On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:16:41 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

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.

And you believe the ATF and the FBI on gun issues. Oh **** yes.

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).

Thats why you would suck Barney Franks dick. If you have a loss...I
agree..reporting it within 24 hrs of the discovery should be requied.
Not from the time of the burglary..but from the time you discovered it
missing.

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.
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.

Oh..like the War on Drugs? Thats worked really ****ing well hasnt it?


--
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

Gunner wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Snicker

Snickers are my wife's favorite candy bar.

Yes and?


She 'Snickers' behind his back.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:41:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

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?

Why would we need one? The 2nd is quite clear.

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

See above

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?

See above.



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.

Oh..Constitutional Interpretations!! Odd...it was considered
Constitutional for DC to ban guns and of course the Sullivan Law was
considered Constitutional, along with all the Morton Grove Bans..until
it wasnt.

And you are saying bad law is the law we should follow? So if the
Conservatives win big..and vote to simply murder all the
Leftwingers...you are good to go, right?

Dont worry,.it will never happen. The Great Cull will happen first.



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.

Except for the other 35 rulings

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm


Yet you think that they're wrong.

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

So if it becomes legal to murder Leftwingers..and its been done
before...you are good to go with it. Right?

Say.about that pesky Dred Scott decision...recall what it was about?

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

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?






On 2/24/2013 8:02 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
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
.


Sucks, don't it?

On 2/24/2013 8:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Wrong wording.

"Straw purchase free zone."


Do you buy it in baggies? ;-)


Hey, man, you got some straw?

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:28:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

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?

Post all the bull**** you want. The Founders used Infringed, not
"encroached". I gave you the English definition of Infringed. Deal
with it.

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.

Your opinion is noted.




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.

Oh...but they were LAW..and you wish to ..hell you desire to live
under bad law written by assholes with negative agendas. Ayup..you
are indeed a Blue Stater, and you love it there from the looks of it.



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.

Cites? Bring em up..and Ill slap em right back in your teeth

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


"How do I apply for a handgun license?

Applicants must personally appear and submit a signed application to
the License Division when applying. Fees may be paid by credit card or
with two money orders. The application fee is $340.00. Effective March
19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50. "

That is not even a CCW permit...but a $450 fee to simply OWN a
handgun.

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

" all the states that issue carry pistol licenses, New York State has
arguably the strictest handgun licensing policies in the nation.[9]
New York City, which is effectively a "no-issue" jurisdiction for
carry pistol licenses,[10] has even stricter laws, including those
regulating handguns exclusively kept at home, thereby making it
difficult to virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain,
possess, or carry firearms lawfully within New York City.[11]

The constitutionality of many of New York's restrictive firearms laws,
including the newly-enacted SAFE Act, are being challenged by lawsuits
at the state and federal levels."

****ing Infringed! You damned well know it..yet you toss it into
the mix so I can respond and make you look like an utter ******?????

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

So are they like LA carry permits? 9 million residents and 37 permits
to big campaign doners?

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.

Chuckle...see the last line in the quote from Wiki.....VBG



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.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Yet you
yourself admitted "they are damned hard to get" and only for 'special
people"

And you dont consider it to be infringement of the worst sort.
Fascinating.

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?

Keep dreaming Blue Stater. Laugh laugh laugh. Hell..even here in
Leftwing California...we can get CCWs.



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.

And in NYC? No-issue CCW except for the very very few.....and
Chicago..a gun ban.

Hell..even Morton Grove gave up that ghost decades ago

You blue staters...idiots of the very worst sort.

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:
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.

Where's a good Voodoo witch doctor when you need one?

--
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 2/24/2013 8:04 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
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

Jorge Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned
to repeat it."

Unfortunately, those who do remember the past are also condemned to
repeat it.

I said that.

David

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

Larry Jaques on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
13:34:30 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about getting the money out
of politics. You're talking about more contributors. Wake up, Pete.


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."

Correct. That would limit them further. As would -real- term limits.
How about ONE term, period, and no lifetime collection of exorbitant
retirement and Cadillac medical on top? Immediate disbarment and/or
impeachment for failing random drug or alcohol tests. We need the
junkies out of there, too, y'know.


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.

Right, if we did away with contributions. Or put it in kitties for
each individual race, with each valid candidate getting a percentage
of that money. People couldn't cheat that way and buy a politician.
No more -war chests-, since all the money disbursed would be either
accounted for and returned, or spent before the election was held.


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.

I disagree, as both are true problems. We need to limit campaign
time, too. What do you think, 4 or 6 weeks should be enough, right?

--
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

Tom Gardner wrote:

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


What's the down side to that?

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:56:08 -0600, Richard
wrote:

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?

What is it about which you're "calling BS"? Or are you saying you just
don't like the idea?

--
Ed Huntress

There has been a long history of the police, Federal police
(FBI/Marshals etc) use Machine guns, heavy weapons of war, armored
cars, tanks, airplanes, drones and siege power for many many years.

Look at the 20-30's - the onset of the FBI using B.A.R.'s and Tommie's
to hunt down the bad guys (really bad guys).

We have seen tanks, aerial bombs, poison and flammable gas in recent years.

In most home areas it just is impossible to fend against what they have.

You have to keep in mind the mentality. They won't wait they bore in.

Martin

snip
When the law comes for you - what would you do?
Are you going to shoot it out with them?
Or go along peacefully?

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:58:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

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

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

Where's a good Voodoo witch doctor when you need one?

They're all busy writing economics white papers for Paul Ryan.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2/24/2013 11:07 AM, Gunner wrote:
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

It isn't.

On 2/24/2013 11:15 AM, 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?



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

*Cite*. Cite the "Founders [sic] writings", gummer.

Oops - you can't.



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...

*You* haven't read them, gummer.

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sun, 24 Feb 2013
21:13:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

It can be done. It might also cut off their water, too.


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

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sun, 24 Feb 2013
22:59:11 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Tom Gardner wrote:

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

What's the down side to that?

It could be messy.

But - buzzards got to eat, same as worms.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

Larry Jaques on Sun, 24 Feb 2013
19:55:42 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:55:27 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
13:34:30 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about getting the money out
of politics. You're talking about more contributors. Wake up, Pete.

Wake up yourself - the "limits" set in 1974 are piddling amounts.
The Candidates are already having to hit up more contributors than in
1974 - five times as many - just to raise the same amount (in constant
dollars) as they did in 74.
That attempt to get the money out of politics has been a huge
failure. The problems resulting from the Last Government Program to
Fix the Problem are not solved by Yet Another Government Program to
Fix the Problem.


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."

Correct. That would limit them further. As would -real- term limits.
How about ONE term, period, and no lifetime collection of exorbitant
retirement and Cadillac medical on top? Immediate disbarment and/or
impeachment for failing random drug or alcohol tests. We need the
junkies out of there, too, y'know.

I'm not so sure single term limits would be a good idea. However,
killing the gerrymandered congressional districts which create "safe"
seats would do more to end career politicians. It would also lead to
more "moderate" candidates, as they are not in a single party district
(where the candidates in the primary is chosen by diehard true
believers. AKA the base, or the faithful.)

Combine that with reducing the amount of "help" a Congressman can
provide his Constituents in terms of spending, government contracts,
tax credits, etc, etc, would also end the career politicians.

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.

Right, if we did away with contributions. Or put it in kitties for
each individual race, with each valid candidate getting a percentage
of that money. People couldn't cheat that way and buy a politician.
No more -war chests-, since all the money disbursed would be either
accounted for and returned, or spent before the election was held.

Bzzzt - you missed the point: The Department of Education dolls
out Grant Money, Pilot Project Money, Educational Program money, all
of which goes to the teachers who pay Union Dues which the Unions uses
to lobby congress for more funding "for educating the children." Which
is BS, as far to much goes to administrators. Or diversity Advisors.
Or Educational Conferences in Hawaii, Florida or the Dominican
Republic..
And putting those union contributions into state only kitties
merely adds Yet Another Government Program to try and solve the
problem caused by the very existence of the Federal Department of
Education in the first place.


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

I disagree, as both are true problems. We need to limit campaign
time, too. What do you think, 4 or 6 weeks should be enough, right?

Might be. But how do you intend to do that? Censorship? One
reason the campaigns are so long is that the max allowable
contributions are, by law, fixed at a ridiculous low level (would you
want to go to work where your pay got dribbled out in 1974 units? With
what used to be a month's pay is now a short week. Every four work
days you have to go down to payroll and collect your check? Absurd
yes, but that is what candidates have to do. Go to five times as many
rubber chicken dinners in 2012 to raise the equivalent of one such
dinner in 1974.)
Leaping Tammany Hall! As for limiting the "campaign season" - Is
not the governor running for reelection when he proposes his budget,
which increase money for X, Y, or Z - all of which have a constituency
which will contribute money or volunteers in the next election cycle?
Is not Bloomberg running for re-election when he panders to his
lefty base by banning sodas, salt, and styrofoam? How do you intend
to "limit the campaign time" for incumbents?

Which is one more reason to reduce the amount of money which is
distributed from the treasury. Do you really think politicians are
going to spend the time to raise the millions of dollars to get
elected to an office from which they can't reward their supporters
with grants, earmarks, tax code revisions, regulatory "reform",
increased safety requirements, etc, etc, ad nauseam?


tschus
pyotr


OTOH, I some what approve of the British system, where the party out
of power has its own "Shadow Cabinet". These are people who know now,
what the Ministry for X does, is doing, is planning - because on the
day after the election, they are Her Majesty's Government, no longer
the "Shadow Cabinet" but the Real Cabinet. No long transition period
either.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:53:09 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:28:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

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?

Post all the bull**** you want. The Founders used Infringed, not
"encroached". I gave you the English definition of Infringed. Deal
with it.

Hmm. It looks like you chose the one that means "encroached." g

You pulled out the SECOND meaning and you ignored the first meaning.
Do you think the FFs intended the secondary meaning over the primary
one? Here's what you posted:

=======================================
Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]

. 2. act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

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

For the first one, I'll refer you to your own link:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...glish/infringe

Quit trying to b.s. your way through, Gunner. You should know by now
that you aren't going to get away with it.

And I'll refer you again to the 1828 edition of Webster's -- the first
American dictionary -- for a better understanding of the
contemporaneous meaning:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,infringe


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.

Your opinion is noted.

It's not my opinion. It's the clear opinion of the Supreme Court --
all of the conservative Justices, who were the majority in Heller.





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.

Oh...but they were LAW..and you wish to ..hell you desire to live
under bad law written by assholes with negative agendas.

You mean, like the conservative Justices of the Supreme Court? I have
to keep reminding myself that you know better than them, that they're
just assholes with negative agendas, and you knew the Founders
personally...

If I violate your decisions, nothing happens. If I violate theirs,
I've got real trouble. g

Ayup..you
are indeed a Blue Stater, and you love it there from the looks of it.

I like it well enough to have lived here for about 50 of my 64 years.




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.

Cites? Bring em up..and Ill slap em right back in your teeth

Try it. In fact, here's the list of licensed handgun owners in NYC:

(first, an explanation)

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-ne...ermit-holders/

(next, the list)

http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-...-new-york-city

Getting a "premises permit" in NYC is a PITA, but as you can see,
plenty of people have done it.

What you're doing is mixing up carry permits with premises permits.
There are some carry permits in NYC, but not many.

The situation there is a lot like the whole state of NJ, although
getting a permit to purchase is easier in NJ. Getting a carry permit
here is only slightly more likely than in NYC. I don't know of anyone
who has one, but, as I said, one of my former physicians has a NYC
carry permit.

How are your teeth holding up, Gunner? From here it looks like you
were hit with a boomerang. d8-)



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


"How do I apply for a handgun license?

Applicants must personally appear and submit a signed application to
the License Division when applying. Fees may be paid by credit card or
with two money orders. The application fee is $340.00. Effective March
19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50. "

That is not even a CCW permit...but a $450 fee to simply OWN a
handgun.

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

" all the states that issue carry pistol licenses, New York State has
arguably the strictest handgun licensing policies in the nation.[9]
New York City, which is effectively a "no-issue" jurisdiction for
carry pistol licenses,[10] has even stricter laws, including those
regulating handguns exclusively kept at home, thereby making it
difficult to virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain,
possess, or carry firearms lawfully within New York City.[11]

(This is horse****. That whole Wikipedia entry is poorly written and
full of contradictions. "Ordinary citizens" can "obtain" and "possess"
handguns -- if they want to jump through the hoops and spend a pile of
money.)


The constitutionality of many of New York's restrictive firearms laws,
including the newly-enacted SAFE Act, are being challenged by lawsuits
at the state and federal levels."

****ing Infringed! You damned well know it..yet you toss it into
the mix so I can respond and make you look like an utter ******?????

You really better learn to read your own stuff, Gunner. I only said
that you can own a handgun in NYC. I didn't say you were likely to get
a carry permit.


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

So are they like LA carry permits? 9 million residents and 37 permits
to big campaign doners?

Something like that. The difference between D.C. and Chicago, on one
hand, and NYC, on the other, is that the first two had NO provision
for owning a handgun. The Court says that's unconstitutional. NYC
does, but it would be up to the courts to decide if their regulations
are so onerous that they violate the Constitution. It seems unlikely,
given the extensive list in that Gawker article. A lot of people
managed to jump through the hoops.

Carry permits are not an issue. I didn't mention them, and the Supreme
Court said in Heller that it is not questioning several types of
regulations. Interestingly, and confusingly, they listed 19th century
prohibitions against carrying guns as examples of the historical basis
for regulations. But they didn't include carrying, except in specific
places, in their short list of regulations they aren't questioning.
This one's a crapshoot, should it reach the Supreme Court.

There are several versions of that Gawker list floating around, and
note that some of them are not actually handgun permit lists. But it's
not in question that there are several thousand premises permits for
handguns issued in NYC. The list in Gawker apparently is legit, for
2010.


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.

Chuckle...see the last line in the quote from Wiki.....VBG

We'll see. The whole law (SAFE Act) is severable, and I don't see
anything in there that's a clear violation of the terms laid down in
Heller. But you never know.




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.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Yet you
yourself admitted "they are damned hard to get" and only for 'special
people"

I didn't say only for special people. But that only applies to the
carry law. It isn't clear that the S.C. would overturn that no matter
what the terms of NYC's carry law are. If it were me, and if I were a
lawyer, I think I'd attack it on 14th Amendment grounds. But the Court
may well not even grant cert on a challenge to a carry law. See
Heller.


And you dont consider it to be infringement of the worst sort.
Fascinating.

I object to NYC's carry law because of its unequal application -- a
14th Amendment case. I generally favor shall-issue CCW laws, with
sturdy background checks and training requirements. But if the
question is constitutionality, I think you're sucking wind.


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?

Keep dreaming Blue Stater. Laugh laugh laugh. Hell..even here in
Leftwing California...we can get CCWs.

You keep bouncing back and forth between handgun possession and CCW.
You should first make up your mind about where you think the
constitutional problem is.




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.

And in NYC? No-issue CCW except for the very very few.....and
Chicago..a gun ban.

Heller doesn't say carry bans are unconstitutional. The Court may or
may not consider that to be an infringement. I have a problem with
those bans -- especially the highly selective permitting as in NYC --
but I'm more interested in what the law will be, under the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd in Heller. So far, I think they have it
right.


Hell..even Morton Grove gave up that ghost decades ago

That was a ban on ownership. Are we back to that now, or are you still
on CCW?


You blue staters...idiots of the very worst sort.

Gunner

You only say that because you know we understand the Heller decision,
and you hate it.

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner on Sun, 24 Feb 2013 04:50:20 -0800 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

Simpler: G0 is "Go" any thing else is "No Go". Allows for all
sorts of other codes as well: G1 - illegal alien, G2-not too bright,
G3-Restraining order, G4 - retraining order, G5 Mope with intent to
creep, G6 - drives British junk, G13 under aged drinker, G16 Jail
bait, G21 old enough to know better.

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

Larry Jaques on Sun, 24 Feb 2013
18:02:47 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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

"I'm a-coming Beenie Boy!" - Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On 2/25/2013 12:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


Ed, if it comes to a law that says we can't buy guns, then I'd have to
join Gunner and the rest of the gun nuts.


And, I would hope, so would you.


Think of it as a question...

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:37:01 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:41:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

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?

Why would we need one? The 2nd is quite clear.

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

See above

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?

See above.



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.

Oh..Constitutional Interpretations!! Odd...it was considered
Constitutional for DC to ban guns and of course the Sullivan Law was
considered Constitutional, along with all the Morton Grove Bans..until
it wasnt.

Says who? Not the Supreme Court. Now you have a S.C. decision. Then,
we didn't.


And you are saying bad law is the law we should follow? So if the
Conservatives win big..and vote to simply murder all the
Leftwingers...you are good to go, right?

That would be unconstitutional. g

But I'll bet dreaming about it helps you get to sleep at night.


Dont worry,.it will never happen. The Great Cull will happen first.

See above.




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.

Except for the other 35 rulings

Pffhhht.


http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm


Yet you think that they're wrong.

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

So if it becomes legal to murder Leftwingers..and its been done
before...you are good to go with it. Right?

Say.about that pesky Dred Scott decision...recall what it was about?

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

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:11:44 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

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?

He said from Blackstone (died 1780) *THROUGH* the 19th century.

--
Ed Huntress

Stormin Mormon wrote:

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.


Reminds me of part of this:

Me & Bobby McGee Lyrics

Busted flat in Baton Rouge, waiting for a train
And I's feeling nearly as faded as my jeans.
Bobby thumbed a diesel down just before it rained,
It rode us all the way to New Orleans.

I pulled my harpoon out of my dirty red bandanna,
I was playing soft while Bobby sang the blues.
Windshield wipers slapping time, I was holding Bobby's hand in mine,
We sang every song that driver knew.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^
Nothing don't mean nothing honey if it ain't free, now now.
And feeling good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues,
You know feeling good was good enough for me,
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee.

From the Kentucky coal mines to the California sun,
Hey, Bobby shared the secrets of my soul.
Through all kinds of weather, through everything we done,
Hey Bobby baby? kept me from the cold.

One day up near Salinas,I let him slip away,
He's looking for that home and I hope he finds it,
But I'd trade all of my tomorrows for just one yesterday
To be holding Bobby's body next to mine.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose,
Nothing, that's all that Bobby left me, yeah,
But feeling good was easy, Lord, when he sang the blues,
Hey, feeling good was good enough for me, hmm hmm,
Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee.

La la la, la la la la, la la la, la la la la
La la la la la Bobby McGee.
La la la la la, la la la la la
La la la la la, Bobby McGee, la.

La La la, la la la la la la,
La La la la la la la la la, ain`t no bumb on my bobby McGee yeah.
Na na na na na na na na, na na na na na na na na na na na
Hey now Bobby now, Bobby McGee, yeah.

Lord, I'm calling my lover, calling my man,
I said I'm calling my lover just the best I can,
C'mon, hey now Bobby yeah, hey now Bobby McGee, yeah,
Lordy Lordy Lordy Lordy Lordy Lordy Lordy Lord
Hey, hey, hey, Bobby McGee, Lord!

Yeah! Whew!

Lordy Lordy Lordy Lordy Lordy Lordy Lordy Lord
Hey, hey, hey, Bobby McGee.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"I'm a-coming Beenie Boy!" - Cecil the Seasick Sea Serpent.


I figured you more for an 'El Kabooong!' type.

Richard wrote:

On 2/24/2013 8:11 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Wrong wording.

"Straw purchase free zone."


Do you buy it in baggies? ;-)

Hey, man, you got some straw?


A couple truckloads, and I have to rake it all up, again.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sun, 24 Feb 2013
21:13:21 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

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?

It can be done. It might also cut off their water, too.


They would be running in circles without their Starbucks & free
Wi-Fi. Then they would all run out of food & imported bottled water
within days.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sun, 24 Feb 2013
22:59:11 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Tom Gardner wrote:

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

What's the down side to that?

It could be messy.

But - buzzards got to eat, same as worms.


Isn't worms eating trolls a form of cannibalism?

Larry Jaques wrote:

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

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

Where's a good Voodoo witch doctor when you need one?


Chicago, at the CIC's home?

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:19:27 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 12:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


Ed, if it comes to a law that says we can't buy guns, then I'd have to
join Gunner and the rest of the gun nuts.


And, I would hope, so would you.


Think of it as a question...

Let me try to clarify it:

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, where
would we be?

A. The UK

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, what would
it tell us about what just happened?

A: Something really bad. I'd be sure to keep two guns on my hips and
carry my pump shotgun loaded with #4 buck, in case the nutz get
frisky.

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, would I
follow Gunner?

A: He'd be playing banjo on his porch, going nowhere.

Next question? g

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:44:02 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:11:44 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

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?

He said from Blackstone (died 1780) *THROUGH* the 19th century.


If he said that..he had better come up with the citations to back up
his claim

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

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 23:37:03 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:58:09 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

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

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

Where's a good Voodoo witch doctor when you need one?

They're all busy writing economics white papers for Paul Ryan.

So hows that Hopey/Changey thingie working out?

Laugh laugh laugh!

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 Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:26:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Oh..Constitutional Interpretations!! Odd...it was considered
Constitutional for DC to ban guns and of course the Sullivan Law was
considered Constitutional, along with all the Morton Grove Bans..until
it wasnt.

Says who? Not the Supreme Court. Now you have a S.C. decision. Then,
we didn't.


And you are saying bad law is the law we should follow? So if the
Conservatives win big..and vote to simply murder all the
Leftwingers...you are good to go, right?

That would be unconstitutional. g

Not if it was stated by someone to be Constitutional. VBG

But I'll bet dreaming about it helps you get to sleep at night.

I wake up screaming


Dont worry,.it will never happen. The Great Cull will happen first.

See above.

I hope you live through it. But..being a Lefty..I rather suspect you
wont.




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.

Except for the other 35 rulings

Pffhhht.


http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm


VBG

You just hate that dont you?

Laugh laugh laugh!!

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 Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:19:27 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Post all the bull**** you want. The Founders used Infringed, not
"encroached". I gave you the English definition of Infringed. Deal
with it.

Hmm. It looks like you chose the one that means "encroached." g

You pulled out the SECOND meaning and you ignored the first meaning.
Do you think the FFs intended the secondary meaning over the primary
one? Here's what you posted:

=======================================
Definition of infringe
verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)
[with object]

. 2. act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

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

For the first one, I'll refer you to your own link:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...glish/infringe

Quit trying to b.s. your way through, Gunner. You should know by now
that you aren't going to get away with it.

So you are claiming Gay still means Happy and Carefree?

And I'll refer you again to the 1828 edition of Webster's -- the first
American dictionary -- for a better understanding of the
contemporaneous meaning:

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,infringe

infringe

INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See
Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by
contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of
performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or
covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing
what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or
obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

So which one were they using? Laugh laugh laugh!!


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.

Your opinion is noted.

It's not my opinion. It's the clear opinion of the Supreme Court --
all of the conservative Justices, who were the majority in Heller.

Yet the SCOTUS claimed Dred Scott was still a slave while in a Free
State. Until the civil war..which killed a million people.

VBG






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.

Oh...but they were LAW..and you wish to ..hell you desire to live
under bad law written by assholes with negative agendas.

You mean, like the conservative Justices of the Supreme Court? I have
to keep reminding myself that you know better than them, that they're
just assholes with negative agendas, and you knew the Founders
personally...

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm
the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter
XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep
and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of
Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789,
"Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
The Founding Fathers on Arms

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They
are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under
independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day,
events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security
and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the
very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference —
they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the
other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and
plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The
same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms,
for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay
them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived
of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young,
how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is
able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,
that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the
difference between having our arms in possession and under our
direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our
defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can
they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our
own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who
do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is
inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all
times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores
the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
"
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman
Later Quotes on Gun Control

"The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it
very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having
left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as
best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame
us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an
honest mistake."
Malcolm Wallop
former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)



If I violate your decisions, nothing happens. If I violate theirs,
I've got real trouble. g

If you buy a gun, nothing happens. If you forbid others from buying
guns..they will sooner or later..come and kill you.


Ayup..you
are indeed a Blue Stater, and you love it there from the looks of it.

I like it well enough to have lived here for about 50 of my 64 years.

Thank you for making my case. VBG




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.

Cites? Bring em up..and Ill slap em right back in your teeth

Try it. In fact, here's the list of licensed handgun owners in NYC:

(first, an explanation)

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-ne...ermit-holders/

(next, the list)

http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-...-new-york-city

Getting a "premises permit" in NYC is a PITA, but as you can see,
plenty of people have done it.

What you're doing is mixing up carry permits with premises permits.
There are some carry permits in NYC, but not many.

The situation there is a lot like the whole state of NJ, although
getting a permit to purchase is easier in NJ. Getting a carry permit
here is only slightly more likely than in NYC. I don't know of anyone
who has one, but, as I said, one of my former physicians has a NYC
carry permit.

How are your teeth holding up, Gunner? From here it looks like you
were hit with a boomerang. d8-)



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


"How do I apply for a handgun license?

Applicants must personally appear and submit a signed application to
the License Division when applying. Fees may be paid by credit card or
with two money orders. The application fee is $340.00. Effective March
19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50. "

That is not even a CCW permit...but a $450 fee to simply OWN a
handgun.

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

" all the states that issue carry pistol licenses, New York State has
arguably the strictest handgun licensing policies in the nation.[9]
New York City, which is effectively a "no-issue" jurisdiction for
carry pistol licenses,[10] has even stricter laws, including those
regulating handguns exclusively kept at home, thereby making it
difficult to virtually impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain,
possess, or carry firearms lawfully within New York City.[11]

(This is horse****. That whole Wikipedia entry is poorly written and
full of contradictions. "Ordinary citizens" can "obtain" and "possess"
handguns -- if they want to jump through the hoops and spend a pile of
money.)


The constitutionality of many of New York's restrictive firearms laws,
including the newly-enacted SAFE Act, are being challenged by lawsuits
at the state and federal levels."

****ing Infringed! You damned well know it..yet you toss it into
the mix so I can respond and make you look like an utter ******?????

You really better learn to read your own stuff, Gunner. I only said
that you can own a handgun in NYC. I didn't say you were likely to get
a carry permit.

And getting a handgun in NYC means you have to spend at minimum $450
for a permit and it takes 6 months. You left that out as well.

You dont consider that to be an infringement? And about that pesky
'and bear arms" thingy....? Hummm?


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

So are they like LA carry permits? 9 million residents and 37 permits
to big campaign doners?

Something like that. The difference between D.C. and Chicago, on one
hand, and NYC, on the other, is that the first two had NO provision
for owning a handgun. The Court says that's unconstitutional. NYC
does, but it would be up to the courts to decide if their regulations
are so onerous that they violate the Constitution. It seems unlikely,
given the extensive list in that Gawker article. A lot of people
managed to jump through the hoops.

So its Constitutional until its not.

Carry permits are not an issue. I didn't mention them, and the Supreme
Court said in Heller that it is not questioning several types of
regulations. Interestingly, and confusingly, they listed 19th century
prohibitions against carrying guns as examples of the historical basis
for regulations. But they didn't include carrying, except in specific
places, in their short list of regulations they aren't questioning.
This one's a crapshoot, should it reach the Supreme Court.

VBG and you continue to validate my statements. VBG

There are several versions of that Gawker list floating around, and
note that some of them are not actually handgun permit lists. But it's
not in question that there are several thousand premises permits for
handguns issued in NYC. The list in Gawker apparently is legit, for
2010.

Several thousand...and the population is 8,244,910




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.

Chuckle...see the last line in the quote from Wiki.....VBG

We'll see. The whole law (SAFE Act) is severable, and I don't see
anything in there that's a clear violation of the terms laid down in
Heller. But you never know.

VBG




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.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Yet you
yourself admitted "they are damned hard to get" and only for 'special
people"

I didn't say only for special people. But that only applies to the
carry law. It isn't clear that the S.C. would overturn that no matter
what the terms of NYC's carry law are. If it were me, and if I were a
lawyer, I think I'd attack it on 14th Amendment grounds. But the Court
may well not even grant cert on a challenge to a carry law. See
Heller.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/artic...arry-2012.aspx




And you dont consider it to be infringement of the worst sort.
Fascinating.

I object to NYC's carry law because of its unequal application -- a
14th Amendment case. I generally favor shall-issue CCW laws, with
sturdy background checks and training requirements. But if the
question is constitutionality, I think you're sucking wind.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.


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?

Keep dreaming Blue Stater. Laugh laugh laugh. Hell..even here in
Leftwing California...we can get CCWs.

You keep bouncing back and forth between handgun possession and CCW.
You should first make up your mind about where you think the
constitutional problem is.

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

The notible terms are "keep" and "bear"




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.

You keep forgetting about that nasty little "and bear" portion. Why
is that?

And in NYC? No-issue CCW except for the very very few.....and
Chicago..a gun ban.

Heller doesn't say carry bans are unconstitutional. The Court may or
may not consider that to be an infringement. I have a problem with
those bans -- especially the highly selective permitting as in NYC --
but I'm more interested in what the law will be, under the Court's
interpretation of the 2nd in Heller. So far, I think they have it
right.

Yet you are ok with NYC and Chicagos literal ban on firearms and its
admittedly near impossiblity to get a CCW.

Make up your mind Eddy.


Hell..even Morton Grove gave up that ghost decades ago

That was a ban on ownership. Are we back to that now, or are you still
on CCW?

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.


You blue staters...idiots of the very worst sort.

Gunner

You only say that because you know we understand the Heller decision,
and you hate it.

Hate a 75% improvement? Why would you think that?

--
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 22:36:53 -0600, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

There has been a long history of the police, Federal police
(FBI/Marshals etc) use Machine guns, heavy weapons of war, armored
cars, tanks, airplanes, drones and siege power for many many years.

Look at the 20-30's - the onset of the FBI using B.A.R.'s and Tommie's
to hunt down the bad guys (really bad guys).

We have seen tanks, aerial bombs, poison and flammable gas in recent years.

In most home areas it just is impossible to fend against what they have.

You have to keep in mind the mentality. They won't wait they bore in.

Martin

snip
When the law comes for you - what would you do?
Are you going to shoot it out with them?
Or go along peacefully?

You seem to forget Athens Tennesee

Subject: Nightline: September 11, 1998
Date: 12 Sep 1994 02:59:49 GMT

Nightline: September 11, 1998

SAWYER: Hello, I'm Tom Sawyer and this...is Nightline.

[Theme music]

Tonight we'll be covering today's tradegy in Garden City, Kansas where
agents of the ATF Police were ambushed and massacred while attempting
to
serve a no-knock warrant on a suspected illegal arsenal.

[Begin clip: President Clinton stands at a podium in the press room of
the White House, the the Vice-President at his side. The camera zooms
in
on his drawn face.]

CLINTON: Today, thirty-two police officers of the United States
government
were brutally and ruthlessly murdered while in the sworn performance
of
their lawful duty.

[Edit transition.]

CLINTON: I want to express my sincere condolances to the families of
the
slain officers. I pledge to you that I will not rest until their
killers
have been brought to justice.

[Edit transition.]

CLINTON: I want to send a clear an unambiguous message to the
terrorists
out the This is not Beirut. This is not Sarajevo. This is not Rome.
This is America. And we will crush you under the full weight of the
United
States government. You have my word on that.

[End clip.]

SAWYER: In tonight's program we will be talking with Secretary of
Defense
Janet Reno, the Clinton administration's point person on domestic
terrorism.
Later we will be joined by Senate Majority Leader Phil Graham and
House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich. And we'll speak by satellite to
Colonel John Simpson, Army Retired and Professor Jerry White of the
New Freedom Front.

But first, we have an some exclusive footage from the scene of today's
attack. I want to warn our viewers, though, that the unedited clip you
are
about to see is extremely graphic and may not be suitable for young
children.

[Begin clip: a hand-held camera is being carried close to the ground
behind
three croching and running men dressed in black. Across the backs of
the men
is 'ATF Police'. Both the men and the camera stop at a low stone wall
facing
a small, one-story brick house.]

VOICE 1: All teams report in.

VOICE 2 OVER RADIO: Red team, ready.

VOICE 3 OVER RADIO: Blue team, ready.

VOICE 4 OVER RADIO: Green team, ready.

VOICE 5 OVER RADIO: Yellow team, ready.

VOICE 1: All teams, ready. Blue team, go.

[Three figures race across the front yard carrying a pole. Other
figures
take up positions behind the front porch. As the men carrying the pole
reach the front door, a loud crack breaks the silence and one man
stumbles
and falls to the ground. Almost as quickly, the other two stumble and
fall.
More shots punctuate the air.]

VOICE 1: Christ. Take cover. All teams, open fire...****!

[The camera turns to show two men down, blood sprayed across the stone
wall.
The camera pans eratically first left and then right and then falls to
the
ground facing one of the men laying motionless against the wall.]

VOICE 1: Ambush, ambush. All teams fall back. I repeat...

[More shots ring out and then silence. The sound of approaching
footsteps on
gravel grows steadily louder. The man in front of the camera opens his
eyes
and holds up one arm weakly.]

VOICE 6: Please, no...please.

[A single shot strikes his chest and the man flinches and then lays
motionless again. The camera is picked up and panned across the front
yard of th
e
house where other figures, wearing green fatigues are firing point
blank
into the motionless bodies of the ATF agents, one shot per body. This
done,
they sling their rifles and trot casually off in the direction they
came.]

VOICE 7: They're going to need some more ATF guys.

[End clip.]

SAWYER: When we come back, Attorney General Janet Reno.

[Begin clip.]

LOCAL POLICEMAN: I want to know what the ATF 'Police' were doing in my
town. I didn't invite them in. Why aren't they back in DC cleaning up
that
stinkhole of criminal vermin?

[End clip.]

[Commercial break.]

SAWYER: Welcome back to Nightline. With us now is Attorney General
Janet
Reno. Ms. Reno, what happened today?

RENO: Well, first, I'd like to know where you got that video.

SAWYER: It's my understanding that it was sent to us by an anonymous
source.
Perhaps someone within the ATF, itself.

RENO: That's not possible. Our agents didn't recover the tape. I think
that
your viewers should be aware that you are airing material provided by
the
terrorists.

SAWYER: Well, anyway, what happened?

RENO: An ATF task force was in the process of serving a warrant when
it came
under fire from behind. As you saw in the video, they were ruthlessly
butchered in cold blood by the terrorists.

SAWYER: On what evidence was the warrent served?

RENO: We had an anonymous tip.

SAWYER: Like the tip you had in the previous ambush?

RENO: The ATF receives hundreds of tips on illegal arsenals every day.
In
most cases, the warrants are served without incident. In this case,
the
agents involved followed procedure to the letter.

SAWYER: Doesn't that imply that the procedures are flawed?

RENO: We are in the process of reviewing our operating procedures but
I can
assure you that we will not cease our search for illegal arsenals and
we
will continue to act on tips from Americans about private arsenals.

SAWYER: What is being done in response to today's tragedy.

RENO: The FBI with the full cooperation of the ATF Police is currently
investigating this latest incident. Evidence has been collected and it
will
not be long before the terrorists are brought to justice.

SAWYER: This latest attack brings to 124 the number of slain ATF
agents.
Isn't it about time for some concrete results from these
investigations?
What leads are you currently following?

RENO: You know I can't comment on the specifics of an ongoing
investigation.

SAWYER: Sources inside the FBI inform us that so far there are no
solid
leads, that they have no idea who is behind these killings.

RENO: We all know who is behind them. The problem is collecting the
evidence
necessary for a conviction.

SAWYER: These same sources tell us that there is a growing friction
between
the FBI and the ATF over the enforcement of the administration's gun
control
policies. The fact that so many ATF agents have been killed with no
killings
of FBI agents...

RENO: That's simply absurd. Any suggestion that there is some sort of
division within this administration over policy is just absurd. It was
the
FBI which helped turn the tide against the gun industry by pledging
support
for gun control back in 1994.

SAWYER: Yes, but since that time, it has been consipcuously absent
from the
War on Guns.

RENO: The FBI does not have jurisdiction over the enforcement of the
administration's gun control policies. The ATF does.

SAWYER: It has been suggested that your recent appointment to the
Department
of Defense signals a change in strategy by the administration, that we
will
soon see units of the United States Army serving these warrants.

RENO: I don't think that it is proper for me to comment on such wild
speculation. These reports are based upon nothing that this
administration
has done or said but rather a desire on the part of certan subversive
elements to spread panic.

SAWYER: Even so, there have been reports that units of the Army are
now
training for urban warfare...

RENO: It is standard policy for the United States Army to be prepared
for
urban fighting given the nature of modern warfare.

SAWYER: Itsn't it unusual, though, for National Guard units to be
called
up when there is no ongoing conflict or disaster.

RENO: These units were called into federal service as part of a new
training
exercise. When the exercise is completed, they will be released.

SAWYER: We have to break for a a word from our sponsors right now but
when
we return we will be joined by Senate Majority Leader Phil Graham and
House
Majority Leader Newt Gingrich.

[Begin clip.]

SENATOR NORTH: Today's events are the natural consequence of this
Democratic
administration's war on the American people. The ATF got exactly what
it
deserved.

[End clip.]

[Commercial break.]

SAWYER: Welcome back. Senator Graham, what is the reaction of the
congressional leadership to this latest incident?

GRAHAM: Of course, we completely and uncategorically deplore this
latest
tragedy. The question of this administration's policies should not be
resolved by force of arms. This is a democracy, after all.

SAWYER: There are those in the Senate who have voiced the opinion that
this
was the proximate result of the administration's policies. They seem
to
imply that these killings, if not justifiable, are in some sense
understandable. Senator North, as we heard just before the break,
seems to
be of the opinion that it was President Clinton's policies which are
killing
the ATF agents.

GRAHAM: I don't think that is precisely what Senator North said but in
any
case his views are not the views of the majority of our party. But let
me
just add that we wouldn't be sitting here today if the administration
weren't
executing these laws...

RENO: The administration is enforcing the laws of the United States...

GRAHAM: If I may finish. Three times we have sent legislation to the
President to repeal the Gun Control Act of 1995. Three times it has
been
vetoed. It is absurd for the administration to continue to claim that
it
is just enforcing the law. These laws are wrong. They are ineffective.
And they are being abused. The ATF refuses to use them to bust gangs
right
here in the capital. It prefers instead to hunt down American citizens
who
have refused on principle to comply with the registration
requirements.
Requirements which, by the way, are completely unconstitutional.

RENO: I think that it is totally irresponsible for the Senator to
suggest as
he is now suggesting that these laws are somehow unconstitutional.
That
question was resolved by the Supreme Court in 1996...

GRAHM: After the court was packed to include...

RENO: The additional of new justices was necessary to reduce the case
load
and was completely legal as the Senator well knows.

GRAHAM: Look, Ms. Reno, Justices Mitchel and Babbit were hardly the
most
neutral choices to review this law. Packing the court to overturn its
previous ruling on the Gun Control Act of 1995 was exactly the kind of
power
politics that Americans have come to revile in this administration.

SAWYER: Are you suggesting that the federal government declare victory
and
bring its troops home.

GRAHAM: I'm saying that we wouldn't be here today discussing these
tragic
deaths if not for the misguided policies of this administration.

SAWYER: It sounds as if you are agreeing with Senator North.

GRAHAM: I don't think so. I think that these terrorists should be
brought
to justice. Senator North seems to think that they should be pardoned.

RENO: This just rediculous. Federal agents are being murdered and
we're
debating whether the killers should be pardoned or not.

SAWYER: We have to break for a commercial but first one quick
question:
Congressman Gingrich, will there be another attempt to overide the
administration's veto of the repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1995?

GINGRICH: You can count on it.

[Begin clip.]

HOUSEWIFE: It was like a war zone. It's a miracle nobody was
killed...I
mean nobody who lived in the neighborhood. It was terrible, awful. I
just
don't understand what's happening to this country. There was blood
everywhere.

[End clip.]

[Commercial break.]

SAWYER: Congressman Gingrich, it's widely expected that the
Republicans will
win the presidency in 2000. Will the Republicans repeal all, some, or
none
of the gun control laws which have been enacted over the course of
this
century in response to rising crime in America?

GINGRICH: The Republican Party, while not condoning the actions of
these
terrorists, believes that these laws are wrong and misguided. One way
or
another we intend to get them changed.

SAWYER: But will you repeal them all? Will you legalize semiautomatic
guns,
for example.

GINGRICH: I don't think that this is the proper time to debate which
laws
should be repealed and which should be refined. But clearly something
is
wrong with these policies.

RENO: What is wrong is that we have terrorists killing agents of the
United
States government and the other party talking surrender.

SAWYER: Congressman Gingrich, shouldn't the laws be strengthened given
that
they are clearly not doing their job? Should we perhaps consider
banning
sniper rifles as some groups are now suggesting?

GINGRICH: Well, that's exactly the kind of logic that got us into this
mess
in the first place. What are sniper rifles?

SAWYER: I think, for instance, they are the kind of guns that were
used to
kill the ATF agents today. High powered rifles with scopes and slings
like
the ones we saw in the video.

GINGRICH: What you are describing is the standard hunting rifle. Do
you
realize how many of those rifles are out there?

RENO: Enough to kill 124 federal agents.

GINGRICH: It's just not practical.

RENO: That's what the other party said about our ban on assault
weapons and
the registration of weapons' arsenals.

GINGRICH: And where has that gotten us today? Are our streets safer?
Is there
less crime in our cities? No. The fact is that the vast majority of
gun
owners are resisting these laws and, anyway, they are not being used
against
the truly violent criminals on our streets.

RENO: As a result of these laws, we have seized over 10,000 illegal
arms in
the last two years.

GINGRICH: You know what this sounds like? It sounds like the Vietnam
War
where the generals kept announcing victory based on body counts. The
administration claims success of the gun laws by counting guns seized
mostly from Americans with no prior criminal record.

RENO: Every gun that we get off the street is one less potential
death.

SAWYER: Well, I'm afraid we are out of time. I want to thank Attorney
General
Reno, Senator Graham and Congressman Gingrich for joining us tonight.
When we return, we'll talk to Colonel John Simpson, Army Retired and
Professor Jerry White of the New Freedom Front.

[Begin clip.]

ATF AGENT: We know who is behind these killings. I think that it is
time
we cracked down on the NRA and its 6.8 million criminal members. We
know
who they are. We know where they live. Let's go get them.

[End clip.]

[Commercial break.]

SAWYER: Welcome back. With us now is Colonel Simpson, Army Retired.
Colonel
Simpson help to formulate Army doctrine on counter-insurgency warfare.
Colonel Simpson, based on the video we watched, what can you tell us
about
these terrorists.

SIMPSON: Well, clearly they are professional. I would say they are
probably
veterans of the Gulf War based on they way that they have been
planning these
ambushes and carrying them out. In spite of what the administration
might
be implying, these are not your ordinary gangs. They are efficient
killers.

SAWYER: Why have they been so successful. Why hasn't the ATF been able
to
take effective countermeasures?

SIMPSON: They have effectively seized upon the ATF's greatest
weakness: its
zeal to enforce the Gun Control Act. The ATF is facing a great
delimna,
either cease to act on anonymous tips or face occassional ambushes
that
wipe out everyone involved. As we saw in Baxley, Georgia last summer,
even
when the ATF has had a back-up team on call, the results have been the
same.

SAWYER: Do you think that there could be an informant within the ATF?

SIMPSON: That's certainly possible but I don't think so. In any case,
it is
unnecessary. I think that it is more probable that the informants are
in the
very neighborhoods where the ambushes are taking place. All it takes
is for
someone to watch how the ATF agents disperse their forces. They can
then
direct the terrorists against them almost without fail.

SAWYER: Can the ATF not do anything?

SIPSON: Everyone likes to accuse the ATF of being incompetent but the
fact is
that there is little they can do short of staying in their offices.
The
very nature of their operations requires them to expose themselves to
ambush
at the place of choosing by the terrorists. To put it simply, the ATF
is
playing Russian roulette and when you play the game as much as the ATF
is
playing it, your going to take some shots now and then.

SAWYER: What about these bombings of IRS offices. Do you think that
there
is any connection with the ambushes of ATF agents?

SIMPSON: That's a tough question. Frankly, I don't know. The irony is
that
the very agency which is supposed to investigate the bombings is the
ATF.
There is every possibility that the killings of ATF agents are
connected
but so far there is no evidence beyond that coincidence.

SAWYER: Is the US Army going to become involved.

SIMPSON: God, I hope not. I'm not sure, though, how reliable a partner
the
Army is going to be in this war. There is a long-standing tradition
within
the armed forces of not becoming involved in domestic disturbances.
Certainly
the National Guard is not going to be any more effective than the ATF.
And I
don't think that the Army is going to appreciate cleaning up after
this
administration.

SAWYER: Is it possible that the National Guard units might be sent to
replace
active Army units which could, in turn, be sent to back up the ATF.

SIMPSON: That is the scenario that is being discussed by the groups
opposed
to the administration. That would certainly fit with the troop
movements that
we have been seeing. But, again, I don't know whether it can work. As
I said
before, it is not the failure of the ATF's tactics so much as the
administration's policies.

If, however, the Army units are used as a counter-ambush force on call
by
the ATF agents, then that could even up these firefights. They might,
for
example, be used to pursue the ambushers after the fact. But that
would be
after the ATF agents had already been killed and would involve
tracking a
force dispersing into the urban jungle. I just don't see any way for
them
to be effectively employed short of simply throwing them into the
front
line alongside the ATF agents.

SAWYER: When we return, we'll be joined by Professor White.

[Begin clip.]

HCI SPOKESMAN: Guns are killing Federal police officers in America.
It's time
to ban all guns. It's time to ban the NRA. It's time to make this
country
safe and governable once more.

[End clip.]

[Commercial break.]

SAWYER: With us now is Professor White of the New Freedom Front which
describes itself as a force for peaceful revolution. Professor White,
just
what is it that these terrorists are trying to prove?

WHITE: First, I'd like to clarify to the viewers that the New Freedom
Front
is in no way associated with the freedom fighters though we do
sympathize
with their anger toward the ATF.

SAWYER: But you are in contact with them?

WHITE: They notify us after they take action. In this case, we heard
from
them after we had already seen it on CNN.

SAWYER: What are they trying to accomplish?

WHITE: Simply put, they are raising the cost of enforcing the Gun
Control Act
to prohibitive levels. The guns that the ATF has seized in the last
two years
is insignificant in comparison to the number of guns out there. Ten
times
more guns are being smuggled in each year from China alone than are
being
seized by the ATF. And those aren't hunting rifles, those are fully
automatic AK-47s.

At the same time, the ATF has been decimated. The remaining agents are
more
committed than ever to seeking revenge against gun owners but the flow
of
new recruits has slowed to a trickle. And while the morale of the ATF
is
artifically high right now, it's only a matter of time before they
start
calling in sick and avoiding duty altogether.

SAWYER: Why only the ATF? Why haven't other law enforcement agencies
been
targeted?

WHITE: I think that the answer to that question is that the ATF is at
the
forefront of the the enforcement of the Gun Control Act. In spite of
what
Ms. Reno has claimed, the FBI has studiously avoided enforcing these
laws
letting the ATF take the brunt. Local law enforcement officers outside
of
the big cities have refused to have anything to do either with these
laws
or the ATF. The ATF is the administration's shock troops in this war
and
they have few allies in the legitimate law agencies.

SAWYER: The terrorists' tactics are effective but what of the loss of
life?
Surely you don't approve of that?

WHITE: I don't think that it is any secret that we regard the ATF as
the
heirs to the Gestapo but even so, they are human beings. They have
families.
I think that we should repeal these laws and end this bloodshed.

SAWYER: What about the bombings of IRS offices?

WHITE: I'm afraid I don't know anything about that. Though if there is
any
agency of the federal government that is despised more than the ATF,
it is
the IRS.

SAWYER: How do you think that the terrorists will react if the US Army
is
brought into the war.

WHITE: I think that they will continue their tactics though with far
greater
weight in their hearts.

SAWYER: I want to thank you and Colonel Simpson for being with us
tonight.

SIMPSON: My pleasure.

SAWYER: Please join us tomorrow night when the topic will be
Vice-President
Hillery Clinton's attempt to revive the Health Care debate by
attacking
medical schools.

[Theme music.]

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 2/24/2013 1:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

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


Perfectly sensible. Registration = confiscation at some time in the
near future. License people to own guns but registration will lead to
confiscation! If you don't see that it's because you refuse to.

On 2/24/2013 12:53 PM, a friend wrote:


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.


Only the far left believes that all the "Oath Takers" will follow orders
that are unconstitutional...they won't.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 03:07:41 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:19:27 -0600, Richard
wrote:

On 2/25/2013 12:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


Ed, if it comes to a law that says we can't buy guns, then I'd have to
join Gunner and the rest of the gun nuts.


And, I would hope, so would you.


Think of it as a question...

Let me try to clarify it:

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, where
would we be?

A. The UK

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, what would
it tell us about what just happened?

A: Something really bad. I'd be sure to keep two guns on my hips and
carry my pump shotgun loaded with #4 buck, in case the nutz get
frisky.

Q: If a law somehow was passed that said we can't buy guns, would I
follow Gunner?

A: He'd be playing banjo on his porch, going nowhere.

Next question? g

Why do you worry about these weird hypotheticals, Richard? Do you
believe there's really a chance it would happen?

While we were on the path to doing something like that, don't you
think you'd recognize it and do something before it happened? Don't
you think half the country would?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...n-law/1859727/

Reducing the magazine capacity to 7 rounds makes all of New Yorks
police officers magazines illegal. The law granted NO dispensations
for cops.

VBG

And this is what Eddy stands up For.


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 21:13:21 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


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?

One can only hope.


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