On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:08:41 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:38:36 -0800, Oren wrote:

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


right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed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 You said the 2nd Amendment needed to be repealed.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?

See! You have no game. Bring something with substance...

You act like a 2 year old, answering a question with a question.

1) Where did you get the idea about Congress "ruling"? From Judge
Wapner?

right next to where you said amendments cant be repealed

Show me where I said that or shut up.

This is what you said: right next to where it says amendments
cant be repealed

That was after you stated the crap about Congress "ruling".


2) Why did your turn into a Chameleon, changing colors, when you talk
about "repealing" the 2nd Amendment and then later state it can't be
repealed?

HAHAHAHA i said it cant be repealed as a matter of POLICY. there is
no congressional support for it, you complete moron

You said Congress would have a "ruling". Show me differently. I'm
the one that said there would be no support from Congress.
Particularly from some arbitrary "ruling".

Next, well actually you have already called the GOP "Socialist".



3) Don't answer I know the reasons. There are plenty of them.

christ you're stupid

No I'm crazy, not stupid.

Standing by. I'm about to have a "ruling" and then repeal you.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:19:33 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


Cite specifics.

i did. it's called wikipedia. go look it up yourself

Well, by golly! That sure clears things up.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:05:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:06:42 -0600, "
wrote:

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.

nah. as is typical for a gunnie, you've got lots of hair on your
palms.

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 it's outdated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.

gee. it was enacted at the END Of the civil war.

Completely irrelevant, liar.

any time you need to be educated, you c'mon by...

You should look in the mirror some time, kid.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:43:11 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

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

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.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

You really should learn something about what you rail against.

Pot/kettle. The 13th Amendment was ratified December 6th, 1865. General Lee
(peace be upon him) surrendered eight months before.

Your point? Once it was ratified it became part of the Constitution, as do
all amendments. Dum**** claims the document is antiquated, and allows
slavery. Hardly.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:26:45 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:



wrote in message ...


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.

Oh, I see, like Ford pardoning Nixon, not because Nixon had broken any laws,
but just to avoid having to mess around in court for years. But not because
he was guilty of anything. Sure.

Sorry you don't like the facts.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:16:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:47:35 -0600, "
wrote:

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.

all i did was present the facts

NO you most certainly did not!

you dont like it? gee. that's too bad

No, I don't particularly like ****ing liars.

On Jan 14, 3:20*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:31:40 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Jan 14, 6:15 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
bpuharic wrote:

a cliche. if guns arent the problem, why does the most heavilly armed
country on earth have the highest murder rate in the developed world?

you keep dancing around the issue.

Because we have the highest rate of do-bads in the world.

Just think how much worse crime would be if we stopped culling the herd!

Jeeze! The stink-eyes are like beaver teeth - you've got to keep them filed
down or they'll kill you.

Because we have the highest rate of do-bads in the "developed" world.

I was hoping that Dr. B would discover the correlation on his own, the
answer is in the data I linked to. *

aw, gee. guess he forgot that OTHER countries have minorities

http://www.stefanwolff.com/files/min-eu.pdf

but they dont have a homicide rate anywhere near ours

oh. they were counting on the racist argument.

sorry

you're glossing over the data & using hyperbole instead of facts

you claim.........

and yet other countries have murder rates orders of magnitude lower than ours

The US murder rate is 5 per 100,000. How could other countries have
rates lower by "orders of magnitude"?


US 5.00
S. Korea 2.18
New Zealand 2.00
Canada 1.81
France 1.60
UK 1.28
Australia 1.20
Switzerland 1.01
Japan .44

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:50:41 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


Tell us why the Brother- Brother War (Native American term) really
started.

I regret your reply.

i know history.

you know...nothing

Sorry Junior. Secession was in the making before Lincoln was first
elected in 1860. Think (if you can) TAXES and distribution of those
taxes.

*~Slavery was NOT one of them. When South Carolina threatened to
secede in 1837, slavery wasn't even mentioned. The reasons in 1837 did
not abate, they worsened and came to a head in 1860.

Abraham Lincoln Quote:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of
bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the
white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of
making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in
addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white
and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races
living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there
must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any
other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the
white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because
the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be
denied everything."

Pull you head out of the sand.

Next!

You're about to be repealed after I have a "ruling".

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:07:59 -0600, "
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:57:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


You're such a liar.

let's see....billions of dollars are spent in healthcare every year to
gun victims. funeral costs

More random neurons firing...

IOW you dont like the facts...


and gun owners, socialists that they are, pass these costs on to
others.

Lies, but we don't expect anything more from you.

and so you refuse to acknowledge the costs of gun ownership are passed
on to the public

uh...who's paying for the funeral of the 9 year old girl in AZ?

her family. not gun owners. her family

so your socialist bull**** of inflicting costs on people is a fact.
you just are too stupid to understand it

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 19:38:09 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:50:41 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


Tell us why the Brother- Brother War (Native American term) really
started.

I regret your reply.

i know history.

you know...nothing

Sorry Junior. Secession was in the making before Lincoln was first
elected in 1860. Think (if you can) TAXES and distribution of those
taxes.


go read the articles of secession. every single state said it was
slavery....

south carolina's address:

http://americancivilwar.com/document...a_address.html

The agitations on the subject of Slavery in the South are the natural
results of the consolidation of the Government. Responsibility follows
power; and if the people of the North have the power by Congress "to
promote the general welfare of the United States," by any means they
deem expedient, why should they not assail and overthrow the
institution of Slavery in the South? They are responsible for its
continuance or existence, in proportion to their power. A majority in
Congress, according to their interested and perverted views, is
omnipotent. The inducements to act upon the subject of Slavery, under
such circumstances, were so imperious as to amount almost to a moral
necessity

s. carolina's declaration of secession:

http://americancivilwar.com/document..._carolina.html

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides
as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under
the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor,
but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service
or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that
compact would not have been made. The greater number of the
contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their
estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition
in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by
Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.


mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its
connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it
is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have
induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of
slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor
supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most
important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are
peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an
imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to
the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world,
and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.


georgia:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of
complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with
reference to the subject of African slavery.

texas:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting
the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African
to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from
the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which
her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions
and geographical position established the strongest ties between her
and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have
been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the
government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of
the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?


*~Slavery was NOT one of them. When South Carolina threatened to
secede in 1837, slavery wasn't even mentioned. The reasons in 1837 did
not abate, they worsened and came to a head in 1860.

see the above where S. carolina, in its letter of secession,
specifically says it was.


Abraham Lincoln Quote:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of
bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the
white and black races

which has NOTHING to do with why the states seceeded. nothing.


Pull you head out of the sand.

i suggest you actually READ history instead of sucking the wind from
your own ass.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:13:21 -0600, "
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:05:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:06:42 -0600, "
wrote:

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.

gee. it was enacted at the END Of the civil war.

Completely irrelevant, liar.


ah. so you admit that, until the civil war, the constitution allowed
slavery.

thanks. i knew that

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:18:57 -0600, "
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:16:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


all i did was present the facts

NO you most certainly did not!

you dont like it? gee. that's too bad

No, I don't particularly like ****ing liars.

does this mean you're gonna commit suicide?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:30:48 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Jan 14, 3:20*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:31:40 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:




Because we have the highest rate of do-bads in the "developed" world.

I was hoping that Dr. B would discover the correlation on his own, the
answer is in the data I linked to. *

aw, gee. guess he forgot that OTHER countries have minorities

http://www.stefanwolff.com/files/min-eu.pdf

but they dont have a homicide rate anywhere near ours

oh. they were counting on the racist argument.

sorry

you're glossing over the data & using hyperbole instead of facts

ah. you claim it's the darkies who commit murder

except other nations have large minority populations with SIGNIFICANLY
less murder than we have.


you claim.........

and yet other countries have murder rates orders of magnitude lower than ours

The US murder rate is 5 per 100,000. How could other countries have
rates lower by "orders of magnitude"?


US 5.00
S. Korea 2.18
New Zealand 2.00
Canada 1.81
France 1.60
UK 1.28
Australia 1.20
Switzerland 1.01
Japan .44

oh you can't count. that's the problem

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

US 7.07

Switzerland 0.58

Canada 0.76

Norway 0.3

those are ORDER OF MAGNITUDE diffrerences

dont they teach what that means in right wing schools? or does rush
not educate you in such matter

I've never been too crazy about celibate liars, either.

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


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:16:10 -0500, bpuharic
wrote:


You're a ****ing liar.

all i did was present the facts

NO you most certainly did not!

you dont like it? gee. that's too bad

No, I don't particularly like ****ing liars.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:47:53 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:07:59 -0600, "
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:57:46 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


You're such a liar.

let's see....billions of dollars are spent in healthcare every year to
gun victims. funeral costs

More random neurons firing...

IOW you dont like the facts...

You wouldn't know a fact it hit you in the puss, Iarny.

snipped more lies from Iarny

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:57:43 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:13:21 -0600, "
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:05:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:06:42 -0600, "
wrote:

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.

gee. it was enacted at the END Of the civil war.

Completely irrelevant, liar.


ah. so you admit that, until the civil war, the constitution allowed
slavery.

Completely irrelevant, Iarny.

thanks. i knew that

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:58:50 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:18:57 -0600, "
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:16:10 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


all i did was present the facts

NO you most certainly did not!

you dont like it? gee. that's too bad

No, I don't particularly like ****ing liars.

does this mean you're gonna commit suicide?

Nope, I wouldn't even attempt to make you happy (an impossibility for a
leftist loser).

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:06:33 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've never been too crazy about celibate liars, either.

Well he's a bottom.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:56:05 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

see the above where S. carolina, in its letter of secession,
specifically says it was.

Written in 1860? Not every Southerner was loyal to the South. Many
were just plain old politicians. Talk of Secession started long before
that.

The War of Northern Aggression had just about as much to do with
slavery as a laxative has to do at stopping diarrhea.

Them damn Yankees sent abolitionists into the South to stir up riots
amongst the slaves.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:50:19 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:56:05 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

see the above where S. carolina, in its letter of secession,
specifically says it was.

Written in 1860? Not every Southerner was loyal to the South. Many
were just plain old politicians. Talk of Secession started long before
that.

and the articles prove the states seceeded due to slavery. that's what
THEY said


The War of Northern Aggression had just about as much to do with
slavery as a laxative has to do at stopping diarrhea.

you're welcome to continue denying history


Them damn Yankees sent abolitionists into the South to stir up riots
amongst the slaves.

yeah. slavery was such a good deal, right?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:37:58 -0600, "
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:06:33 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've never been too crazy about celibate liars, either.

Well he's a bottom.

LOTS of insults

NO facts

typical right winger

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:04:22 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

Them damn Yankees sent abolitionists into the South to stir up riots
amongst the slaves.

yeah. slavery was such a good deal, right?

Actually, land, mules and slaves were given as wedding presents. In
one instance I know of the bride got all three on the day of her
wedding.

Truth be known, this was not in Berkeley, CA.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:05:27 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:37:58 -0600, "
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:06:33 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I've never been too crazy about celibate liars, either.

Well he's a bottom.

LOTS of insults

Not possible, Iarny.

NO facts

typical right winger

Typical lefty troll.

bpuharic wrote:

Written in 1860? Not every Southerner was loyal to the South. Many
were just plain old politicians. Talk of Secession started long
before that.

and the articles prove the states seceeded due to slavery. that's what
THEY said


So what? Secession is not war.

It was the Northern Aggressors that began the armed conflict, not the South.

RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 14, 3:21 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

Oh, and Lee did not offer nor did Grant receive, Lee's sword.

So it's not official then...?


Not so far as many of us believe.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:43:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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

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.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

You really should learn something about what you rail against.

Pot/kettle. The 13th Amendment was ratified December 6th, 1865.
General Lee (peace be upon him) surrendered eight months before.

Your point? Once it was ratified it became part of the Constitution,
as do all amendments. Dum**** claims the document is antiquated, and
allows slavery. Hardly.

I was pointing out that the constitutional prohibition against slavery came
AFTER the Second War of Independence; that slavery was not a legal issue to
be decided by force of arms.

bpuharic wrote:

right next to where it says amendments cant be repealed

The word "repeal" does not appear in the Constitution. The word
"repealed" occurs once, viz:

"Amendment 21
" 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the
United States is hereby repealed."

thanks for proving my point

Hey, when you're right, you're right. I encourage you to be right more
often!

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:18:52 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 07:43:11 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

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

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.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

You really should learn something about what you rail against.

Pot/kettle. The 13th Amendment was ratified December 6th, 1865.
General Lee (peace be upon him) surrendered eight months before.

Your point? Once it was ratified it became part of the Constitution,
as do all amendments. Dum**** claims the document is antiquated, and
allows slavery. Hardly.

I was pointing out that the constitutional prohibition against slavery came
AFTER the Second War of Independence; that slavery was not a legal issue to
be decided by force of arms.

I said nothing about when or why it was ratified. Dum**** said the
Constitution was 1) outdated and 2) allowed slavery, when it clearly is not
and does not. *When* XIII was ratified is irrelevant. The fact that it was
lays lie to Dum****'s assertions.

On Jan 14, 2:26*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
wrote in messagenews:ud9vi6ps7c8sbud2vmddsmpc4t4n5589ui@4ax .com...

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.

Oh, I see, like Ford pardoning Nixon, not because Nixon had broken any laws,
but just to avoid having to mess around in court for years. *But not because
he was guilty of anything. *Sure.

Unbelievable nonsense on an issue that has zero bearing. Everyone
within the
sound of my voice knows that when Nixon accepted the pardon, he was,
in essence,
admitting that the broke laws. He was perfectly free to reject it
and stand trial, had
he chosen to do so. And the pardon did allow the country to move
on, instead of
remaining occupied with a trial that could have lasted years.....

Since you want to bring up pardons, what about the pardon by Clinton
of Marc Rich?
He was on the FBI most wanted list, living in Switzerland, wanted for
tax evasion,
among other crimes. During the Jimmy Carter days of loony energy
policy, he
decided to tax "old" oil at rates far higher than "new" oil. Marc
Rich figured out
how to put old oil in one end of a pipe, pump it around, and when it
came out the
other end, it was new oil. When caught, he fled the country. Now,
thanks to his
ex-wife greasing the works with lots of money and contributions to the
Clinton
library, he's pardoned. How does that pardon sit with you?

And back to your original claim, pointing out that Congress passed a
law giving
imunity to ISPs for any help they give in turning over information
does zippo to
prove your claim that the USA is actively listening in on all domestic
calls.

As KRW pointed out, it was done so that they would be shielded from
frivoulous
lawsuits, (think ACLU), on behalf of some skunk who's bomb making was
interrupted after he came onto the FBIs radar map and they got further
info
from the ISP. You have a problem with that?

On Jan 14, 3:38*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:

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.

Absolutely and positively not so. Spies, saboteurs, guerrillas, and the like
are most emphatically NOT soldiers and, if captured on the battlefield, are
NOT entitled to POW status. This has been part of the Rules of Warfare for
millennia and is codified in the various treaties and conventions on the
conduct of war.

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?

During WWII literally hundreds of thousands of German and Italian POWs were
confined on U.S. soil and a significant number of them were U.S. citizens
(think dual citizenship). Not a one was tried as a traitor. Further, not a
one ever had access to U.S. civilian courts. (Crimes committed within a POW
camp - theft, murder, etc. - were handled by courts martial.)

Point is, citizenship is irrelevant for POW status, charging as a traitor,
or detention and execution as an unlawful enemy combatant.



Case in point is what the beloved patron saint of liberals, FDR, did.
In 1942
a German plot to sabotage and bomb the USA was discovered and 8 guys
were arrested on US soil. Two of them were US citizens. All were
tried
before a military tribunal, convicted and received the death
sentence. FDR
commuted the death penalty for two who had cooperated. The others
were
dispatched in short order. From arrest to execution took all of 3
months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:16:00 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

bpuharic wrote:

Written in 1860? Not every Southerner was loyal to the South. Many
were just plain old politicians. Talk of Secession started long
before that.

and the articles prove the states seceeded due to slavery. that's what
THEY said


So what? Secession is not war.

It was the Northern Aggressors that began the armed conflict, not the South.

you mean the nazi slaveholding genocidal south, right?

just thought i'd correct you

wrote:

Absolutely and positively not so. Spies, saboteurs, guerrillas, and
the like are most emphatically NOT soldiers and, if captured on the
battlefield, are NOT entitled to POW status. This has been part of
the Rules of Warfare for millennia and is codified in the various
treaties and conventions on the conduct of war.

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?

During WWII literally hundreds of thousands of German and Italian
POWs were confined on U.S. soil and a significant number of them
were U.S. citizens (think dual citizenship). Not a one was tried as
a traitor. Further, not a one ever had access to U.S. civilian
courts. (Crimes committed within a POW camp - theft, murder, etc. -
were handled by courts martial.)

Point is, citizenship is irrelevant for POW status, charging as a
traitor, or detention and execution as an unlawful enemy combatant.



Case in point is what the beloved patron saint of liberals, FDR, did.
In 1942
a German plot to sabotage and bomb the USA was discovered and 8 guys
were arrested on US soil. Two of them were US citizens. All were
tried
before a military tribunal, convicted and received the death
sentence. FDR
commuted the death penalty for two who had cooperated. The others
were
dispatched in short order. From arrest to execution took all of 3
months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

Damn! I didn't know it took that long! Liberals were active back then too.

Major Andre was captured by Continental forces on September 23, 1780 and was
executed by firing squad, under General Washington's orders, on October 2nd
(six business days later)

On Jan 14, 8:04*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:30:48 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:









On Jan 14, 3:20*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:31:40 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

Because we have the highestrateof do-bads in the "developed" world.

I was hoping that Dr. B would discover the correlation on his own, the
answer is in the data I linked to. *

aw, gee. guess he forgot that OTHER countries have minorities

http://www.stefanwolff.com/files/min-eu.pdf

but they dont have a homiciderateanywhere near ours

oh. they were counting on the racist argument.

sorry

you're glossing over the data *& using hyperbole instead of facts

ah. you claim it's the darkies who commitmurder

except other nations have large minority populations with SIGNIFICANLY
lessmurderthan we have.











you claim.........

and yet other countries havemurderrates orders of magnitude lower *than ours

The USmurderrateis 5 per 100,000. * How could other countries have
rates lower by "orders of magnitude"?

US * * * * * * * * * * *5.00
S. Korea * * * * * *2.18
New Zealand * 2.00
Canada * * * * * * 1.81
France * * * * * * *1.60
UK * * * * * * * * * * 1.28
Australia * * * * * *1.20
Switzerland * * *1.01
Japan * * * * * * * * *.44

oh you can't count. that's the problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rm-related_dea...

US * 7.07

Switzerland 0.58

Canada *0.76

Norway *0.3

those are ORDER OF MAGNITUDE diffrerences

dont they teach what that means in right wing schools? or does rush
not educate you in such matter

Why are you cherry picking the data?
Dead is dead. I don't understand why you focus on the implement of
murder.
People who want to kill people will use whatever means available.


fyi the murder rates below span merely a single order of magnitude
(not orders of magnitudes)

even your cherry picked data (& pretty much not entirely applicatble)
is only showing a factor of ~20.

Murder rate matters

The US murder rate is 5 per 100,000. How could other countries have
rates lower by "orders of magnitude"?
US 5.00
S. Korea 2.18
New Zealand 2.00
Canada 1.81
France 1.60
UK 1.28
Australia 1.20
Switzerland 1.01
Japan .44

cheers
Bob

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. The gun lobby will
continue to pay off the whores in Congress who defeat every attempt at
REASONABLE regulation with shrill misreadings of the 2nd Amendment.

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.

And you can still go to a gun show and buy any lethal weapon for sale
no matter if you are a terrorist or "merely" a psychotic killer.

It's so pitifully obvious that the "men" who need lethal weapons to
prove their manhood are really nothing but scared, sick little
children inside.


Yep. Get used to it, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:06:47 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:



"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.


I was on the local Police Review board for 7 years. During one of our
familiarization tours one of the cops hosting the tour actually pulled
out his gun and pointed it at another cop as a joke of some sort. I
wasn't particularly worried it would go off but was dumbfounded that
anyone would so that in public - one of the first rules of carrying a
gun is that you never point a weapon at anyone you aren't potentially
going to shoot. In talking with some of the cops some of them said
they didn't even like guns and didn't like target practice. Others
didn't like driving fast, i.e over 80mph. When I worked out of town
that was my standard commute speed.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:57:23 -0800 (PST), The Ghost in The Machine
wrote:

On Jan 13, 12:55*am, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:47:27 -0500, "EXT"





wrote:

"Michael B" wrote in message
...
A well armed society is a very polite one.
Things could have been different if the shooter
had been taken out earlier than it took for two
people to tackle him down.
And who would not have the guns with the
regulations you propose? Same as before.

The guy used a semi-automatic. Pull the trigger,
it shoots.

Next time you go to a McDonalds, hope that if
someone starts shooting, a customer will be
armed and know what to do.

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.

In my area we have "licensed drivers" who should know how to drive a car,
they do drive cars, but have no concept of how to drive them in snow, which
we have lots of. They don't think that you cannot cut in between two other
cars or pull out in front of other moving cars or make sharp turns.

The theory for drivers, just like gun owners, is that they will know how and
what to do in all situations, but they just don't know and the result is
disaster. More guns will make more disasters, just as more car drivers
create more disasters on the roads.

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.

YOUR REALITY ISNT'T ALL THAT EITHER.....DROP IT!

Plonk

"Oren" wrote in message ...

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.

Yes, I know someone who did the dance to get an old shoplifting conviction
scrubbed from her record after a decade of the straight and narrow. But
it's something I would approach with extreme caution when it comes to
allowing an ex-con to own guns. I'd certainly restrict that to non-violent
offenders who had convincingly demonstrated rehabilitation and a complete
departure from old ways and old acquaintances for a long period of time. I
was just curious as to what HeyBub had in mind.

DGDevin wrote:
"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?

## Far as I know, it's still an open question.


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?

Right now, federal law permits a felon to OWN a gun if it's been five or
more years since his conviction was completed.


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?

That New Jersey is hopeless.

Remember, New Jersey is the home of Senator Lautenberg, who authored the
famous "Lautenberg Amendment" that prohibits gun possession of ANYONE ever
convicted of ANY form or degree of "domestic violence" or under any order of
protection.

This includes members of the military. And police officers.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

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

## Far as I know, it's still an open question.

Actually that question was settled back in the 1860s.

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?

Right now, federal law permits a felon to OWN a gun if it's been five or
more years since his conviction was completed.

Really, so if someone is convicted and gets a ten-year sentence, he's
allowed to have a gun in his cell for the last five years?

On a more serious note, "permits" is a poor choice of words here considering
it requires the ex-con to apply for and be granted relief from disabilities,
it isn't automatic. It's also worth noting that some very bad people who
committed very serious and sometimes violent crimes were able to have their
right to own firearms restored and then went onto commit more crimes which
is partly why Congress stripped funding from this program for years.

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?

That New Jersey is hopeless.

Aside from NJ (which is a de facto almost no CCW state), California,
Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island are
problematic for getting a permit (unless you're a Democratic member of
Congress); Alabama and Connecticut are half-hopeless as they can't make up
their minds if they are shall-issue states or not. Your depiction of only
Wisconsin, Illinois and D.C. as unfriendly to CCW was inaccurate.

Remember, New Jersey is the home of Senator Lautenberg, who authored the
famous "Lautenberg Amendment" that prohibits gun possession of ANYONE ever
convicted of ANY form or degree of "domestic violence" or under any order
of protection.

This includes members of the military. And police officers.

The wisdom and/or technical construction of the law aside, once it is the
law then why should cops and service personnel be exempt?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:57:17 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:



"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...

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

## Far as I know, it's still an open question.

Actually that question was settled back in the 1860s.

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?

Right now, federal law permits a felon to OWN a gun if it's been five or
more years since his conviction was completed.

Really, so if someone is convicted and gets a ten-year sentence, he's
allowed to have a gun in his cell for the last five years?

On a more serious note, "permits" is a poor choice of words here considering
it requires the ex-con to apply for and be granted relief from disabilities,
it isn't automatic. It's also worth noting that some very bad people who
committed very serious and sometimes violent crimes were able to have their
right to own firearms restored and then went onto commit more crimes which
is partly why Congress stripped funding from this program for years.

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?

That New Jersey is hopeless.

Aside from NJ (which is a de facto almost no CCW state), California,
Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island are
problematic for getting a permit (unless you're a Democratic member of
Congress); Alabama and Connecticut are half-hopeless as they can't make up
their minds if they are shall-issue states or not. Your depiction of only
Wisconsin, Illinois and D.C. as unfriendly to CCW was inaccurate.

In practice, Alabama is shall-issue, for $20. There is no license to purchase
firearms, though.

Remember, New Jersey is the home of Senator Lautenberg, who authored the
famous "Lautenberg Amendment" that prohibits gun possession of ANYONE ever
convicted of ANY form or degree of "domestic violence" or under any order
of protection.

This includes members of the military. And police officers.

The wisdom and/or technical construction of the law aside, once it is the
law then why should cops and service personnel be exempt?

Because now they're unemployed.