On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:41:29 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:13:58 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:57:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:56:03 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:58:36 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/21/2013 9:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

Oklahoma has much "liberal" attitude about that.
You can carry on your hip in broad daylight if you want.



Earlier someone brought up car registration as an example for CC permits.

We all let that pass because we are so used to registering cars.

But nobody ever had to register a horse...

You have to register to vote, even though voting is a right.

Do you have to register each and every vote and have it posted in
government data bases?

Hummmm?

Yes. If you're registered with a party, how do you think they know to
send you all of that mail begging for money?

My son's former girlfriend was an intern for the RNC. She knew that I
was a registered Republican and which elections I'd voted in.

It's all in each states' database. The political parties and
independent commercial firms compile the state records into a national
database (Catalist handles the Dems; I don't recall who compiles the
list for the Republicans). Anyone with the money can buy the list.

Or, because voting records are public information, anyone with a lot
of time on his hands can compile his own list.

I take it you didn't know this, eh?


So Eddy..who did you vote for for mayor of your burg?

Tom Vahalla.

What...you dont want to tell us?

I just did.

We can simply call the Vote Registration board and
find out every vote you made.

You can find out WHETHER I VOTED OR NOT. I can do the same for you.
You cannot find out who I voted for from public records. That's not
recorded.

How did you do in Civics class, Gunner? g

Yet you want to make every vote known to all.

Huh? Hittin' the weed again?


Fascinating!

If you find that fascinating, I'll bet you get all choked up over a
snow globe. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:40:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:43:49 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:51:32 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:27:36 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:19:29 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)

Pure paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Tell that to 9 million Jews


This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

Germany of the 1930s wasnt Germany of the 1920s either. Yet one
became the other.

And what is that supposed to mean? Don't duck this one, Gunner. Let's
see what you really know about this stuff you're babbling about.


You are really really weak on history arent you?

No, not especially weak.


Now about that pesky "Shall not be Infringed" thingy?

How about it? It really bugs you, doesn't it?

Look it up. Then check the historical accounts cited in Heller.

Constitution was written in 1787....which included the 2nd Amendment.

Yup. But even in 1828, as Webster tells us, the "encroach" usage was
still "little used."

In fact, it was a corruption. "Infringe" derives from Latin, "to
break." "Fringe" derives from a back formation meaning "thread," or,
literally, "fringe."

Different roots. Different meanings. And as Webster (1828) says,
"infringed" had only one side of the meaning: "pp. Broken; violated;
transgresses."

No "encroached." That had not yet reached common usage. In law, it
still is not what the word means. Break or violate is the legal usage.


And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?

Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.

It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)


So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?

Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.

--
Ed Huntress

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Yeah, there is that. But what I think Sarge was thinking was
along the lines of "If you apes cannot do what a twelve year old kid
can do ...".


It would be different if it was 'What an average 12 year old kid can
do.'

Gunner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Gunner wrote:

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html

ROFLMAO!!!!

Indeed!


And it leaves no long term evidence.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Gunner wrote:

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

I know, I know - put up a sign "No Straw Purchases!"

But that won't cover the hay purchases. Otherwise you'd be
in the clover with that one.


You think you're clover, don't you? ;-)

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Actually, to be constitutional, all that is required is that the
electors be chused according to State Law. By Popular vote of the
people is one way. Having Candidate Electors draw cards is another.
A hokey pokey Marathon. First N people out of the Church, Bar or
Ballpark is another. Lottery. Appointment by the Governor or State
Legislature.

Or a state might follow a similar pattern as Venice used to elect
the Doge.
Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced
by lot to nine;
The nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve,
The twelve chose twenty-five.
The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected
forty-five.
Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and
the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.
None could be elected but by at least twenty-five votes out of
forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven votes out of
nine electors.

Now, that might be a tad unwieldy, but it minimized outside
influence. Even though I'm not sure how it might be applied to the
selecting of electors.


An unwieldy cluster, isn't it?

Gunner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

They wouldn't need voter registration, if people like Ed could be
trusted to only vote once.

Bingo!!

I think Ed has more honor than that..but the run of the mill Leftwnger
certainly doesnt. In fact..they consider voter fraud on their part to
be a political mandate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nX6E2Ucv7S8

http://eastaustinvoice.wordpress.com...taculars-blog/


He lies enough on this group that I would never trust him with
anything.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:25:06 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

Actually, to be constitutional, all that is required is that the
electors be chused according to State Law. By Popular vote of the
people is one way. Having Candidate Electors draw cards is another.
A hokey pokey Marathon. First N people out of the Church, Bar or
Ballpark is another. Lottery. Appointment by the Governor or State
Legislature.

Or a state might follow a similar pattern as Venice used to elect
the Doge.
Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced
by lot to nine;
The nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve,
The twelve chose twenty-five.
The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected
forty-five.
Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and
the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.
None could be elected but by at least twenty-five votes out of
forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven votes out of
nine electors.

Now, that might be a tad unwieldy, but it minimized outside
influence. Even though I'm not sure how it might be applied to the
selecting of electors.


An unwieldy cluster, isn't it?

It'd sure weed out lobbyist infiltration, wouldn't it?
Until those greasy CONgresscriters worked out how to get around it.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:21:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

Gunner wrote:

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

I know, I know - put up a sign "No Straw Purchases!"

But that won't cover the hay purchases. Otherwise you'd be
in the clover with that one.


You think you're clover, don't you? ;-)

Very Cleaver, Wally.

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:25:06 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

Actually, to be constitutional, all that is required is that the
electors be chused according to State Law. By Popular vote of the
people is one way. Having Candidate Electors draw cards is another.
A hokey pokey Marathon. First N people out of the Church, Bar or
Ballpark is another. Lottery. Appointment by the Governor or State
Legislature.

Or a state might follow a similar pattern as Venice used to elect
the Doge.
Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced
by lot to nine;
The nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve,
The twelve chose twenty-five.
The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected
forty-five.
Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and
the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.
None could be elected but by at least twenty-five votes out of
forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven votes out of
nine electors.

Now, that might be a tad unwieldy, but it minimized outside
influence. Even though I'm not sure how it might be applied to the
selecting of electors.


An unwieldy cluster, isn't it?

It'd sure weed out lobbyist infiltration, wouldn't it?
Until those greasy CONgresscriters worked out how to get around it.


Political weasels are damned sneaky critters.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:21:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

Gunner wrote:

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

I know, I know - put up a sign "No Straw Purchases!"

But that won't cover the hay purchases. Otherwise you'd be
in the clover with that one.


You think you're clover, don't you? ;-)

Very Cleaver, Wally.


Ward, you were kind of hard on the beaver last night...

On 2/23/2013 10:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:21:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

Gunner wrote:

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

I know, I know - put up a sign "No Straw Purchases!"

But that won't cover the hay purchases. Otherwise you'd be
in the clover with that one.


You think you're clover, don't you? ;-)

Very Cleaver, Wally.


Ward, you were kind of hard on the beaver last night...


He wishes!

Gunner on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:56:30 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:25:24 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:28:41 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I will concede that Joe Biden said to buy a double barrelled shotgun,
not a pump or semi automatic.


Dan

Worked really good for the Muslim kid in Irvine early this week.

It was a double barrel shotgun

I wants a Coach Gun - that short double barreled side-by-side
shotgun. But I realize that it is mostly because of the "looks cool"
factor - the pump I have is more practical.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Keltec KSG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPGT0JWqtFo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr09H4wO6Oc

Gets very good reviews. Pricy as hell though.

Over a grand at the moment

When my rich uncle gets out of the poor house, I'm gonna ask him
to get me one of them.

Keltec makes good stuff.

pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
21:17:14 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Yeah, there is that. But what I think Sarge was thinking was
along the lines of "If you apes cannot do what a twelve year old kid
can do ...".


It would be different if it was 'What an average 12 year old kid can
do.'

Yep.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Gunner on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:56:30 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:25:24 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Gunner on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:28:41 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I will concede that Joe Biden said to buy a double barrelled shotgun,
not a pump or semi automatic.


Dan

Worked really good for the Muslim kid in Irvine early this week.

It was a double barrel shotgun

I wants a Coach Gun - that short double barreled side-by-side
shotgun. But I realize that it is mostly because of the "looks cool"
factor - the pump I have is more practical.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Keltec KSG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPGT0JWqtFo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr09H4wO6Oc

Gets very good reviews. Pricy as hell though.

Over a grand at the moment

Know your calibers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx_SfG34Jpo

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Przemek Klosowski on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 04:02:12
+0000 (UTC) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:53:01 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Przemek Klosowski wrote:


My bottom line is that you are asking me to subsidize your noble hobby,
to which I object.


Then move to Afghanistan.

Funny you should mention that---Afghanistan is a second amendment heaven.

Youze a funny funny guy. Dumber than Democrats, but still funny.

Because it seems to have escaped your erudition that there is a
great deal of difference between a tribal government, and a
constitutional one.

No rules, no permits, everyone can and does have a weapon. You should
move there; I should chose to stay in a civil society, with its rules and
obligations.

Of course. As long as they are the rules that you like. And not
silly ones which protect those people you don't like.




--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Larry Jaques on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
13:34:30 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:41:15 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Fri, 22 Feb 2013
16:37:31 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


Another lame straw man from the extreme left. You don't own a vote,
you cast it. You can't stockpile votes, or make parts for one. It has
a lifetime of days at most. You can't give it to someone else, or buy
extras without breaking the law of the land.

Actually, Michael, we DO give our vote to someone else...
The electoral college.


No. We vote for them, like we do for other candidates.

Actually, to be constitutional, all that is required is that the
electors be chused according to State Law. By Popular vote of the
people is one way. Having Candidate Electors draw cards is another. A
hokey pokey Marathon. First N people out of the Church, Bar or
Ballpark is another. Lottery. Appointment by the Governor or State
Legislature.

Or a state might follow a similar pattern as Venice used to elect
the Doge.
Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced
by lot to nine;
The nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve,
The twelve chose twenty-five.
The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected
forty-five.
Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and
the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.
None could be elected but by at least twenty-five votes out of
forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven votes out of
nine electors.

Now, that might be a tad unwieldy, but it minimized outside
influence. Even though I'm not sure how it might be applied to the
selecting of electors.

I'm sure it would. What a nightmare, though. I guess that beats
putting the public through 4 years of campaigning for office, eh?
Campaigns just don't seem to stop nowadays.


I still feel that choosing 525 random people from the population,
including street people, for single-term congressional service would
give us a more sane and viable congress. And mandatory drug and
alcohol tests should be performed regularly on -every- government
employee, from federal down to city council. That could work for
welfare recipients, too.

In any case, removing the money from politics is one of the few ways
to ensure that these (duly elected) criminals are off looking for it
instead of collecting it during their terms in office.

"Removing the money from politics" is what got us the current
mess. The limits on individual campaign contributions haven't keep
pace with inflation. That 1974 generous $2500 dollar limit is "worth"
$535 in 2013. Meaning you have to have five times as many contributors
to just break even. Five times as many rubber chicken dinners.
The PACs were suppose to help too. But all that they have done is
provide another means of funding the candidate. $2500 to the
candidate, $2500 to this PAC, that PAC, the other PAK (whoops, wrong
Pak). Pretty soon you are talking real money.
And the SuperPacs, 527s etc. All means to remove the money from
politics and we're all seeing how that works.
And that is before we discuss the revolving door, whereby a
politician can retire from politics and be hired as a specialist in
the details of a piece of legislation which said politician was
instrumental in crafting. (One reason I'm for the Glenn Reynolds
surcharge.)

The only effective means to remove the money from politics is to
remove the money the politicians control. I.E., the Federal (state or
local) spending, or the tax loophole, or credits or whatever, by which
the politician can "help his constituents." The Teacher's Unions
would be spending a great deal less on Federal Campaign contributions
if the Feds didn't have a Department of Education to channel money to
the Teacher's Union. Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

No, it isn't the amount of money in the campaigns which is the
problem, it is the amount of moeny to be distributed fromt he treasury
which is the problem.



tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
21:25:06 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Actually, to be constitutional, all that is required is that the
electors be chused according to State Law. By Popular vote of the
people is one way. Having Candidate Electors draw cards is another.
A hokey pokey Marathon. First N people out of the Church, Bar or
Ballpark is another. Lottery. Appointment by the Governor or State
Legislature.

Or a state might follow a similar pattern as Venice used to elect
the Doge.
Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced
by lot to nine;
The nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve,
The twelve chose twenty-five.
The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected
forty-five.
Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and
the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.
None could be elected but by at least twenty-five votes out of
forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven votes out of
nine electors.

Now, that might be a tad unwieldy, but it minimized outside
influence. Even though I'm not sure how it might be applied to the
selecting of electors.


An unwieldy cluster, isn't it?

Maybe so, but it did make the election of the Doge remarkably free
of outside influence. Six chances to get your minion selected, and
four that he gets removed. Efficiency in governance is not always a
good thing.



--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Larry Jaques on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
19:40:30 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:25:06 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

Actually, to be constitutional, all that is required is that the
electors be chused according to State Law. By Popular vote of the
people is one way. Having Candidate Electors draw cards is another.
A hokey pokey Marathon. First N people out of the Church, Bar or
Ballpark is another. Lottery. Appointment by the Governor or State
Legislature.

Or a state might follow a similar pattern as Venice used to elect
the Doge.
Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced
by lot to nine;
The nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve,
The twelve chose twenty-five.
The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected
forty-five.
Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and
the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.
None could be elected but by at least twenty-five votes out of
forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven votes out of
nine electors.

Now, that might be a tad unwieldy, but it minimized outside
influence. Even though I'm not sure how it might be applied to the
selecting of electors.


An unwieldy cluster, isn't it?

It'd sure weed out lobbyist infiltration, wouldn't it?
Until those greasy CONgresscriters worked out how to get around it.

True, but we're just selecting the electors for the President.

Congress critters could have a competition, Personal Interview
with the judges, a talent performance, Evening Wear, Onstage Question
segment and the Lifestyle & Fitness in Swimsuit section.
If nothing else, we might get more photogenic Representatives.


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
21:21:38 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Gunner wrote:

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

I know, I know - put up a sign "No Straw Purchases!"

But that won't cover the hay purchases. Otherwise you'd be
in the clover with that one.

You think you're clover, don't you? ;-)

"I've got acres of it" he said ryely.


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:52:14
-0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
Gunner on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:21:37 -0800
typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

It fascinates me to read an Eastern RINO posting on guns. You do
know
that you are very much of a freak compared to the rest of the
nation...right? No slur intended..but East Coasters are a bit "off"
compared to the normal people.

The Normal ones left a long time ago. Generations ago.
--
pyotr filipivich

How do you explain Colorado?

Oxygen deprivation and altitude sickness.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:42:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:40:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:43:49 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:51:32 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:27:36 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:19:29 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)

Pure paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Tell that to 9 million Jews


This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

Germany of the 1930s wasnt Germany of the 1920s either. Yet one
became the other.

And what is that supposed to mean? Don't duck this one, Gunner. Let's
see what you really know about this stuff you're babbling about.


You are really really weak on history arent you?

No, not especially weak.


Now about that pesky "Shall not be Infringed" thingy?

How about it? It really bugs you, doesn't it?

Look it up. Then check the historical accounts cited in Heller.

Constitution was written in 1787....which included the 2nd Amendment.

Yup. But even in 1828, as Webster tells us, the "encroach" usage was
still "little used."

But infringed was used.

In fact, it was a corruption. "Infringe" derives from Latin, "to
break." "Fringe" derives from a back formation meaning "thread," or,
literally, "fringe."

Different roots. Different meanings. And as Webster (1828) says,
"infringed" had only one side of the meaning: "pp. Broken; violated;
transgresses."

So the right to keep and bear arms shall not be broken, violated or
transgressed upon. Thanks!!


No "encroached." That had not yet reached common usage. In law, it
still is not what the word means. Break or violate is the legal usage.


And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?

Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.

It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)


So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?

Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.

No firearms allowed in DC, NYC, Chicago etc etc etc. The Right to
Keep and Bear arms is badly infringed and in fact..broken, violated
and transgressed upon. So Heller was a return to Constitutional
law...somewhat. Still not "legal" to bear arms in those places..so
its not returned to Constitutional mandate...its still broken,
violated and transgressed upon.


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:30:15 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:41:29 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:13:58 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:57:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:56:03 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 21:58:36 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/21/2013 9:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

CY: I also oppose so called "pistol permits" as prior restraint. I think the
government has no say if I want to carry a firearm.

Oklahoma has much "liberal" attitude about that.
You can carry on your hip in broad daylight if you want.



Earlier someone brought up car registration as an example for CC permits.

We all let that pass because we are so used to registering cars.

But nobody ever had to register a horse...

You have to register to vote, even though voting is a right.

Do you have to register each and every vote and have it posted in
government data bases?

Hummmm?

Yes. If you're registered with a party, how do you think they know to
send you all of that mail begging for money?

My son's former girlfriend was an intern for the RNC. She knew that I
was a registered Republican and which elections I'd voted in.

It's all in each states' database. The political parties and
independent commercial firms compile the state records into a national
database (Catalist handles the Dems; I don't recall who compiles the
list for the Republicans). Anyone with the money can buy the list.

Or, because voting records are public information, anyone with a lot
of time on his hands can compile his own list.

I take it you didn't know this, eh?


So Eddy..who did you vote for for mayor of your burg?

Tom Vahalla.

What...you dont want to tell us?

I just did.

We can simply call the Vote Registration board and
find out every vote you made.

You can find out WHETHER I VOTED OR NOT. I can do the same for you.
You cannot find out who I voted for from public records. That's not
recorded.

How did you do in Civics class, Gunner? g

Yet you want to make every vote known to all.

Huh? Hittin' the weed again?


Fascinating!

If you find that fascinating, I'll bet you get all choked up over a
snow globe. g

You want each and every firearm to be registered. Thats the same as
wanted each vote to be recorded in detail.

You didnt desire the owners to be defined as Ok or Not ok for firearms
ownership..you want the details of each vote/gun to be recorded.

Not a smart thing Eddy..not smart at all.

Id not have a problem with a notation code on each drivers license be
printed on the DL...for example..a G-0 would indicate not allowed to
own/purchase a firearm and a G-1 would indicate the person IS allowed
to own/purchase. That way..no agencies would have any data of what
that person owns. Which is what the Founders desired. Not RINOS and
Leftwingers desires.

Your eligibility changes...you have to have the DL changed. In
fact...that record would go into NCIC and even if you refused to
change it as part of your sentencing...when your data was run by any
cop..it shows up as a G-0...not eligible. If you are in posession..it
gets confiscated and you go to jail.

If you want to buy a firearm..you simply show your DL to the seller.

Simple..no?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:28:08 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:43:51 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:17:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:59:01 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:53:53 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:00:27 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


What are your objections to:
1) universal background checks
CY: That's something called "prior restraint". You can only buy a gun, if
the government approves it. Not the way our Republic works.

Uh, you have a right to vote, too, but you can't vote until you're
registered.

Which one of the Amendments involves voters?

The 9th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 24th and 26th.

You ought to read them sometime. For that matter, you should start
with the Constitition itself.

9th, no voters mentioned
10th, no voters mentioned

Want me to continue?

Yes, but this time try looking for court cases that evoke these
amendments in relation to voters. They all "involve" voters.

Oh..court cases like Dred Scott and other abortions done by nitwits?

The 9th explains that the B of R is not an exhaustive list; there are
unenumerated rights, as suggested in the 14th (equal protection -- you
have the same rights as everyone else), 15th (prevents denial of
suffrage), 24th and 26th (both regard voting rights and suffrage. The
10th acknowledges other rights reserved to the States or people.

The Voting Rights Act and a variety of other laws engage the
unenumerated rights, and the states declare who has rights to vote.
Under the 14th (federal) Amendment, the states have to grant those
rights to everyone.

You do have a right to vote. But you have to register.

Indeed. But which Amendment requires registration of firearms?

Isnt that part of the Shall not be "broken/violated/trangressed" you
blithered out in another post


Snicker

Snickers are my wife's favorite candy bar.

Yes and?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:55:27 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
21:25:06 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Actually, to be constitutional, all that is required is that the
electors be chused according to State Law. By Popular vote of the
people is one way. Having Candidate Electors draw cards is another.
A hokey pokey Marathon. First N people out of the Church, Bar or
Ballpark is another. Lottery. Appointment by the Governor or State
Legislature.

Or a state might follow a similar pattern as Venice used to elect
the Doge.
Thirty members of the Great Council, chosen by lot, were reduced
by lot to nine;
The nine chose forty and the forty were reduced by lot to twelve,
The twelve chose twenty-five.
The twenty-five were reduced by lot to nine and the nine elected
forty-five.
Then the forty-five were once more reduced by lot to eleven, and
the eleven finally chose the forty-one who actually elected the doge.
None could be elected but by at least twenty-five votes out of
forty-one, nine votes out of eleven or twelve, or seven votes out of
nine electors.

Now, that might be a tad unwieldy, but it minimized outside
influence. Even though I'm not sure how it might be applied to the
selecting of electors.


An unwieldy cluster, isn't it?

Maybe so, but it did make the election of the Doge remarkably free
of outside influence. Six chances to get your minion selected, and
four that he gets removed. Efficiency in governance is not always a
good thing.



--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."


Indeed!!


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:49:20 -0600, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 2/23/2013 4:21 PM, Gunner wrote:

It fascinates me to read an Eastern RINO posting on guns. You do know
that you are very much of a freak compared to the rest of the
nation...right? No slur intended..but East Coasters are a bit "off"
compared to the normal people.

Gunner

A resident of California describes East Coasters as a bit "off"
compared to the normal people?

OH, the irony!

David

Somehow you folks think that California is a typical Blue state.

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archive...is-a-red-state

Its not. Nor do I live in a Blue county. In fact..I live in a very
Red county where CCW is pretty much Shall issue and its chock full of
rednecks G As is most of the Central portion of the state.

We'uns only share some land mass with a few Blue areas..and we keep
them to the northwest or to the south..with mountains in between.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:52:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
Gunner on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:21:37 -0800
typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

It fascinates me to read an Eastern RINO posting on guns. You do
know
that you are very much of a freak compared to the rest of the
nation...right? No slur intended..but East Coasters are a bit "off"
compared to the normal people.

The Normal ones left a long time ago. Generations ago.
--
pyotr filipivich

How do you explain Colorado?


The Abnormal ones moved in from California and the Eastern Blue Zones.

It used to be a rather nice place.


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:32:54 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:21:37 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:11:24 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:31:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:44:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:02:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Nobody I know was asked!

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

So you deny knowing a lot of the people on this news group?

I know Iggy. I've never met any of the rest of you. God only knows who
you are.

Sometimes I imagine all of the gun nutz in drag, smoking hash in a
bong and shooting flies off the ceiling with their .44 Blackhawks. It
comforts me, and makes some sense of many of the remarks we hear on
this NG...

What comforts you..the "in drag" or the dope smoking parts?

It comforts me to see the reasons behind some of your remarks. It's
less dissonant that way. d8-)

So the "In Drag" AND "dope smoking" parts are comforting to you.

They seem consistent with the quality of right-wing thinking: a little
weird, possibly influenced by mind-altering chemicals, and
trigger-happy.

Odd...thats the very definiton of Leftwingers.


"birds of a feather" and all that...right?

I don't know. Do you fly with them?

Only when corresponding with you.


VBG

It fascinates me to read an Eastern RINO posting on guns. You do know
that you are very much of a freak compared to the rest of the
nation...right? No slur intended..but East Coasters are a bit "off"
compared to the normal people.

Let's look at the Fox News poll again and see who is the freak. Or is
Fox News too left-wing for you?

FOX News poll: Gun Rights and Gun Control, interviews Jan. 15 - 17,
2013:

===============================================

Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun
violence?

Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including
those buying at gun shows and private sales

Favor 91%
Oppose 8
Don't know 1

Requiring mental health checks on all gun buyers

Favor 83%
Oppose 15
Don't know 2

Requiring criminal background checks on anyone buying bullets and
ammunition

Favor 80%
Oppose 19
Don't know 1

Banning high-capacity ammunition clips that can shoot dozens of
bullets without stopping to reload

Favor 58%
Oppose 38
Don't know 6

Banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons

Favor 52%
Oppose 43
Don't know 5

Allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns on school grounds

Favor 42%
Oppose 52
Don't know 6

Does anyone in your household own a gun?

Yes 52%
No 44
No answer 5

=============================================

Gunner, you and the gun nutz blow smoke up each other's butts, talk
back and forth in little echo chambers, and think you're right in the
middle of public opinion. But you're really freaks out on the fringe.

I've told you this for years but you refuse to believe. Now, if you
look at the real center of public opinion, you'll see how far off base
you are.

And now you even have it from FOX News, fer chrissake -- the official
source of all that is good and pure in the little world of right-wing
oddballs. g

What...Fox is very middle ground. Its not Far Leftwing like the Big
4..but its very moderate. Only followers of Lenin consider FOX to be
rightwing.

Are you catching on? Do you see how ABnormal your views are?

Maybe not. You are pretty immune to facts. But it doesn't matter much.
Public opinion, and normalcy, will get along with out you. The numbers
are becoming overwhelming.

Actually..the numbers are going the other way, now that the media has
stopped screaming and whining.

VBG

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...age-87923.html

Notice the terms "stalling"?

There is a reason for politicians "stalling". Because the People will
not approve of increased gun control/bans etc etc

Keep in mind..that the Demonrats have backed off the gun control
mantra..because those that pushed for it...got voted out of office.

That hasnt changed. And in fact...the People are arming up for bloody
revolution of the politicians Infringe the 2nd Amendment.

Never ever forget that fact..the Liberal Days of Gun Control have been
loosing ground for 2 decades....VBG

And they know it. Now that the emotional rush is fading..the Left is
loosing ground. As they always do when reason, logic and rational are
used. Leftwingers are only good for playing on emotion..they have
nothing else.

VBG

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

Wrong wording.

"Straw purchase free zone."

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

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

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

I know, I know - put up a sign "No Straw Purchases!"

But that won't cover the hay purchases. Otherwise you'd be
in the clover with that one.


You think you're clover, don't you? ;-)

http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20021003.htm


JPFO Alerts



Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745
Fax (262) 673-9746



October 3, 2002
How to answer the Toughest Question
by Richard W. Stevens
Editor, The Bill of Rights Sentinel
Here's the question:
"Why do you so strongly oppose the government's registering firearms and
licensing gun owners? Every car is registered; every driver is licensed or
should be. Cars are important and dangerous. Guns are important and
dangerous. So what's the problem with gun registration and owner licenses?"
It's a tough question because it draws on the everyday example of
automobiles, and most everybody seems to accept state regulation of cars and
drivers. Many pro-gun people have real trouble answering this question, and
some among us have even surrendered the point.
Logic and history prove that gun registration and owner licensing pose grave
threats to life and liberty. But we need to deliver a powerful answer to the
question without the social studies lesson. The answer needs to be a fast
effective sound bite.
So we are offering the following three-reason package below. This formula is
the "long version." If you need to give a quicker answer, then just give the
first sentence of each reason. You can deliver the "long version" in 45
seconds - and the "short version" answer in less than 30 seconds.
Three Reasons in a Nutshell
Here is the answer you can give:
(1) Practically speaking, registration and licensing laws do not affect
criminals, they only affect innocent citizens.
(2) Fundamentally speaking, citizens in a free society do not have to get
permission from anyone to exercise their right to self-defense, just as they
don't need permission to freely speak or worship. Licensing and registration
schemes require citizens to get permission to defend themselves, so those
schemes don't belong in a free society.
(3) Historically speaking, registration and licensing have been part of "gun
control" programs that made possible the calculated mass murder of between
70 and 170 million people. Registration and licensing make genocide easier,
not harder. I fight against genocide and I don't want to make genocide
easier anywhere in the world.
How to Use the Answer
This answer is only 120 words at the most, so you can memorize it. It's
pretty easy to memorize because it makes perfect sense.
Why memorize it? Because, when you are challenged, you need to seize the
initiative. A snappy but profound quick answer gives no opportunity for
interruptions. Speed and power are critically important when the questioner
is hostile or you are being interviewed for radio or television. You don't
want to have to think of the answer - you need to deliver it immediately.
After you give the "long version" answer, you can turn the tables on the
questioner. Ask this zinger question:
"Now that you know the truth about registration and licensing, how can you
support those ideas?"
Dealing With The Objections
Objection # 1: "Driving a two-ton car at 60 mph is a privilege, not a right.
Owning a lethal weapon should be considered a privilege, too."
Your answer: "Driving a car on tax-funded roads might subject you to the
tax-funded government regulations. Exercising the right to self defense,
however, doesn't depend on tax-funded resources and should never require
anybody's permission."
Objection # 2: "Gun registration and owner licensing helps police solve
crimes, just like the cars' license plates and the drivers' licenses."
Your answer: "License plates and driver's licenses don't prevent any crimes,
they only help track suspects after the fact. Serious criminals frequently
use stolen cars and plates; many drive without valid licenses. Likewise,
serious criminals will not be licensed and will use unregistered or stolen
guns, and the tracking feature is worthless anyway if the cops don't find
the gun."
Objection #3: "You're just paranoid; don't you trust our government to
license and register deadly weapons while preserving your right to shoot?"
Your answer: "Wrong question. The government is supposed to answer to you
and me. Why does the government so distrust the vast majority of decent
non-violent firearms owners that it wants to identify and track every owner
and every firearm?"
* * *
What happens when the government holds monopoly power over firearms? How do
licensing and registration schemes kill? Read the bone-chilling facts in
Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament ($16.95 postage
paid). Order the book by calling (800) 869-1884 or clicking on
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm . Get two free "Gran'pa Jack" booklets with
your order. Join JPFO -- still only $20 annual dues.




ARE YOU A DUES PAYING MEMBER? DO YOU BUY JPFO PRO-FREEDOM MATERIALS?

Visit the JPFO Gun Owners' Business and Service Directory

If you have a web site, why not link to JPFO http://www.jpfo.org/ with the
link-name "Jewish Firearms" so that we will place higher on the
search-results list for that search-term?

Copyright © 2002 JPFO, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in
full, so long as the JPFO contact information is included.

JPFO ALERTS is provided as a free service to the Internet Community. If you
wish to help support this service, consider joining JPFO! $20/year (no, you
don't have to be Jewish!)
To subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

To Un-subscribe to JPFO Alerts: send a blank e-mail to:

To change your subscription address:
send an message to the Un-Subscribe address from your OLD e-mail address,
and send a Subscribe message from the NEW e-mail address.
For Subscribe messages, respond to the confirmation message you will get
back from Topica.com.


[ JPFO Home Alerts How to answer the Toughest Question ]

© 2002 JPFO


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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

--
Ed Huntress

http://jpfo.org/common-sense/commonsense08.htm


This procedure mimics that of the Nazi German anti-Jewish laws. First the
laws were limited in scope and application. People tried to obey the laws,
thinking that the laws would not get worse. Soon the laws expanded and
became more severe. Still the people kept trying to adapt to avoid
punishment. Eventually the laws mandated the "final solution" to "close the
loopholes" through which many Jews were managing to survive despite the Nazi's
legal oppression.

You just saw registration lead to confiscation this year in America's most
populous state. Now will you fight back? Donate the cost of a box of ammo to
fight this cancer? Use JPFO's strategies and materials in your town, city
and state?



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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:27:36 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:19:29 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)

Pure paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Tell that to 9 million Jews


This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:17:45 AM UTC-5, Gunner wrote:
[everything snipped]

It is remarkable to me that even when given a second chance to put up a rational argument against registration, the Gun Nutz in this group can't come up with anything better than "becuase I think the second amendment says so."

Let's try an experiment to open your minds beyond your mantra. Suppose the second amendment never existed - that there were NO current laws concerning gun ownership. What, then, would be your argument against registration?

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/bracken-democide.htm



http://jpfo.org / articles-assd03 / bracken-democide.htm


Democide:
Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom

Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of
Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet Union, Stalin's
henchmen purged millions of "kulaks" (farmers deemed to have too much
wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had ever traveled
outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.


In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road
to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey,
"reasonable" gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two
million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the "commonsense"
1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler's Holocaust by
a decade.

The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to
the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those
gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By
making it economically and militarily feasible to round up and mass murder
entire towns without any significant resistance.

In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred ordinary
military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a
single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. If the Jews
had not first been disarmed, using previous gun registration lists as a map
for confiscation, the Holocaust would not have been possible.

Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was preceded
by "reasonable and commonsense" firearms registration, followed eventually
by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a despised minority
population.

Copyright © JPFO 1999 - 2013. All Rights Reserved.
P.O. Box 270143 | Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745 | Fax (262) 673-9746 |
..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

--
Ed Huntress

http://jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-never-happen.htm

"It'll Never Happen Here"

By Kirby Ferris 1/29/09

Copyright 2009, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

Is "confiscation" too harsh a word? Ladies and gentlemen, every government
on Earth that has orchestrated a genocide first registered, and then
confiscated, personal firearms. See: JPFO Genocide Chart .
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#dgc


Frequent JPFO contributor and strategist, Kirby Ferris collaborated
intensively with Aaron Zelman over the last two years. Ferris is now the
Operations Manager of JPFO.
See all of Kirby Ferris' articles.

© Copyright Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Original material on JPFO is copyright, and so it cannot be used or
plagiarized as the work of another. JPFO does however encourage article
reproduction and sharing, providing full attribution is given and a link
back to the original page on JPFO is included.


Back to Top

Copyright © JPFO 1999 - 2013. All Rights Reserved.
P.O. Box 270143 | Hartford, WI 53027
Phone (262) 673-9745 | Fax (262) 673-9746 |

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/24/2013 7:42 AM, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:42:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:40:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:43:49 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:51:32 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:27:36 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:19:29 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)

Pure paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Tell that to 9 million Jews


This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

Germany of the 1930s wasnt Germany of the 1920s either. Yet one
became the other.

And what is that supposed to mean? Don't duck this one, Gunner. Let's
see what you really know about this stuff you're babbling about.


You are really really weak on history arent you?

No, not especially weak.


Now about that pesky "Shall not be Infringed" thingy?

How about it? It really bugs you, doesn't it?

Look it up. Then check the historical accounts cited in Heller.

Constitution was written in 1787....which included the 2nd Amendment.

Yup. But even in 1828, as Webster tells us, the "encroach" usage was
still "little used."

But infringed was used.

In fact, it was a corruption. "Infringe" derives from Latin, "to
break." "Fringe" derives from a back formation meaning "thread," or,
literally, "fringe."

Different roots. Different meanings. And as Webster (1828) says,
"infringed" had only one side of the meaning: "pp. Broken; violated;
transgresses."

So the right to keep and bear arms shall not be broken, violated or
transgressed upon. Thanks!!


No "encroached." That had not yet reached common usage. In law, it
still is not what the word means. Break or violate is the legal usage.


And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?

Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.

It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)


So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?

Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.

No firearms allowed in DC, NYC, Chicago etc etc etc. The Right to
Keep and Bear arms is badly infringed and in fact..broken, violated
and transgressed upon. So Heller was a return to Constitutional
law...somewhat. Still not "legal" to bear arms in those places..so
its not returned to Constitutional mandate...its still broken,
violated and transgressed upon.


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form of law
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie



Ed either really, really just doesn't get it or, more likely, he will
NEVER admit he is wrong. We know he has absolutely no consideration for
anyone else's arguments or opinions...he MUST always be right because he
is superior in every way!

On 2/23/2013 5:02 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:30:59 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The largest single
source today, though, says the FBI, is straw purchases.

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?


http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html


I WANT one!

On 2/23/2013 1:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:26:26 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:30:59 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The largest single
source today, though, says the FBI, is straw purchases.

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

Registration and laws requiring (1) securing guns at home and (2)
reporting thefts.

That's the only thing I've heard of that sounds reasonable to me. How
effective it would be would depend on how well it was enforced, the
first requirement for which is an easily accessible database of last
legal owners. Do you have a better idea?



House-to house inspection of gun storage?

Yes, I HAVE a better idea! People that have a CCW are extensively
vetted. To be a gun owner, get a CCW equivalent license once every ten
years. Then you can own any and many guns with NO registrations.

Every gun owner I know has serial numbers recorded and can inform police
in case of theft.

On 2/23/2013 6:35 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:50:17 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:42:21 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:49:55 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:26:26 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:30:59 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

The largest single
source today, though, says the FBI, is straw purchases.

So how do you stop straw purchases?

Hummmm?

Registration?

Registration and laws requiring (1) securing guns at home and (2)
reporting thefts.

That's the only thing I've heard of that sounds reasonable to me. How
effective it would be would depend on how well it was enforced, the
first requirement for which is an easily accessible database of last
legal owners. Do you have a better idea?


So how does that stop straw purchases? Or are you avoiding the
question?

Do you have a better idea? Or are you avoiding the question?

When you come up with one, we can discuss how this one works.

Your complaint about straw purchases...and then you morph into gun
safes and reporting thefts....

Alzheimers or senile dementia?

Gunner


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie



Just make murder illegal! Problem solved!

On 2/23/2013 5:21 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:11:24 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:31:03 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:44:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:02:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Nobody I know was asked!

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

So you deny knowing a lot of the people on this news group?

I know Iggy. I've never met any of the rest of you. God only knows who
you are.

Sometimes I imagine all of the gun nutz in drag, smoking hash in a
bong and shooting flies off the ceiling with their .44 Blackhawks. It
comforts me, and makes some sense of many of the remarks we hear on
this NG...

What comforts you..the "in drag" or the dope smoking parts?

It comforts me to see the reasons behind some of your remarks. It's
less dissonant that way. d8-)

So the "In Drag" AND "dope smoking" parts are comforting to you.

"birds of a feather" and all that...right?

VBG

It fascinates me to read an Eastern RINO posting on guns. You do know
that you are very much of a freak compared to the rest of the
nation...right? No slur intended..but East Coasters are a bit "off"
compared to the normal people.

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie


Sorry, BOTH coasts are a bit "off".

On 2/23/2013 5:49 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 2/23/2013 4:21 PM, Gunner wrote:

It fascinates me to read an Eastern RINO posting on guns. You do know
that you are very much of a freak compared to the rest of the
nation...right? No slur intended..but East Coasters are a bit "off"
compared to the normal people.

Gunner

A resident of California describes East Coasters as a bit "off"
compared to the normal people?

OH, the irony!

David


I give Gunner some dispensation, he's a transplant.