On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 04:42:23 -0800, 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.

Yes, in the sense of "broken." As in, completely violated. Not in the
sense of "encroached upon."

That's why Heller et al. says that regulations are permitted.


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.

It's not quite true that firearms weren't allowed in those places. In
NYC, handguns have always been allowed with a license.

What Heller decided was that a total ban on handguns, as in D.C. and
Chicago, are unconstitutional. As for what regulations and limitations
the Court will allow, we don't know yet. And the lower federal courts
regularly express their uncertainty about the consequences of Heller.

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.

That remains to be seen. If a handgun carry case reaches the Supreme
Court, expect fireworks.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/23/2013 7:32 PM, 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.


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

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


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

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.


Funny how NONE of the right-wing gun nuts are responsible for any of the
public massacres...it always seems to be leftists and crazies. If Ed
were correct in his thinking, there would be a right-wing gun nut
shooting up a mall every day...rather than over a million CCW holders
stopping a crime every year.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_c..._by_gun_owners

On 2/24/2013 9:52 AM, rangerssuck wrote:
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?


You don't reads well, do you? Plenty of examples, you won't accept
other peoples' opinions or ideas so therefor they don't exist.

On 2/22/2013 1:29 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/22/2013 10:05 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:21 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.


Gee, are you saying that polls are targeting the responders they WANT?
Say it ain't so!


Come on, Tom. They get the voter registration information and call
people for the party they want to come out on top.


Any good debater can take either side of an argument.

Any good poll can take whatever direction that the purchasing party pays
for.



Ed would self-destruct if he had to even CONSIDER a non-left position.

On 2/22/2013 1:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:06 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

Tom's question is a nonsense question. My answer was a nonsense
answer.
snip

An excellent example of an ad hominid logic error!

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 04:50:20 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

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're splitting hairs here. The original claim was that a "right"
that requires registration is not a right at all. But you have a right
to vote, and it requires registration.

Registration does not infringe on your rights. It adds some paperwork
to them, but it doesn't violate them or prevent you from owning guns.


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.

Both. In fact, the "details" of each gun sold through an FFL are
recorded now. It's just that the record is rairly useless for law
enforcement. They have access to it, but the process is onerous.


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.

I don't think we really know what the founders desired, because there
was almost no recorded debate about it. In any case, the Constitution
they wrote didn't prevent registration. There is a host of court
cases, written by real legal and Constitutional scholars, that says
such regulation is within Constitutional law.


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.

That's a good first step. But without registration, there is no way
that I've heard of to hold straw purchasers accountable.

If you know of one, I'm open to suggestions.


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

That's pretty much what we have in NJ for long guns. I carry a card
that says I'm eligible to buy guns and ammo. I was fingerprinted for
it and went through a full FBI background check -- beyond NICS.

To buy a handgun, I need a purchase permit, which is similar
information but which is up-to-date information.


Simple..no?

Yes, and a good first step.

Then you need a way to discourage straw purchases. That's the largest
single source of guns used in crimes, according to the FBI.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/24/2013 9:33 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
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.

When I've been to California, almost everyone I've met was from
somewhere else.

David

On 2/24/2013 9:13 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:


119 lines of repeated drivel to get to the point?


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!


yep

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 04:53:13 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

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?

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th Amendment.


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?

I think you'll find that the Necessary and Proper clause covers it,
and Heller describes numerous cases of restrictions (like concealed
carry) that were common in the 19th century and that the Court does
not question in this case. Registration, not really being a
restriction at all, but only a formal licensing, certainly would fall
within the "laws imposing conditions and qualifications" that the
Court said it would not question, in Heller.


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

Not according to the lengthy list of citations contained in Heller,
nor in the Heller decision itself.



Snicker

Snickers are my wife's favorite candy bar.

Yes and?

And Reese's Pieces.

--
Ed Huntress

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!

Particularly when you consider that if Gunner didn't live in fruits
and nuts land, he'd be homeless. Because in most jurisdictions, if you
refuse to pay your property taxes they kick you out after a few years.
Gunner's been thumbing his nose at the taxman for DECADES. It makes no
sense for him to criticize anyone for anything but then, what else
does he have other than his 165 IQ? Arf arf. Irony doesn't begin to
cover it. A new word needs to be coined to describe the contradiction
between what he is and the amazing flow of horse**** that gushes from
his keyboard.

On 2/24/2013 8:47 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20021003.htm


Thanks, Storm.
Very important piece you brought in.



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.


Bull****.

Ed. can you POSSIBLY imagine trying to round up Jews in Texas?
Yes, we have plenty of Jews here.
And yes, they are quite often armed.
Rounding up these suckers is going to be a problem!

On 2/24/2013 9:00 AM, Richard wrote:
On 2/24/2013 8:47 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20021003.htm


Thanks, Storm.
Very important piece you brought in.



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.


Bull****.

Ed. can you POSSIBLY imagine trying to round up Jews in Texas?
Yes, we have plenty of Jews here.
And yes, they are quite often armed.
Rounding up these suckers is going to be a problem!




The Iraqi army was pretty well armed too, probably better armed than any
citizen in texas given that they had full automatic weapons, and armor,
and if you believe news reports, we didn't have much trouble "rounding
them up". Anyone who believes the second amendment would prevent the
army from taking them away is delusional.

--
For a $5 dollar donation today you get credit for $10 with HIM

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:13:50 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

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.

You sit here and say all this is wrong, while REAL Constitutional
scholars -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito...even Thomas and Blackstone, fer
chrissake, all say YOU're wrong.

Heller quotes numerous cases of regulation of guns, including several
outright BANS of concealed carry from the 19th century, as evidence
that there have always been limitations on the "right," that "shall
not be infringed" never meant "no restrictions," as Scalia says,

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy
152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues." -- Opinion of the Court, D.C. v. Heller

So what you're saying I don't "get" is your ignorant, ahistorical
interpretation of the Amendment. Even though you've been contradicted
throughout history.

Here's what you don't "get," Tom: You're in a bubble. You cooked up a
meaning for the 2nd that suits your desires and wishes, and you
reflect it back and forth with the gun nutz, until you've lost all
sense of reality. You're in an echo chamber of fools.

You probably think the FOX News gun-control poll is a left-wing
conspiracy.

Maybe your should take your own poll. You could restrict it to the gun
nutz. Then send it to FOX and tell them how wrong they are, how
outrageous it is that they're furthering the left-wing agenda, because
you have the REAL numbers. Everyone on RCM agrees.

You really don't get it, Tom.

We know he has absolutely no consideration for
anyone else's arguments or opinions...

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.

he MUST always be right because he
is superior in every way!

That sounds more like Tawwwm.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:42:05 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/23/2013 7:32 PM, 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.


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

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


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

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.


Funny how NONE of the right-wing gun nuts are responsible for any of the
public massacres...it always seems to be leftists and crazies. If Ed
were correct in his thinking, there would be a right-wing gun nut
shooting up a mall every day...rather than over a million CCW holders
stopping a crime every year.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_c..._by_gun_owners

And what makes you think those are CCW holders? Have you seen the
analyses of Kleck's fantastical numbers?

This could go on. Let's not. The number is nutz -- it's self-reported
and it claims more rapes were prevented by women with guns than the
total number of rapes reported. There aren't but a miniscule fraction
of those women who carry handguns. And other nonsense.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:48:12 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 1:29 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/22/2013 10:05 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:21 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.


Gee, are you saying that polls are targeting the responders they WANT?
Say it ain't so!


Come on, Tom. They get the voter registration information and call
people for the party they want to come out on top.


Any good debater can take either side of an argument.

Any good poll can take whatever direction that the purchasing party pays
for.



Ed would self-destruct if he had to even CONSIDER a non-left position.

I consider them all the time. But only here do I encounter such
consistent, knuckle-dragging rightist positions, that those are the
ones I argue with on this NG.

You've never asked my position on welfare, for example. And I wouldn't
bother discussing it with you, because you think that they're all
eating government cheese.

You should know my position on gun rights. It's hardly left. In fact,
based on the polls, it's well to the right of center.

So baloney to you.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:00:15 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 1:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:06 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/22/2013 9:51 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

But I'd
bet that guns would STILL be available at a bit higher price. I still
ask you: Why not make murder illegal? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Find out how many people would be murdered if murder were NOT illegal.
Then compare that with the number who actually are murdered.

There's your answer.

You can start with yourself. d8


Ed, you are good at this type of research.
Dig into it and report back?

Tom's question is a nonsense question. My answer was a nonsense
answer.
snip

An excellent example of an ad hominid logic error!

Hmmm. "Ad hominid"? Is that someone who opposes all primates? Or only
the ones who think they're being logical? g

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:10:21 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


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're splitting hairs here. The original claim was that a "right"
that requires registration is not a right at all. But you have a right
to vote, and it requires registration.

Spitting hairs yes..splitting..hardly. You do have a right to vote
indeed. And it involves registering the voter..not the individual
votes he casts. In fact..they are supposed to be secret.

Registration does not infringe on your rights. It adds some paperwork
to them, but it doesn't violate them or prevent you from owning guns.

The opinion of a Far Leftwing Extremist Fringe kook Blue Stater is
noted with contempt.


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.

Both. In fact, the "details" of each gun sold through an FFL are
recorded now. It's just that the record is rairly useless for law
enforcement. They have access to it, but the process is onerous.

Not all weapons are sold through an FFL, and in most places..they are
retained simply on the 4473 form in his records. Not a gimungus
federal database. Private sales remain..private in most states.

I notice that only a small number of states require them to be
databased....Blue states as a matter of fact. Funny how those Far
leftwing extremist fringe kooks mandate infrigements. Im sure the
British would loved to have had those "registration" listings when
going after the colonists in the 1st American Revolution.



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.

I don't think we really know what the founders desired, because there
was almost no recorded debate about it. In any case, the Constitution
they wrote didn't prevent registration. There is a host of court
cases, written by real legal and Constitutional scholars, that says
such regulation is within Constitutional law.

Blink blink....bull****. The writings of the Founders on the right to
keep and bear arms is ****ing huge. From the Federalist Papers to
letters and articles. If they were to appear here today..they would
challenge you , Pelosi and Reid to a duel and shoot you dead.


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.

That's a good first step. But without registration, there is no way
that I've heard of to hold straw purchasers accountable.

There is no way to hold straw purchasers accountable under any issue.
And its not a big problem who buys it. Who it is found with..and under
what circumstances. If you are a G-0 and you are found with a gun, it
really doesnt make any difference who bought it...you go to jail for
15 yrs PLUS .

If you know of one, I'm open to suggestions.


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

That's pretty much what we have in NJ for long guns. I carry a card
that says I'm eligible to buy guns and ammo. I was fingerprinted for
it and went through a full FBI background check -- beyond NICS.

To buy a handgun, I need a purchase permit, which is similar
information but which is up-to-date information.

So your right to keep and bear arms have badly been infringed..and you
simply learned to live with it. Sucks to be you..indeed it does.


Simple..no?

Yes, and a good first step.

So is taking the first step up the scaffold.

Then you need a way to discourage straw purchases. That's the largest
single source of guns used in crimes, according to the FBI.

Ah..not true. Theft via burglary is the largest single source.
Strawman purchases are in the mix..but its smaller.

Its not the purchase thats illegal. Its the purchaser giving it to a
non legal holder thats illegal. So go after the illegal giving.

Thats the right way, Comrade.

In a lot of urban areas...criminals simply rent a gun from one of
their suppliers. Or go and steal one from another criminal or a
legal owner. When they commit a murder with it..it goes into the
river..or a gun buyback.

--
Ed Huntress

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 Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:53:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


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?

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th Amendment.

And DCs gun ban of 4 decades was overturned by Heller. Yet you
claimed that The Law was what counted. Sucks to be you and have your
law overturned doesnt it?


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?

I think you'll find that the Necessary and Proper clause covers it,
and Heller describes numerous cases of restrictions (like concealed
carry) that were common in the 19th century and that the Court does
not question in this case. Registration, not really being a
restriction at all, but only a formal licensing, certainly would fall
within the "laws imposing conditions and qualifications" that the
Court said it would not question, in Heller.

Yet the Constitution was Written in the 18th Century. Say...what
about that DC gun ban before Heller? Lots of case law and many people
in jail before Heller. Now what..do all those people get a apology and
a cash settlement for time served?


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

Not according to the lengthy list of citations contained in Heller,
nor in the Heller decision itself.

You keep spewing about Heller..which was a partial correction for 100
yrs of Unconstitutional law. Next you are going to revert back to
Scalia. You really do have the keyhole view dont you?

Pity.



Snicker

Snickers are my wife's favorite candy bar.

Yes and?

And Reese's Pieces.

Milkman named Reese?

--
Ed Huntress


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 Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:27:24 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

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.

Works for me. Though to be realistic..a CCW is an Infringement

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 Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:34:00 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


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

But infringed was used.

Yes, in the sense of "broken." As in, completely violated. Not in the
sense of "encroached upon."

That's why Heller et al. says that regulations are permitted.


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.

Odd...you changed it again. Why..didnt like your Broken, violated,
transgresses when I slammed you in the teeth with them?



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.

One of. What part of the Founders writings did you and your
Leftwingers seem to ignore..other than ALL of them?

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.)

And we are back to Scalia again. Fascinating. Shall we go back to
Dred Scott again too? Hummm


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.

It's not quite true that firearms weren't allowed in those places. In
NYC, handguns have always been allowed with a license.

In DC..they were not allowed. In NYC..you couldnt get a liscense.
INFRINGED.


What Heller decided was that a total ban on handguns, as in D.C. and
Chicago, are unconstitutional. As for what regulations and limitations
the Court will allow, we don't know yet. And the lower federal courts
regularly express their uncertainty about the consequences of Heller.

Yet if you read the Founders words...The Right to keep and Bear Arms
Shall not be Infringed...its pretty must graven in stone. NO INFRINGED

You and your Leftwinger buddies have spewed your desires for so
long...even the courts are either afraid of rocking the boat too
badly..or are afraid of you and yours.


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.

That remains to be seen. If a handgun carry case reaches the Supreme
Court, expect fireworks.

They simply need to review the 2nd Amendment, written in 1787

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be Infringed.

Nothing more, nothing less.

--
Ed Huntress

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 Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:48:12 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/22/2013 1:29 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/22/2013 10:05 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/21/2013 12:21 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed wrote in message
...

And nobody I know voted for Romney. d8-)

Ed Huntress

And that highlights the problem with phone polls on controversial
legality issues. The caller knows your phone number and thus your
identity, but the voting booth is anonymous.


Gee, are you saying that polls are targeting the responders they WANT?
Say it ain't so!


Come on, Tom. They get the voter registration information and call
people for the party they want to come out on top.


Any good debater can take either side of an argument.

Any good poll can take whatever direction that the purchasing party pays
for.



Ed would self-destruct if he had to even CONSIDER a non-left position.

Like a stick of 60% in a big bag of ****.

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 Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:57:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:10:21 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


Then you need a way to discourage straw purchases. That's the largest
single source of guns used in crimes, according to the FBI.

Ah..not true. Theft via burglary is the largest single source.
Strawman purchases are in the mix..but its smaller.

Many "thefts via bulglary" are actually straw purchases, as one FBI
agent expained a few years ago. When the last legal owner is asked how
he disposed of his gun, he just says it was stolen from his home. Then
he pays no consequences.

That's why we need a law requiring the securing of a gun, with
liability if you allow it to be stolen (as in either Israel or
Switzerland, I forget which), and a requirement that you report a
theft within a very short period (24 hours in Switzerland).

That's part of how you make straw purchasing a very risky business.


Its not the purchase thats illegal. Its the purchaser giving it to a
non legal holder thats illegal. So go after the illegal giving.

See above.


Thats the right way, Comrade.

In a lot of urban areas...criminals simply rent a gun from one of
their suppliers. Or go and steal one from another criminal or a
legal owner. When they commit a murder with it..it goes into the
river..or a gun buyback.

Once it's into the market of criminals, all bets are off. That's why
we have to keep it from getting there in the first place.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:33:00 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

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.

Born in Florida, raised in Northern Michigan, the resident of 39
states and 5 foreign nations before settling in a nice Red area of
California.

California, which never removed their Assault Weapons law and there is
a 10 day waiting period on purchasing firearms..even between private
parties...not that anyone pays any attention to sales between private
parties. However...all new long guns will be registered this year or
next, handguns have been registered for decades when purchased new.
As are private sales..not that anyone pays any attention to
registering private sales.... a sock in the eye to the Democrats who
control the Blue areas

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 Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:15:53 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:34:00 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


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

But infringed was used.

Yes, in the sense of "broken." As in, completely violated. Not in the
sense of "encroached upon."

That's why Heller et al. says that regulations are permitted.


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.

Odd...you changed it again. Why..didnt like your Broken, violated,
transgresses when I slammed you in the teeth with them?

Those were the things I pointed out days ago, and then you keep
bringing up the meanings equivalent to "encroached." Shall I post an
example?

I think you slammed yourself in the teeth there, Gunner. As the courts
have said, your right isn't "infringed" unless they keep you from
owning a gun.




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.

One of. What part of the Founders writings did you and your
Leftwingers seem to ignore..other than ALL of them?

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.)

And we are back to Scalia again. Fascinating. Shall we go back to
Dred Scott again too? Hummm

Only if you want to keep hanging your hat on decisions that have bneen
overturned.



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.

It's not quite true that firearms weren't allowed in those places. In
NYC, handguns have always been allowed with a license.

In DC..they were not allowed. In NYC..you couldnt get a liscense.
INFRINGED.

Nope.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pe...ml#HowDoIApply

I know a physician who has a NYC carry permit. The gun nutz keep
saying they aren't allowed. That's not true.

The truth is, they're "may issue," just like NJ, and they're damned
hard to get. But the Court didn't define what restrictions would be
allowed, so it will be unlikely that a case reaches the Court from a
denial in NYC.



What Heller decided was that a total ban on handguns, as in D.C. and
Chicago, are unconstitutional. As for what regulations and limitations
the Court will allow, we don't know yet. And the lower federal courts
regularly express their uncertainty about the consequences of Heller.

Yet if you read the Founders words...The Right to keep and Bear Arms
Shall not be Infringed...its pretty must graven in stone. NO INFRINGED

Not broken. Not violated. As long as you can have guns, the right is
not infringed.


You and your Leftwinger buddies have spewed your desires for so
long...even the courts are either afraid of rocking the boat too
badly..or are afraid of you and yours.

Is that your new ride in Gun Nutz Fantasyland? Do you need a ticket
for that?



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.

That remains to be seen. If a handgun carry case reaches the Supreme
Court, expect fireworks.

They simply need to review the 2nd Amendment, written in 1787

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be Infringed.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Right. And if you can own a gun for personal, legal use (such as
self-defense), your right is not infringed. Nothing more, nothing
less.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:02:42 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:53:48 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


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?

Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th Amendment.

And DCs gun ban of 4 decades was overturned by Heller. Yet you
claimed that The Law was what counted. Sucks to be you and have your
law overturned doesnt it?

It took a constitutional amendment to overturn Dred Scott. Are you
counting on a new amendment?

Or are you saying that D.C. v. Heller was an "abortion done by
nitwits"?

If you go back to your point, are you saying that voting isn't a
"right"? Are the only rights we can have the ones listed in the Bill
of Rights? If so, what the hell is the 9th supposed to be about?



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?

I think you'll find that the Necessary and Proper clause covers it,
and Heller describes numerous cases of restrictions (like concealed
carry) that were common in the 19th century and that the Court does
not question in this case. Registration, not really being a
restriction at all, but only a formal licensing, certainly would fall
within the "laws imposing conditions and qualifications" that the
Court said it would not question, in Heller.

Yet the Constitution was Written in the 18th Century. Say...what
about that DC gun ban before Heller? Lots of case law and many people
in jail before Heller. Now what..do all those people get a apology and
a cash settlement for time served?

No, they violated the laws as they stood. Laws change. Constitutional
interpretations change. You obey the laws that are in force at the
time, or you take your chances at a court hearing.



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

Not according to the lengthy list of citations contained in Heller,
nor in the Heller decision itself.

You keep spewing about Heller..which was a partial correction for 100
yrs of Unconstitutional law. Next you are going to revert back to
Scalia. You really do have the keyhole view dont you?

That's the law as it stands today. And it is by far the most accurate
recounting of 2nd Amendment history in this country's history.

Yet you think that they're wrong.

Good luck, Gunner. You'll need it -- unless you follow the law as it
really is.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:22:50 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

the resident of 39
states and 5 foreign nations

Bwahahaha! One of your previous lies is that you were a "street cop"
for 8 years in the 70's in California, your current abode. Therefore
all your gypsying would need to have taken place approximately between
the ages of about 17 and 25. Which sounds much like your 10 million
miles of driving and your insistence that you "never" lie. So add the
39 states and 5 nations claim to the list of all your other
ridiculously obvious horse****.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk....b3b4e079047311


before settling in a nice Red area of
California.

There's nothing nice about being trapped in a dead end ******** where
your only relief is making up stupid stories. Yeah I know your
intended audience of rightwing muttonheads is beyond gullible but
there can't be any quite moronic enough to believe your retarded
exaggerations.

On 2/24/2013 11:53 AM, a friend wrote:
On 2/24/2013 9:00 AM, Richard wrote:
On 2/24/2013 8:47 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20021003.htm


Thanks, Storm.
Very important piece you brought in.



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.


Bull****.

Ed. can you POSSIBLY imagine trying to round up Jews in Texas?
Yes, we have plenty of Jews here.
And yes, they are quite often armed.
Rounding up these suckers is going to be a problem!




The Iraqi army was pretty well armed too, probably better armed than any
citizen in texas given that they had full automatic weapons, and armor,
and if you believe news reports, we didn't have much trouble "rounding
them up". Anyone who believes the second amendment would prevent the
army from taking them away is delusional.



There is that, I suppose.

Full auto verses accurate aimed fire is two completely different things.

I'd like to think we could give them SOME resistance.

But you really are right.
When the law comes for you - what would you do?
Are you going to shoot it out with them?
Or go along peacefully?

On 2/24/2013 1:16 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:57:27 -0800,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:10:21 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip


Then you need a way to discourage straw purchases. That's the largest
single source of guns used in crimes, according to the FBI.

Ah..not true. Theft via burglary is the largest single source.
Strawman purchases are in the mix..but its smaller.

Many "thefts via bulglary" are actually straw purchases, as one FBI
agent expained a few years ago. When the last legal owner is asked how
he disposed of his gun, he just says it was stolen from his home. Then
he pays no consequences.

That's why we need a law requiring the securing of a gun, with
liability if you allow it to be stolen (as in either Israel or
Switzerland, I forget which), and a requirement that you report a
theft within a very short period (24 hours in Switzerland).


I'm calling BS, against my better judgment, Ed.


Did this person REPORT the gun stolen?
If so, fine and dandy.
If not, lock him up.

What new law do you need?

On 2/24/2013 1:41 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

That's the law as it stands today. And it is by far the most accurate
recounting of 2nd Amendment history in this country's history.

Yet you think that they're wrong.

Good luck, Gunner. You'll need it -- unless you follow the law as it
really is.



Gunner?

In Texas (and Oklahoma too), that's called a call...

Tom Gardner wrote:

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!


The mentally ill are always like that.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:00:29 -0500, "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...

Yeah, I always loved that one, too. g

--
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

I'm not sure there is any way to know. Just my wild guess, but some senior
citizen vetrans more likely to be trouble, and yuppies with B'mers less
likely to resist. But, that's a guess.

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

"Richard" wrote in message
...

There is that, I suppose.

Full auto verses accurate aimed fire is two completely different things.

I'd like to think we could give them SOME resistance.

But you really are right.
When the law comes for you - what would you do?
Are you going to shoot it out with them?
Or go along peacefully?

Richard wrote:

On 2/24/2013 8:47 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20021003.htm


Thanks, Storm.
Very important piece you brought in.

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.


Bull****.

Ed. can you POSSIBLY imagine trying to round up Jews in Texas?
Yes, we have plenty of Jews here.
And yes, they are quite often armed.
Rounding up these suckers is going to be a problem!


Let Ed try to take their guns, but shoot plenty of video.

History repeats, for those who do not remember. Or some quote like that.
"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it". That it?

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

"Richard" wrote in message
m...
On 2/24/2013 8:47 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20021003.htm


Thanks, Storm.
Very important piece you brought in.

Tom Gardner wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

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

I WANT one!


6272 Pearl Rd, Parma Heights, OH 44130
(440) 886-2170

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:53:04 -0800, a friend
wrote:

On 2/24/2013 9:00 AM, Richard wrote:
On 2/24/2013 8:47 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20021003.htm


Thanks, Storm.
Very important piece you brought in.



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.


Bull****.

Ed. can you POSSIBLY imagine trying to round up Jews in Texas?
Yes, we have plenty of Jews here.
And yes, they are quite often armed.
Rounding up these suckers is going to be a problem!




The Iraqi army was pretty well armed too, probably better armed than any
citizen in texas given that they had full automatic weapons, and armor,
and if you believe news reports, we didn't have much trouble "rounding
them up". Anyone who believes the second amendment would prevent the
army from taking them away is delusional.

So the Iraqis fought in asymmetrical warfare? Fascinating. And here
we were all thinking they were in trenches and armored weapons and
foxholes and were giving up out in the middle of the desert whenever a
Hummer came along.

Got cites?

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

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Wrong wording.

"Straw purchase free zone."


Do you buy it in baggies? ;-)

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:06:44 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Ed either really, really just doesn't get it or, more likely, he will
NEVER admit he is wrong.

You sit here and say all this is wrong, while REAL Constitutional
scholars -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito...even Thomas and Blackstone, fer
chrissake, all say YOU're wrong.

Heller quotes numerous cases of regulation of guns, including several
outright BANS of concealed carry from the 19th century, as evidence
that there have always been limitations on the "right," that "shall
not be infringed" never meant "no restrictions," as Scalia says,

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy
152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues." -- Opinion of the Court, D.C. v. Heller

19th century...odd..wasnt the 2nd Amendment written in the 18th
century?

What was the various laws at that time? Hummm?

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

Gunner wrote:

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.


Can you imagine a week or two long power outage in the LA area?

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:20:26 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


You should know my position on gun rights. It's hardly left. In fact,
based on the polls, it's well to the right of center.

Only if you consider Trotsky to be a moderate.


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