criminals. The 6th Amendment goes on to say "... by an
impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed..." So, an enemy combatant captured in Afghanistan would be tried,
according to you, exactly where?

There are a great number of occasions where people get locked up without
trials: Civil contempt, juveniles, carriers of contagion, mental health
patients, illegal immigrants, material witnesses, and so on. Included in
this list are enemy combatants (think POWs).

Bottom line: Only criminals are entitled to a trial and enemy combatants are
NOT criminals. (They don't get indictments, lawyers, witnesses, etc.
either.)

oooohhhh..... a survivalist gun owner! Everyone hide under
the desk!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"zek" wrote in message
...


So, the ability to distribute information across the
entire world in
an instant, whether from satellite TV or by individuals on
their own
PC
hasn't changed much from the simple printing press?


What bothers me might be the inability to distribute
information
anywhere.
If we get a massive solar destruction of satellites and
power, and
then
no gasoline, and no food, no hospitals, no police or
ambulance, our
neighbor might become
the worst enemy. Well, I got a single shot shotgun !!!!

greg

DD_BobK wrote:


Your analogy is off the mark. Increased CCW has not resulted in
"more disasters".

Check the FBI's data.... I'll put my money on the armed citizen.
They kill more bad guys than the police and they kill fewer "good
guys" by mistake.

The reason being..... they typically have better situational intel,
they are there from start to finish and know the good guys from the
bad guys.
The police arrive on scene and if the shooting has already started
have very time to assess the situation.

Right. The anti-gun crowd often puts forth the rhetorical question: "When
the police arrive, how are they to know who the bad guy is if everybody is
armed?"

The answer to that is easy: "The bad guy is the one on the ground bleeding
out from multiple gunshot wounds."

A couple of people conversed thusly:
The Bush administration decided it could listen to your phone calls and
read
your e-mails without a court order,
I never have gotten a real good fix on this.

I haven't either. It was my understanding that getting into another's e
mails took the mental capacity of a tenth grader.

Steve

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:05:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:00:04 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


HB

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

Another leftist loon who demands his own version of the Constitution.

which completely ignores the issue....typical knee jerk reaction of a
reactionary

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:09:03 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

shaking my head

Spoken like a true fire breathing liberal. How old are you?

spoken like a knee jerk reactionary

Our Nevada State Constitution also has a Second Amendment. I'm not
sure about other states.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:57:29 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .


Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

So were the parts about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to
a trial and so on. Do you figure all the Bill of Rights is out of date?

let's see.... virtually all free countries guarantee those. no country
has the bizarre non sequitur of gun ownership in its constituion. it's
like the right to wear spats.


useless today, except for the carnage it causes

The Constitution contains a formula for amending it, so if you don't like it
as written, start a campaign to get it changed. In the meantime it is the
law, and you don't get to just ignore it the way the Bush administration
figured it could.

just because it's still in the constitution doesnt mean it's not
outdated.

cant grasp the concept, can you?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:45:58 -0500, willshak
wrote:

DGDevin wrote the following:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...


Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

So were the parts about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the
right to a trial and so on. Do you figure all the Bill of Rights is
out of date?

Disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun (I have a CCW permit), but....
'Arms' are a little different than they were 224 years ago. At the time,
they only had single shot muzzle loading firearms.
The subject of the other freedoms have not changed as much.


exactly. guns are the ONLY technology related issue in the
constitution. not only have the nature of guns changed but so has the
fact we have a standing army, etc.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:51:50 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 11, 8:45*am, willshak wrote:
DGDevin wrote the following:



"bpuharic" *wrote in message
.. .

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

So were the parts about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the
right to a trial and so on. *Do you figure all the Bill of Rights is
out of date?

Disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun (I have a CCW permit), but....
'Arms' are a little different than they were 224 years ago. At the time,
they only had single shot muzzle loading firearms.
The subject of the other freedoms have not changed as much.



So, the ability to distribute information across the entire world in
an instant, whether from satellite TV or by individuals on their own
PC
hasn't changed much from the simple printing press?

notice the founding fathers didnt guarantee the right to own a
printing press. they guaranteed the right to free speech.








useless today, except for the carnage it causes

The Constitution contains a formula for amending it, so if you don't
like it as written, start a campaign to get it changed. *In the
meantime it is the law, and you don't get to just ignore it the way
the Bush administration figured it could.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:01:18 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
willshak wrote:

Disclaimer: I'm not anti-gun (I have a CCW permit), but....
'Arms' are a little different than they were 224 years ago. At the time,
they only had single shot muzzle loading firearms.
The subject of the other freedoms have not changed as much.
And the first amendment was put in place when movable type was the
newest technology. ANd.. well you get the drift.

and the founding fathers didnt guarantee the right to own a printing
press. they guaranteed the right to free speech

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:45:49 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Actually, every bit as relevant, now. The RKBA is so that
the citizens can defend themselves against government gone
bad.

fine. you go ahead take on our modern army with a .38. let me know how
that works out

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:39:24 -0500, Lil Abner wrote:

On 1/10/2011 7:36 PM, bpuharic wrote:


written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

It doesn't cause anything. We did not give government the ability to
take away our Rights. The right to own and bear arms is ours not
government's privledge to be granted.

which is exactly why i said the 2nd has to be repealed

We retain the right to have the means to protect ourselves with firearms
or whatever we damned well please.
What your kind wants is to shackle everyone except you.

and what about the 11,000 dead each year. how's that working out for
them?

All the bans or laws, over history have not stopped violence.

meaningless. compared to what? martians?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:33:31 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

..

One by one, our rights are threatened. At the current time, we are
threatened by people who want to take our guns and right to free speech
away. They want to limit what we can say and where we can say it.

and the 11,000 dead from gunfire every year. how are their rights
protected? they doing OK? the little 9 year old killed in AZ? why not
ask her?

oh. she's dead.



Steve

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:21:24 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
When the "government" comes for you they won't be restricting
themselves to handguns and rifles. They've got planes, tanks and the
Bomb, not to mention chemical weapons, drones, etc., etc. But they
won't need to resort to that, as they control food, water and power
supplies.

Of course they won't resort to that, mainly because the troops would flatly
refuse to carry out such orders.


then we dont need guns to protect us from govt if troops wont carry
out the order

In article ,
bpuharic wrote:

notice the founding fathers didnt guarantee the right to own a
printing press. they guaranteed the right to free speech.

Actually they did guarantee a RIGHT to own a printing press. Like the
gun, however, you have to buy it your self.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:38:48 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:09:03 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

shaking my head

Spoken like a true fire breathing liberal. How old are you?

spoken like a knee jerk reactionary

Our Nevada State Constitution also has a Second Amendment. I'm not
sure about other states.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

I see you snipped out the references to SCOTUS I made. Just to remind
you they were the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) cases

Can't stand it can you? If the law don't fit into you little world,
just ignore it right? Have some bean sprouts!

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:14:05 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15

HB

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

over 2 MILLION DGUs per year proves you wrong.
(DGU = defensive gun use)

11,000 dead every year proves me right. funny that no other modern
country has this level of carnage

doesnt do much for your acronym, does it?


Every nation with "strict" gun control STILL has shootings and
murders,along with lesser crimes.

which is irrelevant, isnt it? by orders of magnitude we're the most
violent

In Japan,their Yakuza make a BUSINESS of gun-running.
A Japanese mayor was shot and killed by a senior Yakuza right in public.

why not check this site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

tell me what all our guns have done to protect us

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 07:17:57 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:


HB

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

actually,the Second Amendment may be needed again,to restore the
Constitution per the Declaration of Independence.

what paranoid bull****. you're living proof that what folks are saying
about the violent right is true

(the part about "to alter or to abolish")

the way the Democrat-controlled Congress was ignoring the Constitution,and
their plans for the future may necessitate a 2nd Revolution.

gee. has zip to do with a black guy in the white house, right?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 14:03:26 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
. 44...

actually,the Second Amendment may be needed again,to restore the
Constitution per the Declaration of Independence.
(the part about "to alter or to abolish")

the way the Democrat-controlled Congress was ignoring the Constitution,and
their plans for the future may necessitate a 2nd Revolution.

The Bush administration decided it could listen to your phone calls and read
your e-mails without a court order, or declare a citizen an enemy combatant
and lock him up indefinitely without a trial, did you make a peep of protest
about that? But now you're incensed that the Dems passed a law requiring
you to have health insurance in the way you already need auto insurance,

what i love is that congress already requires you to have children or
pay a tax...just like the health insurance ruling.

but the right ignores that

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:16:50 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"J
The Bush administration decided it could listen to your phone calls and read
your e-mails without a court order,
I never have gotten a real good fix on this. My understanding is that
taps were on overseas telephones. Since there is no law or
constitutional concern about what is done outside the US, this is a
non-issue. According to a long line of court decisions, as long as a tap
on a phone is not illegal, then anybody calling that phone (even if that
phone is in the US) is fair game.

about that? But now you're incensed that the Dems passed a law requiring
you to have health insurance in the way you already need auto insurance,

Not hardly. You only need car insurance if you want a car. You have
to buy health insurance if you want to live in the US. BIG difference.

you have to have kids or pay a tax...just like the health insurance
bill will be a penalty.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:18:37 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

I suggest that the 1st Amendment causes more carnage.

really? people are killed by harsh words?

I suggest that any one of these has more potential for violence than the
right to bear arms.


and yet your suggestion is wrong. go figure

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:47:29 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

People respect gun laws, like they respect laws that say
it's illegal to shoot at people. Laws against murder don't
seem to slow down the murder rate.

laws against guns slow gun murders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate


What slows down murder rate is more gun ownership

really? then why do countries with fewer guns have fewer murders?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:27:21 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



If everybody at that event on Saturday had a gun they would still be
shooting it out and we would have many many more dead.

The assassin would have been dead.

TDD

and yet in the most heavily armed nation in the world

we have the most murders of any industrialized country.

gee. who coulda guessed.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:54:49 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"Higgs Boson" wrote in message
...

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

The gun lobby doesn't have to pay off the whores in Congress, that lobby is
effective because it is supported by the votes of many millions of
Americans. If you don’t like how representative democracy works, you could
always move to North Korea.

our congress is the best money can buy. you dont think the NRA buys
congress?

go tell it to wall street. they just elected the most pro wall street
congress in recent history...right after wall street caused a nuclear
meltdown in our country


I know two civilians who used firearms to defend themselves against violent
criminals, in one case without firing a shot, and in one case the person
holding the gun was female and a direct ancestor of mine. Depending on
whether you believe the DOJ or the NRA, somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million
times a year someone in America uses a firearm defensively. Who are you to
tell those people they have no right to self-defense?

gee. in the most heavily armed nation in the world

we have the highest murder rate of any industrialized country.

yet there's no connection, right?

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:00:18 -0800 (PST), Doc
wrote:

On Jan 10, 5:47*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
Short-term furor over assassination of a Federal judge (!) and
possible murder (hope not!) of a national legislator, along with
murder of a 9-year-old child and other innocents.

Furor will soon die down. Nothing will be done. *

So assault rifles and other multiple-fire devices will continue to be
sold -- to kill little Bambi in the forest, as the NRA piously
pretends.


While it's not exactly clear to me why anyone actually *needs*
automatic and assault weapons, that wasn't the problem here nor is it
ever. The problem also isn't heated political rhetoric which for some
reason seems to be getting lots of press in this incident. There are
lots of people who are really angry at government or at specific
legislators, most of them don't go on a killing rampage.

The problem is a mentally unstable person who committed a violent act.
What do you propose be "done" about it? A determined attacker could
probably have done a similar amount of damage with a hunting knife.
Look how many people John Hinckley took down with a dinky .22 and in
the presence of heavily armed, highly trained bodyguards who were
there specifically to deter such an act.

doesnt do much for the argument that if everyone was armed this
wouldnt have h appened, does it?


Loughner could have just as easily set off a homemade bomb or 3. He
could have had a shotgun or run into the crowd with an SUV. Trite but
true - guns don't kill people, people kill people.

and yet 11,000 people arent killed by bombs or knives every year.

in the most heavily armed nation on earth we have the highest murder
rate of any industrialized country

but there's no connection, right?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:52:23 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

what i love is that congress already requires you to have children or
pay a tax...just like the health insurance ruling.


LMAFAO: How does Congress require Gays and Lesbians to have children?
Is this MANDATORY?

Don't Bogart that joint my friend...

I pray you never own a gun or a pointy stick. You sound dangerous
enough to harm a spotted owl.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:52:23 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

what i love is that congress already requires you to have children or
pay a tax...just like the health insurance ruling.


When did Congress start "ruling"?

--
"you have to have kids or pay a tax...just like the health insurance
bill will be a penalty." bpuhari, 1-11-11

In article ,
bpuharic wrote:

Not hardly. You only need car insurance if you want a car. You have
to buy health insurance if you want to live in the US. BIG difference.

you have to have kids or pay a tax...just like the health insurance
bill will be a penalty.

If you have children you don't have to pay the tax. Pretty much the
exact opposite. I suspect you know that.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:49:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:38:48 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:09:03 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

shaking my head

Spoken like a true fire breathing liberal. How old are you?

spoken like a knee jerk reactionary

Our Nevada State Constitution also has a Second Amendment. I'm not
sure about other states.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

I see you snipped out the references to SCOTUS I made. Just to remind
you they were the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) cases

which has what to do with NV?


Can't stand it can you? If the law don't fit into you little world,
just ignore it right? Have some bean sprouts!

nah. i just got bored with all the NV crap.

and the SCOTUS? the same guys that gave us the citizen's united
decision?

those the guys you're talking about?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:47:30 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
bpuharic wrote:

notice the founding fathers didnt guarantee the right to own a
printing press. they guaranteed the right to free speech.

Actually they did guarantee a RIGHT to own a printing press. Like the
gun, however, you have to buy it your self.

hmmm...i dont see printing press in the constitution.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:38:56 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
bpuharic wrote:

Not hardly. You only need car insurance if you want a car. You have
to buy health insurance if you want to live in the US. BIG difference.

you have to have kids or pay a tax...just like the health insurance
bill will be a penalty.

If you have children you don't have to pay the tax. Pretty much the
exact opposite. I suspect you know that.

if you have health insurance you dont pay the tax.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:06:19 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:52:23 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

what i love is that congress already requires you to have children or
pay a tax...just like the health insurance ruling.


LMAFAO: How does Congress require Gays and Lesbians to have children?
Is this MANDATORY?

the same why you have to have health insurance.


I pray you never own a gun or a pointy stick. You sound dangerous
enough to harm a spotted owl.

cant understand economics, i see. figures. you GOTTA be right wing

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:45:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

which is exactly why i said the 2nd has to be repealed

Knock Knock, anybody in there?

Enlighten us on just how a Constitutional Amendment is "repealed"?

Does Congress just conduct a "ruling"?

--
"you have to have kids or pay a tax...just like the health insurance
bill will be a penalty." bpuhari, 1-11-11

On 1/11/2011 10:56 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:45:10 -0500, wrote:

which is exactly why i said the 2nd has to be repealed

Knock Knock, anybody in there?

Enlighten us on just how a Constitutional Amendment is "repealed"?

Does Congress just conduct a "ruling"?


Skipped out of that section in HS Civics class, huh? You do another
amendment. Only one, Prohibition, has been repealed outright.

--
aem sends...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:51:22 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:49:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:38:48 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:09:03 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:36:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

Refer to Second Amendment of our Constitution.

written 200 years ago

useless today, except for the carnage it causes

shaking my head

Spoken like a true fire breathing liberal. How old are you?

spoken like a knee jerk reactionary

Our Nevada State Constitution also has a Second Amendment. I'm not
sure about other states.

zzzzzzzzzzzz

I see you snipped out the references to SCOTUS I made. Just to remind
you they were the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) cases

which has what to do with NV?


Easy. The 2nd Amendment in the Nevada Constitution is "incorporated",
via the McDonald 2010 ruling - get my drift.


Can't stand it can you? If the law don't fit into you little world,
just ignore it right? Have some bean sprouts!

nah. i just got bored with all the NV crap.


You get bored easy -- I mentioned it just once. And you snipped my
thread too!

and the SCOTUS? the same guys that gave us the citizen's united
decision?

those the guys you're talking about?

Sure the "Law of the Land"! I can't make the laws, but can respect
them even if I disagree with them.

--
"you have to have kids or pay a tax...just like the health insurance
bill will be a penalty." bpuhari, 1-11-11

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:53:20 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:06:19 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:52:23 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

what i love is that congress already requires you to have children or
pay a tax...just like the health insurance ruling.


LMAFAO: How does Congress require Gays and Lesbians to have children?
Is this MANDATORY?

Question avoidance?


the same why you have to have health insurance.

I don't have to have anything from your "ruling" (your words)
Congress. I've paid my own health insurance for myself and family for
over 30 years.


I pray you never own a gun or a pointy stick. You sound dangerous
enough to harm a spotted owl.

cant understand economics, i see. figures. you GOTTA be right wing

If I did have a left wing I would chew it off and use my health
insurance.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:13:45 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:51:22 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:49:07 -0800, Oren wrote:


zzzzzzzzzzzz

I see you snipped out the references to SCOTUS I made. Just to remind
you they were the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) cases

which has what to do with NV?


Easy. The 2nd Amendment in the Nevada Constitution is "incorporated",
via the McDonald 2010 ruling - get my drift.

unnecessary. if it were necessary, then the decision regarding
chicago would have gone the other way.



Can't stand it can you? If the law don't fit into you little world,
just ignore it right? Have some bean sprouts!

nah. i just got bored with all the NV crap.


You get bored easy -- I mentioned it just once. And you snipped my
thread too

yeah gun fanatics bore me. it's such a cliche, it's a power trip and
it'd be funny if the results weren't so deadly.


and the SCOTUS? the same guys that gave us the citizen's united
decision?

those the guys you're talking about?

Sure the "Law of the Land"! I can't make the laws, but can respect
them even if I disagree with them.

and so do i. it just means we get ****ed every time we elect
conservatives

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:56:52 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:45:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

which is exactly why i said the 2nd has to be repealed

Knock Knock, anybody in there?

Enlighten us on just how a Constitutional Amendment is "repealed"?

you're not too bright, are you?

go read the text of the 21st amendment. what does it say?

oh. it says

'the 18th amendment is hereby REPEALED'

oh. you didnt know that...

uh huh.


Does Congress just conduct a "ruling"?

try reading the constitution before blowing off your bazoo, OK?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:20:21 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:53:20 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:06:19 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:52:23 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

what i love is that congress already requires you to have children or
pay a tax...just like the health insurance ruling.


LMAFAO: How does Congress require Gays and Lesbians to have children?
Is this MANDATORY?

Question avoidance?

cant read, eh?


the same why you have to have health insurance.

I don't have to have anything from your "ruling" (your words)
Congress. I've paid my own health insurance for myself and family for
over 30 years.

not been following the news? lots of bitching about the mandate.

oh. you didnt know that...