I'm sure Guam can friek. We'll have to ask the Phillipines
if they have seen strange behaviour coming from Guam.

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


"The Ghost in The Machine"
wrote in message
...

I see you snipping the thread again. Give me the name of
one member
of Congress that would be dumb enough to suggest
repealing the 2nd
Amendment.

Well, if Guam can capsize...

CAN IT FREAK!!!

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:09:38 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

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.

"...shall not be infringed", guarantees the right.


the 2nd's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is what allows us
to keep all the other rights.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

" wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:14:41 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:40:56 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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'the 18th amendment is hereby REPEALED'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 let me know when it gets repealed, OK?

I see you snipping the thread again. Give me the name of one member
of Congress that would be dumb enough to suggest repealing the 2nd
Amendment.

Well, if Guam can capsize...


Dianne Feinstein-CA,Charles Schumer-NY,Frank Lautenberg-NJ,Carolyn
McCarthy-NY,for starters.

Feinstein said once on 60 Minutes "If I had the votes,it would be "turn 'em
all in,America.""

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

bpuharic wrote:

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.

Actually, we're 45th, or thereabouts, in homicide rate tabulations at 5 per
100,000 population. Inasmuch as half or more of these homicides are
gang-bangers killing other gang-bangers, that's a Good Thing(TM).

If you take the good things out of the total, we're much lower on the
homicide list - we'd move to 64th (below Afghanistan).

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

Note there's a flaw in the list. It is a tabulation of "intentional
homicides." Homicide is the killing of one human being by another and there
are several types of homicides. Here's a sample list with examples - which
may differ somewhat in your jurisdiction:

* Murder - intentional killing of another with premeditation
* Manslaughter - killing in the heat of the moment
* Negligent - death due to ignoring a preventable cause (i.e., drunk
driving, throwing stuff off building)
* Justifiable - self-defense and other statutory exemptions (i.e., killing
an enemy in time of war, "he needed killin' defense")
* Excusable - death resulting with no fault attributed (i.e., imploding a
building where a drunk hobo has hidden himself within)

Consider the case where one deer hunter ("A") shoots and kills the other
("B")
1. "A" went on the hunting trip with a plan to kill "B". = Murder
2. "A" and "B" get into a heated argument. = Manslaughter
3. "A" sees a bush move and shoots. "B" was behind the bush taking a dump. =
Negligent
4. "B" shoots at "A" first, "A" returns fire. = Justifiable.
5. "B" cavorts around the clearing wearing a deer costume. = Excusable

All five meet the list's definition of "intentional homicides" but only the
first three are unlawful.

bpuharic wrote:

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?

You've never seen "The Children of the Corn"?

DGDevin wrote:

Only LAWFUL enemy combatants are afforded POW status

Aha, and since the govt. of Afghanistan didn't bother to buy uniforms
for its troops, we get to say they aren't really soldiers and do what
we please with them. How cunning. Let's just hope nobody brings up
the Minutemen....

Yes. In general, if the government doesn't follow the rules (i.e.,
uniforms), the participants will suffer the consequences. Do a smattering of
research. The Hauge Convention makes exceptions for hastily organized
militias and the like.

In the absence of any one of the above, the person is designated, by
extension, as an UNLAWFUL enemy combatant and is outside the
protections of the Hauge and Geneva conventions.

And if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong times, like the
poor *******s various Afghan warlords grabbed and turned over to the
U.S. as Taliban/Al Qaeda in order collect reward money, well tough
**** for him. A few years at Gitmo, was it really so bad?

Yep. Them's the breaks.

Common sub-catagories of unlawful enemy combatants include spies,
saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like. The warring
party coming into contact with these folks may follow its own rules,
unhindered by international treaties, regarding these people.

Oh ho, like the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that kind of rules?
And what does that little book say about the treatment of prisoners,
counselor? Where in there are things like beatings, cold, hunger,
water-boarding and so on listed as allowable? Think the "Cruelty and
maltreatment" section might apply to such matters?



The UCMJ is silent on the subject of unlawful enemy combatants. Further, the
folks to which you refer were not prisoners of the military - they were the
guests of the CIA.



Correct. Article II of the Constitution designates the President as
Commander in CHIEF of the armed forces. The Supreme Court, in the
Prize Cases, declared that the President, in this case Abe Lincoln,
can run a war any way he damn well pleases and cannot be gainsaid by
the courts, the Congress, or anyone else.

Which war are you speaking of? According to you we're fighting a
band of outlaws, not a uniformed army of a nation. How can you have
a war with such an ill-defined body? Who did we serve our
declaration of war upon? Where is their capital city? And how come
both before and after all this "they're neither fish nor fowl"
business we were able to catch, prosecute and imprison terrorists
using the laws and courts we apply to other criminals? Was there some
rare alignment of the planets that made that especially difficult
while Bush 43 was in office?

The President is CinC of the military. He can wage war on anybody he
pleases. Remember, Clinton waged war on more countries than anyone since FDR
(Albania, Croatia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Bosnia, and Iraq).

Well, they're not POWs.

Then why did you use POWs as an example of people locked up without
trial?


It was an EXAMPLE, just like mental health defectives, juveniles, contagion
spreaders, and more. You must have missed that I was giving examples of
people that could be locked up completely outside the criminal justice
system. POWs can be locked up without trial, so can unlawful enemy
combatants; they have a few other characteristics in common, but they are
not the same.


But leaving that aside, in what court would you try them? Remember,
the 6th Amendment says they must be tried in the State and district
where the crime occurred. I've haven't checked so far today, but as
of yesterday Afghanistan had not been granted statehood.

You simply cannot enforce American criminal law outside U.S.
territory.

Oh, so the 21 indictments handed down by U.S. courts against those
involved in the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa, those were, what,
clerical errors? And the four men convicted so far and serving life
without parole, how exactly did that come about?



Jeeze, I would think even a middling-quick CHILD would know that an American
Embassy is American soil.


They are not criminals, nor are they POWs. They are "unlawful enemy
combatants," at least according to the Supreme Court (1944).

And around the world America's claim to being a nation of laws takes
another black eye--do as we say, not as we do. And of course we
don't use torture, except when we do, and then it's not torture. Lovely.

Exactly. I think you're beginning to wrap your mind around the issue.

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:46:25 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

Some moron wrote:

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

It's not paranoia if they ARE really out to get you. And the
lefties and government ARE out to take away people's guns. Makes
for an easier takeover of society, dontcha know..............

really?

gee. it's been 2 years of the obama adminstration

any idea when this is gonna start?

Here's the latest:
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is moving to
require federally licensed firearms retailers to report multiple sales of
modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011. Specifically, the ATF
requirement calls for firearm retailers to report multiple sales, or other
dispositions, of two or more semi-automatic rifles that are larger than .22
caliber, capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the
same individual within five consecutive business days."
http://www.nssfblog.com/atf-to-requi...for-long-guns/

Virtually everyone asserts the ATF has no legislative authority to implement
such a regulation.

Firearms retailers already have to report the sale of five or more handguns
to the same person within a week. Where's it gonna end?


you guys really are sheep, arent you?

If we are, we're ARMED sheep.

bpuharic wrote:


(the "progressives" always try to swing the debate to race and
bigotry;VERY DISHONEST. It's classic Alinsky Rules for Radicals.)

and the right just mutters into their lobster bibs about the 'gummmit
takin' away our rights'....but they never specify WHAT...all the while
it's just a coincidence the presdient is black

The recent election proved that American is NOT a racist country, that it
could elect a black man as president.

Barak Obama has ensured that it will be generations before America elects
another black person as president.

On 2011-01-13, HeyBub wrote:

If we are, we're ARMED sheep.

So are the dirtbags the more smarmy sheep are selling firearms
illegally to.

nb

Ashton Crusher wrote:

People have been parroting that nonsense forever but you know what...
there is no place in the US that has liberalized their gun laws that
subsequently saw ANY of your silly claims happen. In fact, places
that get rid of laws that hamstring law-abiding citizens ability to
carry a gun almost invariably see a reduction in violent crime. The
UK and Australia both outlawed private guns and both saw very large
increases in violent crime rates. This isn't opinion, it's fact.
Unfortunately, there are too many people who refuse to look at the
facts and keep putting out the kind of nonsense you are that has no
basis in reality.

Good point. I'll add that no entity that has liberalized its gun laws has
seen fit to rescind that liberalization.

That is, no state that's adopted "shall issue" concealed weapons permits,
open carry, or anything else along these lines, has discovered that it made
a terrible mistake and repealed the laws they previously passed. There has
been some fine tuning. In my state a restriction was added to prohibit
carrying of a concealed weapon anywhere within 1000' of a scheduled
execution. We're working on getting back to sanity on that one. Every one
predicts that with overwhelming Republican majorities in both houses of our
legislature plus a Republican governor, we'll be able to get more
common-sense gun laws on the books. Such things as concealed carry on
college campuses, open carry, restoring the right to felons, and so forth.


Today, in all states but two (Wisconsin and Illinois), plus the District of
Columbia, it is possible for a private citizen to carry a pistol concealed.
Such a thing was almost unheard of until Florida became essentially the
first to legitimize concealed carry in 1987. My state went from no concealed
carry (none, not at all, no way) in 1995 to having over 400,000 license
holders today.

"EXT" wrote in message
anews.com...


That is the theory put forth, but unfortunately that concept won't work
either. There will be lots of people with guns that don't know how to use
them, how to shoot without taking out bystanders, and using them in
anger -- as we see street gangs doing.

I would prefer that people with concealed carry permits have to undergo
training and testing, with occasional refresher training. However, if armed
citizens intervening in criminal situations really result in innocent
bystanders being slaughtered in droves, then there should be plentiful
documentation of that happening. The percentage of CCW permit holders who
get into trouble with their guns is vanishingly small, a fraction of one
percent in the states where I've seen statistics. Which is not to say it
never happens, but it seems to be quite rare.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...

Another tidbit that is almost never talked about is that the police
are as likely to be shot by themselves or another cop about as often
as they are shot by an adversary. One report on this at the LAPD is
here

http://www.optacinternational.com/of...icle_Accid.pdf

I used to shoot at a range also used by cops and prison guards in closed
training. Us dumb civilians were eventually denied use of the (govt.) range
because the uniformed professionals got tired of civilians reporting the
damage caused by the supposed pros--lights shot out, safety barriers shot
up, bullet strikes on the walls and floors and ceilings.... We filed
reports because we wanted to establish that we were not causing the damage.
This wasn't some Hogan's Alley setup, but a conventional target range, and
clearly they were either being very "cowboy" or just plain sloppy.

I recently posted a link here about a major U.S. city whose police dept. did
no firearms training for two years--that's bad management.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Every one predicts that with overwhelming Republican majorities in both
houses of our legislature plus a Republican governor, we'll be able to get
more common-sense gun laws on the books.

Has Gov. Perry decided Texas should remain within the Union after all?

Such things as concealed carry on college campuses, open carry, restoring
the right to felons, and so forth.

Excuse me, restoring the right to felons?

Today, in all states but two (Wisconsin and Illinois), plus the District
of Columbia, it is possible for a private citizen to carry a pistol
concealed.

Possible, but not likely in some may-issue states and quite a pain in the
butt in others. 8,000,000 million people in New Jersey and less than 1,000
CCW permits--what does that tell you?

On 2011-01-13, DGDevin wrote:

I recently posted a link here about a major U.S. city whose police dept. did
no firearms training for two years--that's bad management.

Having acquired my Boy Scout merit badge over 50 yrs ago, I can attest
to the fact MOST civilians with shooting priveledges treat them with
the utmost respect. Got my expert ribbon in the service, too, and can
tell you the shooters at all the ranges I've ever frequented are
fanatical about safety. If the rangemaster doesn't jump right square
in yer fecal matter, your fellow range users certainly will!! No one
wants a cowboy or joker in the lane next to them.

Having moved to rural CO a few yrs ago, I discovered our local NRA
sanctioned range is NOT supervised. NO RANGEMASTER!!! Coming from
rigidly controlled CA, I had no idea such places even existed. They
do! Imagine my delight to discover all the ppl using it are every bit
as carefull and safety conscious as any controlled range I've ever
been to, military or civilian.

For the most part, US citizens that are aware of the precious gun
owning rights they enjoy are just that ...painfully aware!.... and
will protect them at all costs. Even against fellow gun owners who
abuse that privilege. IOW, better not abuse gun laws while I'm
around, cuz I'm not about to let you screw it up for me!!

nb

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:21:42 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

Such things as concealed carry on college campuses, open carry, restoring
the right to felons, and so forth.

Excuse me, restoring the right to felons?

Felons can have their Civil Rights restored. Each state will have the
procedures in place. Even includes the right to vote. Clemency is
another method.

On 1/13/2011 9:08 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
z wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:14:41 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:40:56 -0500, wrote:

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

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

I see you snipping the thread again. Give me the name of one member
of Congress that would be dumb enough to suggest repealing the 2nd
Amendment.

Well, if Guam can capsize...


Dianne Feinstein-CA,Charles Schumer-NY,Frank Lautenberg-NJ,Carolyn
McCarthy-NY,for starters.

Feinstein said once on 60 Minutes "If I had the votes,it would be "turn 'em
all in,America.""


Sadly, one day enough politicians like Feinstein will be in power at the
same time, and they will try. That is why I tell people to keep their
mouths shut about the guns they own, don't display them, etc. We are all
better off if the PTB just aren't sure who has guns at home and who
doesn't. 'Gun? What gun?'

--
aem sends...

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:03 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:39:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


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.

It sure is! It's the freedom to protect yourself and your property. You
really aren't very bright.

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders. they suck up billions and make me pay for it. i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

...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...

Wrong! You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?

oh. gun nuts dont believe there was a civil war

khOn Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:40:09 -0600, "j
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:40:11 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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...

It's not my chest I'm thumping, kid.

i dont want to know....


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?

Yeah, what was all that about slavery? ...your lies, I mean.

so you dont know US history. yep, figures you socialist free loading
gun nuts dont know history


oh. it's outdated

Hardly, liar.

Amendment XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

and when ws that enacted?

oh. yo udont know that either

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:03:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

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.

Actually, we're 45th, or thereabouts, in homicide rate tabulations at 5 per
100,000 population.

yeah. after all the ivory coast is such a paraidse. thanks for making
my case. did a great j ob!


Inasmuch as half or more of these homicides are
gang-bangers killing other gang-bangers, that's a Good Thing(TM).

If you take the good things out of the total, we're much lower on the
homicide list - we'd move to 64th (below Afghanistan

ah. well that's a GREAT recommendation. afghanistan...a 3rd centruy
theocracy

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:05:03 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

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?

You've never seen "The Children of the Corn"?

i prefer the fermented and distilled variety

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:17:59 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:49:52 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:01 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:53:13 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

ah. let us know about this when you learn about repealing amendments

Sure. Right now. It won't be because Congress conducts a "ruling"!

You never answered my question about where you found that in the
Constitution.

right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed

Hey. You said the 2nd Amendment needed to be repealed.

Which is it? Get specific, can you?

you cant read the constitution?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:29:34 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:50:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:14:00 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:54:05 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


I see you snipping the thread again. Give me the name of one member
of Congress that would be dumb enough to suggest repealing the 2nd
Amendment.

yeah i know. the NRA has the best congress money can buy

I'm not mad.

Still waiting for the name of one member that would suggest repealing
the 2nd Amendment.

Tell us whom that might be.

straighten your tin foil hat.

Here is what you said:

--------
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

---------

Am I dealing with an unarmed idiot? Now you suggest Amendments can't
be repealed....

Have your live-in defense attorney plea bargain. It's okay for you to
cop-out, but you can't have it both ways.

HAHAHAHAHA just because no one is WILLING to repeal it does not mean
it doesnt have to be repealed!

cant read english, i suppose

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:38:21 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Jan 12, 4:54*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 09:55:48 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

bpuharic wrote in
:

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.

so you're saying murder isnt a violent crime?

Maybe it's not a gun problem....

care to give your insightful analysis of these US Govt data?

and yet you cant answer why the most heavily armed nation on earth has
the highest murder rate in the west...when you gunnies say this
shouldnt happen

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:55:05 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:46:25 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

Some moron wrote:

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

It's not paranoia if they ARE really out to get you. And the
lefties and government ARE out to take away people's guns. Makes
for an easier takeover of society, dontcha know..............

really?

gee. it's been 2 years of the obama adminstration

any idea when this is gonna start?

Here's the latest:
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is moving to
require federally licensed firearms retailers to report multiple sales of
modern sporting rifles beginning January 5, 2011

ah. REPORTING

yes, i can see that means they'll immediately start kicking in doors

jesus you guys ARE gun nuts

you guys really are sheep, arent you?

If we are, we're ARMED sheep.


you're brain dead sheep. paranoid.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:57:58 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:


(the "progressives" always try to swing the debate to race and
bigotry;VERY DISHONEST. It's classic Alinsky Rules for Radicals.)

and the right just mutters into their lobster bibs about the 'gummmit
takin' away our rights'....but they never specify WHAT...all the while
it's just a coincidence the presdient is black

The recent election proved that American is NOT a racist country, that it
could elect a black man as president.

and the election last year proved a small segment regrets our progress


Barak Obama has ensured that it will be generations before America elects
another black person as president.

yeah. the american people are sheep. no wonder the middle class is
dying

http://lanekenworthy.net/2010/07/20/...graph-updated/

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:20 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:



wrote in message
...

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 if it never happened, why did the Bush administration get Congress to
pass legislation immunizing the telecom companies against being sued for
cooperating with the government's tapping program, hmmmm? This was widely
covered in the news, or do you avoid the news because it's all lib crap?

So they wouldn't have to bother with expensive suits from people with more
money than brains.

snip

On Jan 13, 8:18*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 13:57:58 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

(the "progressives" always try to swing the debate to race and
bigotry;VERY DISHONEST. It's classic Alinsky Rules for Radicals.)

and the right just mutters into their lobster bibs about the 'gummmit
takin' away our rights'....but they never specify WHAT...all the while
it's just a coincidence the presdient is black

The recent election proved that American is NOT a racist country, that it
could elect a black man as president.

and the election last year proved a small segment regrets our progress



Barak Obama has ensured that it will be generations before America elects
another black person as president.

yeah. the american people are sheep. no wonder the middle class is
dying

http://lanekenworthy.net/2010/07/20/...graph-updated/



THE HELL WITH YOU BHULETARGIC
IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SHEEP THEY HAVE A FEARSOME SHEPHERD SO SHUT
THE **** UP ALREADY!

THAT'S WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO..INCREASE GUN TAX AND LICENSE FEES SO
HIGH THAT PEOPLE STOP BUYING GUNS, THEN TAKE THE ILLEGAL PEDDLERS AND
SENTENCE THEM TO DEATH AFTER ALL IT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC EVERY TIME THEY SELL AN ILLEGAL HANDGUN.....

I WILL BE WAITING FOR THEIR SOULS TO DISLODGE FROM THEIR WRETCHED
CORPSES AND TAKE THEM STRAIGHT TO HELL SO THEY CAN SEE AND FEEL THE
PAIN THEY HAVE CAUSED IN PERSON.

PATECUM

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend? How much by the trial lawyers? The
Teamsters?...


rest of the Mr. Goebbels' rant snipped

In article ,
" wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend? How much by the trial lawyers? The
Teamsters?...


rest of the Mr. Goebbels' rant snipped

There is a website that tracks who gave what. Over the last 15
years ATT was first, some Dem Pac Second and then the SIU (or whatever
the government workers union is). Out of the top 20, 12 were unions and
only 4 were corporations or their PACs. Sorta interesting compared to
what we read, huh?

--
"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 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:35:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend?the How much by the trial lawyers? The
Teamsters?...

tell you what. you go he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ll-time_donors

it turns out the chamber of commerce, alone, spent more than the top
labor union did in over 10 years

the ruling class is buying our congress. and the middle class is
paying the price. the middle class hasnt had a real pay increase in 40
years



rest of the Mr. Goebbels' rant snipped

On Jan 13, 8:49*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:35:02 -0600, "

wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend?the * How much by the trial lawyers? *The
Teamsters?...

tell you what. you go he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...#Top_all-time_...

it turns out the chamber of commerce, alone, spent more than the top
labor union did in over 10 years

the ruling class is buying our congress. and the middle class is
paying the price. the middle class hasnt had a real pay increase in 40
years





rest of the Mr. Goebbels' rant snipped

CRY ME A RIVER.......GUN GA DIN.

PAT ECUM

On Jan 13, 8:54*pm, The Ghost in The Machine
wrote:
On Jan 13, 8:49*pm, bpuharic wrote:





On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:35:02 -0600, "

wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend?the * How much by the trial lawyers? *The
Teamsters?...

tell you what. you go he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...#Top_all-time_...

it turns out the chamber of commerce, alone, spent more than the top
labor union did in over 10 years

the ruling class is buying our congress. and the middle class is
paying the price. the middle class hasnt had a real pay increase in 40
years

rest of the Mr. Goebbels' rant snipped

CRY ME A RIVER.......GUN GA DIN.

PAT ECUM

OOPS, NO ONE SAID GHOST ARE PERFECT.
GUN LOVERS ARE MY BIGGEST CLIENTELE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIER POOR
DEFENSELESS VICTIMS.
I LIKE THE VICS BETTER, THE TRIP TO THE CELESTIAL GROUNDS IS PLEASANT.
THE OTHER PLACE IS JUST HOT N SMELLY...EVEN FOR US GHOSTS.
I'LL TAKE YOU THERE.
PATECUM

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:08:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:03 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:39:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


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.

It sure is! It's the freedom to protect yourself and your property. You
really aren't very bright.

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders.

You're such a liar.

they suck up billions and make me pay for it.

Bull****.

i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

....and stupid beyond belief.

...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...

Wrong! You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?

Economics. You really are a *recent* product of the public schools, aren't
you kid?

oh. gun nuts dont believe there was a civil war

You've got that stupid beyond belief thing going again.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:10:05 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

khOn Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:40:09 -0600, "j
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:40:11 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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...

It's not my chest I'm thumping, kid.

i dont want to know....

You can't feel your chest, kid? You've been thumped, even if you're too
stupid to realize it.

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?

Yeah, what was all that about slavery? ...your lies, I mean.

so you dont know US history. yep, figures you socialist free loading
gun nuts dont know history

You *obviously* don't.

oh. it's outdated

Hardly, liar.

Amendment XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

and when ws that enacted?

It *IS* part of the Constitution, dummy.

oh. yo udont know that either

Actually, I do, but it is irrelevant.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:13:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:17:59 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:49:52 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:06:01 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:53:13 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

ah. let us know about this when you learn about repealing amendments

Sure. Right now. It won't be because Congress conducts a "ruling"!

You never answered my question about where you found that in the
Constitution.

right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed

Hey. You said the 2nd Amendment needed to be repealed.

Which is it? Get specific, can you?

you cant read the constitution?

*YOU* should try it some time, Mr. Pot.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:58:16 -0500, aemeijers wrote:

On 1/13/2011 9:08 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
z wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:14:41 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:40:56 -0500, wrote:

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

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

I see you snipping the thread again. Give me the name of one member
of Congress that would be dumb enough to suggest repealing the 2nd
Amendment.

Well, if Guam can capsize...


Dianne Feinstein-CA,Charles Schumer-NY,Frank Lautenberg-NJ,Carolyn
McCarthy-NY,for starters.

Feinstein said once on 60 Minutes "If I had the votes,it would be "turn 'em
all in,America.""


Sadly, one day enough politicians like Feinstein will be in power at the
same time, and they will try. That is why I tell people to keep their
mouths shut about the guns they own, don't display them, etc. We are all
better off if the PTB just aren't sure who has guns at home and who
doesn't. 'Gun? What gun?'

Can you say "private sale"?

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:48:14 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend? How much by the trial lawyers? The
Teamsters?...


rest of the Mr. Goebbels' rant snipped

There is a website that tracks who gave what. Over the last 15
years ATT was first, some Dem Pac Second and then the SIU (or whatever
the government workers union is). Out of the top 20, 12 were unions and
only 4 were corporations or their PACs. Sorta interesting compared to
what we read, huh?

Something lefty liars like bupkis want to gloss over.

On Jan 13, 9:05*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:08:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:03 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:39:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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.

It sure is! *It's the freedom to protect yourself and your property. *You
really aren't very bright.

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders.

You're such a liar.

they suck up billions and make me pay for it.

Bull****.

i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

...and stupid beyond belief.

...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...

Wrong! *You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?

Economics. *You really are a *recent* product of the public schools, aren't
you kid?

oh. gun nuts dont believe there was a civil war

You've got that stupid beyond belief thing going again.
I THINK I WILL BE CALLED TO COLLECT YOUR SOUL BEFORE BHUBONICTARCICS.
YOU ARE INFECTED DUDE...GO SEE A SOUL DOCTOR...I HAVE ALREADY GOT YOU
ON MY LIST, PENDING A DELIVERY ADDRESS.
PATECUM

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:10:19 -0800 (PST), The Ghost in The Machine
wrote:

On Jan 13, 9:05*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:08:24 -0500, bpuharic wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:33:03 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:39:21 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

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.

It sure is! *It's the freedom to protect yourself and your property. *You
really aren't very bright.

your right stops where it infringes mine. and gun owners are
freeloaders.

You're such a liar.

they suck up billions and make me pay for it.

Bull****.

i'm tired
of the socialist gun owners and their wlefare mentality making me pay
for their failures

...and stupid beyond belief.

...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...

Wrong! *You're nothing but another lefty liar, but that's redundant.

really? then why was the civil war fought?

Economics. *You really are a *recent* product of the public schools, aren't
you kid?

oh. gun nuts dont believe there was a civil war

You've got that stupid beyond belief thing going again.
I THINK I WILL BE CALLED TO COLLECT YOUR SOUL BEFORE BHUBONICTARCICS.
YOU ARE INFECTED DUDE...GO SEE A SOUL DOCTOR...I HAVE ALREADY GOT YOU
ON MY LIST, PENDING A DELIVERY ADDRESS.
PATECUM

Speaking of stupid beyond belief... Hi Roy!

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:49:31 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:35:02 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:58:35 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

the US chamber of commerce alone spent over $50M in the last election

How much did the teacher's unions spend?the How much by the trial lawyers? The
Teamsters?...

tell you what. you go he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ll-time_donors

it turns out the chamber of commerce, alone, spent more than the top
labor union did in over 10 years

You're a ****ing liar.

the ruling class is buying our congress. and the middle class is
paying the price. the middle class hasnt had a real pay increase in 40
years



rest of the Mr. Goebbels' rant snipped