On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:38:02 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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....

No, it certainly does NOT,

typical knee jerk reaction of a
reactionary

You're such a liar, like all lefties.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:41:41 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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out of date?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.

Wrong. They guaranteed the right to "own" a press the same way they
guaranteed the right to "own" a gun, though didn't use the strong words
("shall not be infringed").

How old are you? Have you ever actually, you know, READ the Constitution?

Here, let me help. Not the part IN CAPS.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, OR
OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

....though you don't care. What the Constitution says doesn't matter, right?
After all it was written OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:42:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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

You're wrong, as usual.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:39:41 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Q: Does the second ammendmant to the Constitution
grant an individual right to keep and bear arms?

A: No. The second prohibits the government from
infringing a God given right.

RA: It *guarantees* that right.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:40:01 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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.

Then why don't you move to one of those countries, if you're so scared of
guns?


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.

Wrong again, kid. See Article V.

cant grasp the concept, can you?

You're projecting again, kid.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:11:20 -0500, aemeijers
wrote:

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.

Seems to me it would be through legislation and not some "ruling" of
Congress. Did I miss something that allows Congress to replace the
courts judicial responsibility "ruling" on laws.?

I mean I'm for Congress legislating, but do appreciate the power of
the Courts to rule on the laws.

I did miss the class. My ass got drafted!

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

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?

You can repeat lies all day long, if it makes you feel good.

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

meaningless. compared to what? martians?

What a complete moron.

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.

....and not even then. (my wife was hit by an uninsured ditz on the way home
from work tonight).

You have
to buy health insurance if you want to live in the US. BIG difference.

....and you have to pay taxes even if you don't.

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.
WHich of course is not even remotely what they actually said.

On Jan 11, 11:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:40:01 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
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.

Then why don't you move to one of those countries, if you're so scared of
guns?



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.

Wrong again, kid. *See Article V.

cant grasp the concept, can *you?

You're projecting again, kid.

THAT'S IT, GET RID OF ANYONE WITH ENOUGH MIND TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND
ADDRESS A PROBLEM, RIGHT?
ARE YOU SO STUCK UP YOUR ASS YOU CAN'T SEE THE BLOOD SHED.
PATECUM

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:34:08 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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?



Let me guess. Congress _legislates_. Courts do the _"ruling"_ on those
laws.

Where did you find that Congress conducts a "ruling"? Eh, bright one?

Our Constitution is not spelled in lower case letters.

On Jan 12, 12:01*am, "
wrote:
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.

...and not even then. *(my wife was hit by an uninsured ditz on the way home
from work tonight).

You have
to buy health insurance if you want to live in the US. BIG difference.

...and you have to pay taxes even if you don't.



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.
* WHich of course is not even remotely what they actually said.

....IT ENDS WHERE IT BEGINS....

On Jan 11, 6:57*pm, bpuharic wrote:
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.

Do you make up your stats?

Crime Statistics
Murders (per capita) (by country


Rank Country Rate
# 1 Colombia: 0.617847 per 1,000 people
# 2 South Africa: 0.496008 per 1,000 people
# 3 Jamaica: 0.324196 per 1,000 people
# 4 Venezuela: 0.316138 per 1,000 people
# 5 Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
# 6 Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
# 7 Estonia: 0.107277 per 1,000 people
# 8 Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
# 9 Lithuania: 0.102863 per 1,000 people
# 10 Belarus: 0.0983495 per 1,000 people
# 11 Ukraine: 0.094006 per 1,000 people
# 12 Papua New Guinea: 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
# 13 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
# 14 Thailand: 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
# 15 Moldova: 0.0781145 per 1,000 people
# 16 Zimbabwe: 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
# 17 Seychelles: 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
# 18 Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
# 19 Costa Rica: 0.061006 per 1,000 people
# 20 Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
# 21 Georgia: 0.0511011 per 1,000 people
# 22 Uruguay: 0.045082 per 1,000 people
# 23 Bulgaria: 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
# 24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
# 25 Armenia: 0.0425746 per 1,000 people
# 26 India: 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
# 27 Yemen: 0.0336276 per 1,000 people
# 28 Dominica: 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
# 29 Azerbaijan: 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
# 30 Finland: 0.0283362 per 1,000 people
# 31 Slovakia: 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
# 32 Romania: 0.0250784 per 1,000 people
# 33 Portugal: 0.0233769 per 1,000 people

On 1/11/2011 8:57 PM, bpuharic wrote:
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.

Think War On Drugs. Thanks to those goofy politicians who came up
with the silly War On Drugs, we have developed a high level of violent
crime in the U.S. High profits and draconian penalties for any behavior
will often breed violence. Idiots didn't learn from Prohibition.

TDD

On Jan 11, 9:53*pm, DD_BobK wrote:
On Jan 11, 6:57*pm, bpuharic wrote:









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.

Do you make up your stats?

Crime Statistics
Murders (per capita) (by country

Rank * *Country * * * * Rate
# * * * *1 * * *Colombia: * * * 0.617847 per 1,000 people
# * * * *2 * * *South Africa: * 0.496008 per 1,000 people
# * * * *3 * * *Jamaica: * * * *0.324196 per 1,000 people
# * * * *4 * * *Venezuela: * * *0.316138 per 1,000 people
# * * * *5 * * *Russia: 0.201534 per 1,000 people
# * * * *6 * * *Mexico: 0.130213 per 1,000 people
# * * * *7 * * *Estonia: * * * *0.107277 per 1,000 people
# * * * *8 * * *Latvia: 0.10393 per 1,000 people
# * * * *9 * * *Lithuania: * * *0.102863 per 1,000 people
# * * * *10 * * Belarus: * * * *0.0983495 per 1,000 people
# * * * *11 * * Ukraine: * * * *0.094006 per 1,000 people
# * * * *12 * * Papua New Guinea: * * * 0.0838593 per 1,000 people
# * * * *13 * * Kyrgyzstan: * * 0.0802565 per 1,000 people
# * * * *14 * * Thailand: * * * 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
# * * * *15 * * Moldova: * * * *0.0781145 per 1,000 people
# * * * *16 * * Zimbabwe: * * * 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
# * * * *17 * * Seychelles: * * 0.0739025 per 1,000 people
# * * * *18 * * Zambia: 0.070769 per 1,000 people
# * * * *19 * * Costa Rica: * * 0.061006 per 1,000 people
# * * * *20 * * Poland: 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
# * * * *21 * * Georgia: * * * *0.0511011 per 1,000 people
# * * * *22 * * Uruguay: * * * *0.045082 per 1,000 people
# * * * *23 * * Bulgaria: * * * 0.0445638 per 1,000 people
# * * * *24 * * United States: *0.042802 per 1,000 people
# * * * *25 * * Armenia: * * * *0.0425746 per 1,000 people
# * * * *26 * * India: *0.0344083 per 1,000 people
# * * * *27 * * Yemen: *0.0336276 per 1,000 people
# * * * *28 * * Dominica: * * * 0.0289733 per 1,000 people
# * * * *29 * * Azerbaijan: * * 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
# * * * *30 * * Finland: * * * *0.0283362 per 1,000 people
# * * * *31 * * Slovakia: * * * 0.0263303 per 1,000 people
# * * * *32 * * Romania: * * * *0.0250784 per 1,000 people
# * * * *33 * * Portugal: * * * 0.0233769 per 1,000 people

If it's not one thing, it's another

suicide rates by country
per 100,00

Belarus 36.8
Lithuania 31.85
Russia 31.7
Sri Lanka 30.7
Kazakhstan 27.6
Hungary 26.75
Japan 24.75
Ukraine 23.95
Guyana 22.7 3
Korea, North 21.85
Slovenia 21.7 3
Estonia 21.4 5
Latvia 20.9
Serbia 19.75
Finland 18.95
Belgium 18.35
Croatia 18.3 2
Switzerland 17.6
France 17.25
Uruguay 16.15
Moldova 16.15
Poland 15.6 2
Austria 15.6 2
Hong Kong 15.4
Suriname 14.35
China 13.9 1
Czech Republic 13.5
Sweden 13.2
Bulgaria 13.2
Slovakia 12.85
New Zealand 12.6
Cuba 12.25
Trinidad and Tobago 12.2
Germany 11.95
Denmark 11.95 1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 11.8 2
Iceland 11.75
Portugal 11.7
Romania 11.45
Norway 11.4
Canada 11.35
United States 11.1
Luxembourg 11.0
India 10.65
Ireland 10.6
Australia 10.55
Mauritius 10.4
Chile 10.4
Singapore 10.3
Kyrgyzstan 9.05
Turkmenistan 8.65
Netherlands 8.3
Argentina 8.05
Zimbabwe 7.90
Thailand 7.9
Spain 7.9
Costa Rica 7.85
Saint Lucia 7.7
Puerto Rico 7.6
Belize 7.5
Nicaragua 7.2
El Salvador 6.95
Ecuador 6.8 9.1
Macedonia 6.75
United Kingdom 6.45
Malta 6.4
Italy 6.35
Israel 6 8.7 3.3 2005
Grenada 5.85
Panama 5.6
Colombia 4.95
Uzbekistan 4.65
Brazil 4.6
Seychelles 4.55
Paraguay 4.1
Mexico 4.05
Albania 4.0
Venezuela 3.75
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3.65
Greece 3.55
Bahrain 2.7
Tajikistan 2.6
Cyprus 2.5
Armenia 2.45
Guatemala 2.35
Georgia 2.25 3.4 1.1 2001
Philippines 2.1 2.5 1.7 1993

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

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.

You appeared to be saying that the 2nd Amendment should not count because it
was "written 200 years ago"--rather than because other countries don't have
a similar law. If you actually meant to say something else, then perhaps
you shouldn't have written what you did.

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?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, it can be changed, but it
cannot be ignored. What part of that concept is escaping you?

BTW, is your Shift key broken?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

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.

The taps--or rather the splices that duplicate all e-mail and telephone
traffic for computerized monitoring--are in centers that handle virtually
all such traffic in the U.S. and as it happens in much of the world. So in
effect we're trusting them to listen to all our calls but only pay attention
if the other end of the call is overseas. Sure, that sounds just dandy,
it's not like they'd *ever* break those rules.

Since there is no law or
constitutional concern about what is done outside the US, this is a
non-issue.

Even if one end of the communication is in the U.S., and belongs to a
citizen? There was already a special court set up to deal with such cases,
but the previous administration thought no warrants at all was a better way
to go. Sadly, the current administration is going along with that,
apparently they want to expand the power of federal agencies to get your ISP
to identify you and dump your data with just a "security letter" rather than
a court order. Sounds kind of Constitutional to me.

BTW, are you suggesting that the U.S. govt. is not required to obey U.S. law
off U.S. soil?

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.

And if they make it so all taps are legal, even without a court order,
bingo--no more pesky Constitution getting in the way.

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.

It is a significant difference, but the alternative was to bankrupt the
insurance companies if they weren't allowed to refuse coverage or drop
coverage upon illness--nobody would buy insurance until they got sick. But
given that U.S. health insurance companies absorb far more for
"administrative overhead" than health coverage administration does anywhere
else in the world, maybe bankrupting them might be the way to go, or at
least confine them to luxury care for those who can afford it.

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.

WHich of course is not even remotely what they actually said.

Oh, so what do you think she meant by remarks like the ones below? What is
the "next step" she's referring to? What are "2nd Amendment remedies" that
don't involve armed force?

http://www.rgj.com/article/20100530/...ctivist-armyIn

In Angle's eyes, the country is under attack and she's willing to go to
battle.

"What is a little bit disconcerting and concerning is the inability for
sporting goods stores to keep ammunition in stock," she said. "That tells me
the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so
distrustful of their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for
their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways?

"That's why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don't win at the
ballot box, what will be the next step?"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plu..._possibil.html

"I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps
going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment
remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?
I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

First, it wasn't just Bush.

So by that logic, a gang member should get off because he wasn't the only
one who robbed that liquor store.

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

You keep repeating this like repetition makes it mean something. What part
of listening to a phone call made by an American citizen on U.S. soil
without a court order do you not get? If the govt. tapped your phone
without a warrant, would you accept as an excuse the claptrap above which
you post several times a year?

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?

A captured enemy combatant must be a POW, if he was captured in a war and
he's fighting for the other side then he's an enemy soldier, so he gets the
same treatment any POW is entitled to by treaties the U.S. has signed. But
wait, if he's a U.S. citizen who has taken up arms against the U.S., then
he's a traitor, and what do we do with traitors--we charge them and try them
in a court of law. So, which is it? POW status for foreigners, or court
for American citizens?

Of course the Bush admin invented a new category: they're whatever we say
they are, just so long as they don't get trials *or* treatment as POWs.

So, is America a nation under the rule of law, or is it a nation where the
govt. of the day gets to make it up as they go?

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).

I am thinking POWs, you are not, because POWs are protected by treaties the
U.S. signed, remember? The Bush admin said they weren't POWs, remember?
But if they aren't POWs, then they must be terrorists, criminals we can try
and convict and imprison (or execute) as we have done many, many times
before. So, which is it, POW or criminal to be tried in a court of law?

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

In which case they're POWs, and denying them their rights as POWs is
contrary to international law which the U.S. has agreed to uphold. So,
again, which is it?

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...

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

So, no offense, but do you post under the influence of some mood-altering
drug, or perhaps a strong prescription medication?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:51:29 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:41:41 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


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.

Wrong. They guaranteed the right to "own" a press the same way they
guaranteed the right to "own" a gun, though didn't use thite strong words
("shall not be infringed").

keep and bear arms. arms are weapons. arms are tools to do sometihing.
they are not a freedom. freedom of speech is, in and of itself, a
freedom. if you own a gun, so what? it's not a freedom.

How old are you? Have you ever actually, you know, READ the Constitution?

Here, let me help. Not the part IN CAPS.

zzzzzzzzzzzzz


...though you don't care. What the Constitution says doesn't matter, right?
After all it was written OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO!

yeah and it used to guarantee the right to own slaves...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:56:45 -0600, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:40:01 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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.

Then why don't you move to one of those countries, if you're so scared of
guns?

i love it when you gunnies thump your chests...

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

Wrong again, kid. See Article V.

cant grasp the concept, can you?

You're projecting again, kid.

so what was all that about slavery?

oh. it's outdated

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:18:36 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:34:08 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


'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?



Let me guess. Congress _legislates_. Courts do the _"ruling"_ on those
laws.

yeah. let me know when it gets repealed, OK?

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:23:47 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
.. .

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

So, no offense, but do you post under the influence of some mood-altering
drug, or perhaps a strong prescription medication?


nah. been listening to rush. hoping to be a mindless right winger

you know the type

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:53:26 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Jan 11, 6:57*pm, bpuharic wrote:
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.

Do you make up your stats?

Crime Statistics
Murders (per capita) (by country

you let me know when columbia becomes a 1st world country, OK?

the US has the highest gun homicide rate BY FAR of any industrialized
country

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

On 1/11/2011 7:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Here's how it works. I doubt you (ghost) will understand.
But maybe others will.

A very few people are violent. Most people are not violent.
A few people recognize and understand that violence is a
part of the world. When "everyone" is unarmed, the violent
people have free rein to be violent against the unarmed
people. A few people are not violent, but choose to be
armed. These are the types of people like the fellow who
came running when he heard gunshots. Non violent, armed
people will never deliberately hurt anyone. But, they will
defend themselves or others from violent people.



That's pretty much how I see the world.



Jay

In article ,
" wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:42:37 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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

You're wrong, as usual.

Nah, I just worded it badly. I meant to say exactly what you said in
your reply.

--
"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 1/12/2011 7:22 AM, Jay Hanig wrote:
On 1/11/2011 7:43 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Here's how it works. I doubt you (ghost) will understand.
But maybe others will.

A very few people are violent. Most people are not violent.
A few people recognize and understand that violence is a
part of the world. When "everyone" is unarmed, the violent
people have free rein to be violent against the unarmed
people. A few people are not violent, but choose to be
armed. These are the types of people like the fellow who
came running when he heard gunshots. Non violent, armed
people will never deliberately hurt anyone. But, they will
defend themselves or others from violent people.



That's pretty much how I see the world.



Jay

I owned a gun, briefly, that I inherited from my mom. After my dad
died, she lived alone and had good reason to be fearful...a neighbor and
the neighbor's daughter had been raped by a guy who followed the
daughter home from school. Aside from that, elderly women are frequent
targets of criminals. During my mom's final illness, my mom was in
hospital for a couple of days. During that time, I changed her bed
linens, took the gun, unloaded it and put it away. She always kept it
under her pillow....since I often checked on her at night, I was afraid
of being mistaken for an intruder and being shot by my mom. When she
was brought back home, by ambulance, she was put to bed. First thing
she did was check for her gun and then ask me for it. I brought it to
her and, fortunately, she did not check to see that there were no
bullets in it. After she passed away, I put it in the drawer of a
nightstand in the guest room where the bullets were also kept and forgot
about it. Some months later, my daughter and her family came to visit.
I had forgotten entirely that the gun was there but my daughter found
it and brought it to me to safeguard it from their small children!!
Whew! There had been an earlier time that we had an attempted break-in,
while I was alone with my small children....I seriously considered
purchasing a gun then but decided there was no place in our home where I
could access the gun in an emergency and have it where my kids could not
get to it. Another time, when my children were older, we had an
intruder get into the house while we were all asleep...he woke me up and
then ran out when I woke. Again, I was in a situation where a gun would
have been "nice" to have but had no opportunity to get to it.

In recent years, I've had violent neighbors...not judged dangerous, but
certainly what I once would not have considered average. Nowadays, the
numbers of violent offenders taken down by police are often on meth or
similar drugs that cause more violence. The shooter in Arizona had a
drug charge, but apparently "only" for pot. I don't have big political
issues with gun ownership, but I could certainly live with a law that
forbid gun possession by anyone with history of arrest for drugs/alcohol
offenses or domestic violence. There are areas where meth and
prescription drug abuse are epidemic, and an addict in need of his drug
of choice is often desperate. My small town has had two instances of
teenagers angry at their parents who murdered one or both parents. Guns
don't kill people, but people with guns often behave differently than
people without guns. Another couple came to me about a problem
child...a daughter with a gang-banger boyfriend. They had found notes
in their daughter's room written in blood and mentioning dead parents!

The guy in Arizona with license to carry who happened on the crime scene
came within moments of killing someone innocent...when he heard the
shots and came to the scene, he had his gun ready and first saw a man
with a gun in his hand...ordered that guy to drop the gun, but the guy
now holding the gun was one who disarmed the shooter.

With all of the insanity that kids are exposed to today, and the
problems with bullying, we certainly could look inward to see what we
consider allowable for politics and media...our kids are imitating what
they see and hear every day, so it isn't surprising that they imitate
the leaders in government, sports, even teachers, who are rabble rousing
and abusive. Folks can be passionate in their beliefs without being
abusive, but apparently have forgotten how.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...

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.

The taps--or rather the splices that duplicate all e-mail and telephone
traffic for computerized monitoring--are in centers that handle virtually
all such traffic in the U.S. and as it happens in much of the world. So in
effect we're trusting them to listen to all our calls but only pay attention
if the other end of the call is overseas. Sure, that sounds just dandy,
it's not like they'd *ever* break those rules.

If they were, indeed, in centers in the US then it was illegal (w/o
warrant, of course). However, I still haven't been enlightened as to
where the tap was placed. Outside the US, it is legal (or more
succinctly not illegal. Subtle yet important difference.)

Since there is no law or
constitutional concern about what is done outside the US, this is a
non-issue.

Even if one end of the communication is in the U.S., and belongs to a
citizen? There was already a special court set up to deal with such cases,
but the previous administration thought no warrants at all was a better way
to go. Sadly, the current administration is going along with that,
apparently they want to expand the power of federal agencies to get your ISP
to identify you and dump your data with just a "security letter" rather than
a court order. Sounds kind of Constitutional to me.
As long as the tapped line or intercepted communication is done
overseas, then it makes no difference if one person from the US happens
to call. Courts have said that as long as the tap is not illegal,
anybody calling the tapped phone can be nailed. Goomba 1 has a tap on
his line, Goomba 2 calls and talks about a murder. Then such statements
can be used against G2.
So, again, assuming that the tap is done overseas, it is probably
(since I don't know that the courts have parsed it quite this fine)
admissible.


BTW, are you suggesting that the U.S. govt. is not required to obey U.S. law
off U.S. soil?

NO, but the US Code on wiretapping specifically states that the
interception has to be originated in the States or possessions. From the
law enforcement standpoint, wiretapping isn't so much law as it is
procedures developed to keep the Courts happy based on their rulings. It
also is well established that the Constitution's provisions don't apply
to non-citizens outside the US.
Again, I still don't have any sources making clear where the taps
(splices) are actually being attached. If at the local switching station
in Iran, then it is probably legal. If not, then there is a problem.

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.

And if they make it so all taps are legal, even without a court order,
bingo--no more pesky Constitution getting in the way.

Which isn't remotely what I am arguing.

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.

It is a significant difference, but the alternative was to bankrupt the
insurance companies if they weren't allowed to refuse coverage or drop
coverage upon illness--nobody would buy insurance until they got sick. But
given that U.S. health insurance companies absorb far more for
"administrative overhead" than health coverage administration does anywhere
else in the world, maybe bankrupting them might be the way to go, or at
least confine them to luxury care for those who can afford it.
Significant differences are enough to ignore the constitution?
(Okay MAYBE to ignore the constitution, we'll see how the Supremes
rule).
Interestingly, there is plenty of evidence that this doesn't work
anyway. MA has had similar rules for a few years and yet people are not
signing up until they are sick. Interesting to see how it works out
nationwide.

--
"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 Jan 11, 9:43*pm, bpuharic wrote:
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

I can't take on the US army with a .38, but I can take on a deranged
home invader that breaks into my home in the middle of the night
or the one that tries to rob my businesss. Just as countless
Americans do
every year.

You grow a brain and get some common sense. Let me know how
that works out.

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


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
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

I disagree. It's a fine point. But, the 2nd doesn't say
anything about guaranteeing rights. It places limits on the
action of government.

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


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:39:41 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Q: Does the second ammendmant to the Constitution
grant an individual right to keep and bear arms?

A: No. The second prohibits the government from
infringing a God given right.

RA: It *guarantees* that right.

On Jan 12, 2:08*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" *wrote in message

m...

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.

The taps--or rather the splices that duplicate all e-mail and telephone
traffic for computerized monitoring--are in centers that handle virtually
all such traffic in the U.S. and as it happens in much of the world. *

I'd like to see a credible reference that says the govt is now
routinely
monitoring all email and telephone calls in the USA. More lib crap
dreamed up.

So in
effect we're trusting them to listen to all our calls but only pay attention
if the other end of the call is overseas. *Sure, that sounds just dandy,
it's not like they'd *ever* break those rules.

Exactly how many people would it take to listen to all those calls,
genius?
As for "breaking" the rules, here's an idea. When and if that
happens,
how about we deal with it then. It's not like some defendent won't
have
the opportunity for the ACLU to take his case all the way to SCOTUS.
In the meantime, let's keep preventing terrorist attacks and killing
those
at war with us.

On Jan 12, 2:22*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message

...

First, it wasn't just Bush.

So by that logic, a gang member should get off because he wasn't the only
one who robbed that liquor store.

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

You keep repeating this like repetition makes it mean something. *What part
of listening to a phone call made by an American citizen on U.S. soil
without a court order do you not get? *If the govt. tapped your phone
without a warrant, would you accept as an excuse the claptrap above which
you post several times a year?

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?

A captured enemy combatant must be a POW, if he was captured in a war and
he's fighting for the other side then he's an enemy soldier, so he gets the
same treatment any POW is entitled to by treaties the U.S. has signed. *But
wait, if he's a U.S. citizen who has taken up arms against the U.S., then
he's a traitor, and what do we do with traitors--we charge them and try them
in a court of law. *So, which is it? *POW status for foreigners, or court
for American citizens?

Of course the Bush admin invented a new category: they're whatever we say
they are, just so long as they don't get trials *or* treatment as POWs.

So, is America a nation under the rule of law, or is it a nation where the
govt. of the day gets to make it up as they go?

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).

I am thinking POWs, you are not, because POWs are protected by treaties the
U.S. signed, remember? *

The Geneva convention imposes a number of conditions for a captured
person to
be subject to it's provisions. Among them are that the
country they are fighting for has signed the treaty, that they are
under the military
command of a warring country, that they bear their arms openly, that
they conduct
themselves in accordance with the laws and customs of warfare......

Get the picture? Why must you interpret EVERYTHING in the manner most
damaging
to the USA and helpful to our enemies that behead women and throw acid
in the eyes
of children because they are on their way to school?

bpuharic wrote in
:

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

bpuharic wrote in
m:

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

not really,UK is more "violent" than the US,but their violence extends to
crimes other than "gun violence".You cannot go by "gun violence" alone.

Look at -total- murder rates,total rape rates,total robbery rates,etc.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Jan 11, 10:04*pm, bpuharic wrote:
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?


No one is making the argument that crime would never happen. You're
ignoring that such an occurrence is very situational. There are no
guarantees but criminals are stopped by armed citizens all the time.


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.


Oddly, people were killed in acts of violence before firearms existed.
Guns aren't the problem, people with the intent to harm others is the
problem.


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

but there's no connection, right?


For the sake of argument assuming your "facts" are true, no you can't
simply make a simplistic assumption such as you're making.

But, if one life could be safed? Learning from Cain
and Abel. Lets ban assault rocks. After all, the right
to keep and bear assault rocks isn't guaranteed by the
Constitution. Think of all the lives that could be saved.

I'm with you. Killing has existed before and will exist
after guns. However, an armed population helps keep
the violent criminals in check.

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


"Doc"
wrote in message
...

Oddly, people were killed in acts of violence before
firearms existed.
Guns aren't the problem, people with the intent to harm
others is the
problem.

On 1/11/2011 11:56 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:11:20 -0500,
wrote:

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.

Seems to me it would be through legislation and not some "ruling" of
Congress. Did I miss something that allows Congress to replace the
courts judicial responsibility "ruling" on laws.?

I mean I'm for Congress legislating, but do appreciate the power of
the Courts to rule on the laws.

I did miss the class. My ass got drafted!

Short version- Congress proposes an amendment. Somebody in DC sprinkles
holy water on it to make it official, and it is routed to the state
legislatures for a yes or no vote, within a defined time limit. (They
started adding time limits mebbe a century ago, to avoid 'timeliness'
challenges.) If enough legislatures send their official blessing back to
DC, the keeper of the paperwork declares it passed, and alerts the media.

There IS another way to change the constitution- In theory, if the
various state legislatures as a group decided to, they could force
another constitutional convention, and open up the whole damn document.
As you might expect, that scares the PTB ****less, not to mention anyone
who understands what average intelligence means. So, they have never
gotten around to spelling out the exact procedures and legal
requirements. IIRC, that was on the list of stuff to be worked out later
when they started the country.

It's been a few years since I read the whole document, so I may be in
error on some of the details, but the basic concepts are correct.

All in all, we were damn lucky the first time around. The compromises
they had to make the first time to get it accepted by the states
festered for 80+ years and led to the civil war, but even with that
horrendously bloody detour, we are better off than if they hadn't gotten
it written. And unlike the various countries that copied it (at least in
part)with no intent of living up to it (like North Vietnam), this
country has mostly tried to live by it. It isn't perfect, and the people
in charge are flawed and unreliable, but at least we are trying to Do
The Right Thing.

--
aem sends...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:



There IS another way to change the constitution- In theory, if the
various state legislatures as a group decided to, they could force
another constitutional convention, and open up the whole damn document.
As you might expect, that scares the PTB ****less, not to mention anyone
who understands what average intelligence means. So, they have never
gotten around to spelling out the exact procedures and legal
requirements. IIRC, that was on the list of stuff to be worked out later
when they started the country.

Actually there is the outline in there already n the Application of
the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a
Convention for proposing Amendments". I never heard for sure, but
supposedly the number calling for a convention was nearing 2/3 a few
years ago, but they usually called for different reasons and the Talking
Heads were not sure that counted.

--
"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 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:06:37 -0500, aemeijers
wrote:

On 1/11/2011 11:56 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:11:20 -0500,
wrote:

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


(clipped)

Short version- Congress proposes an amendment. Somebody in DC sprinkles
holy water on it to make it official, and it is routed to the state
legislatures for a yes or no vote, within a defined time limit. (They
started adding time limits mebbe a century ago, to avoid 'timeliness'
challenges.) If enough legislatures send their official blessing back to
DC, the keeper of the paperwork declares it passed, and alerts the media.

There IS another way to change the constitution- In theory, if the
various state legislatures as a group decided to, they could force
another constitutional convention, and open up the whole damn document.
As you might expect, that scares the PTB ****less, not to mention anyone
who understands what average intelligence means. So, they have never
gotten around to spelling out the exact procedures and legal
requirements. IIRC, that was on the list of stuff to be worked out later
when they started the country.

It's been a few years since I read the whole document, so I may be in
error on some of the details, but the basic concepts are correct.

All in all, we were damn lucky the first time around. The compromises
they had to make the first time to get it accepted by the states
festered for 80+ years and led to the civil war, but even with that
horrendously bloody detour, we are better off than if they hadn't gotten
it written. And unlike the various countries that copied it (at least in
part)with no intent of living up to it (like North Vietnam), this
country has mostly tried to live by it. It isn't perfect, and the people
in charge are flawed and unreliable, but at least we are trying to Do
The Right Thing.

I appreciate that. Not being a lawyer myself (but some understanding
of the basics involved) I was challenging "bpuhari", regarding his
statement about Congress "ruling". As if they are the supreme beings
and all-knowing of what is best for us.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 06:00:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 11, 9:43*pm, bpuharic wrote:
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

I can't take on the US army with a .38, but I can take on a deranged
home invader that breaks into my home in the middle of the night
or the one that tries to rob my businesss. Just as countless
Americans do
every year.

gee. gunnies say that guns prevent crime.

and here we are in the most heavily armed nation on earth

with the highest murder rate. so it seems guns may prevent
shoplifiting

but they dont prevent murder.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:25:27 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
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

But it could be an "alternate" army. As in the Army of Northern Aggression.

ah, well, then. that makes it OK


Or the existing army could be so depleted and/or engaged elsewhere that a
guerrilla army from Juarez, numbering (if you believe the press) several
tens of thousands decides to invade El Paso.

yeah i know. all the wetbacks coming to steal our corn, eh?