On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:33:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Remember what Thomas Jefferson had to say about that?
"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither."

So, if 20-shot magazines are what people buy for personal security, what do
they then deserve?

What freedom do they give up by purchasing 20-rounders, sir?


Why does society deserve comity?

Because other people live here, too. Close to 300 million of them. And it's
their country as much as it is yours.

What business is it of theirs what I store my ready ammo in?
You forget that when the **** hits the fan, these comity deservers
all flock to those who HAVE the larger magazines, don't you?
"Save us, Sir Whacko! We never bought guns thinking they were bad."


Especially the way they're reacting
to our government, which knowingly brings terrorism to our doors.

Well, then, convince them that they're all stupid, and that they should make
you king.

Oh, yeah? Well, when _I'm_ king, I'll...


So running around with 3 full clips is sane while having one with the
same (or less) capacity is insane?

If I ever had to run around with three full magazines, which is unlikely in
the extreme, I wouldn't worry about what people thought. When people run
around in the woods with 20-shot magazines, I assume they're a little nutz.
And I believe that's a common, as well as a generally accurate, perception.

In the last post you said you had one in the gun and two in your
pockets. Your paragraph above this comment could be right out of a
Michael Moore movie, y'know? He uses the same "sane" talk about
himself and uses the "run around in the woods" and "nutz" type terms
on others he doesn't like.


I have no fear of larger magazines. But I think you could do a psychological
profile of the people who own them, and it wouldn't be a pretty sight. That
isn't science. That's politics, and common sense, and experience.

There wouldn't be too many "pretty" profiles on anyone I've seen in
politics, power, or money. AAMOF, I don't think a pretty profile
would be found anywhere. We're all nuts, each in our own way.

Ta!


--------------------------------------
PESSIMIST: An optimist with experience
--------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Web Database Development

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:26:43 -0800, "Phillep"
wrote:

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote

Redundant--you cant have the one without also having the other
anyways.....

Your lathe is "well regulated" only because there's some federal law
requiring it to stay in adjustment?

In this case, the "well regulated militia" means the able bodied men of a
community who have done "paramilitary drills" together.

("Paramilitary" organizations are presently illegal, and the laws making
them illegal are unconstitutional.)

Rather, what you would have is many, many, "one-man armies" ( otherwise
known as anarchy )

No, more like "posse".

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Regulated

Modern, and poorly worded, definition.

If your now wanting the definition for "Militia" then suggest go ****ing
look it up for yourself.

Jowoll, Mien Fuerher!!!

Automatic loss of argument.

Nut link hacked

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:29:05 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:



And, no... I'm not some redneck in flyover country. I live in California,
in the SF Bay Area - Heart of the Left Coast.

Yeah, yeah... you will contend that redneck is a state of mind. If so, I'm
proud to be in that state of mind.

Not far from Hashbury, I assume.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:46:07 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:26:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted:

Have fun cooking up another story. Maybe, like Larry, you anticipate a
swarming hoard of Muslims who got past the US Navy, the US Air Force,
the
US
Army and the National Guard, and who decided to attack your front
porch.

Well, you got that one completely wrong, too, Ed. I'm more concerned
how our own people will react when the electricity/gas/fuel all stop
flowing.

Jeez, Larry, you worry too much. That's wackier than the story about the
hordes and the 20-round magazines.

Since GE Miniguns are a little tough to come by these days, here's
something
you can do: Have the siding on your house replaced by 2-inch-thich armor
plate. Cut gun slots through it at judicious intervals. Buy a shotshell
reloader and make 10,000 or 20,000 buckshot loads. Stock them near the
gun
slots. Have a pump-action shotgun ready at each gun slot station, along
with
a gas mask and a flak jacket.

You'll be relatively safe from the hordes and from the people who are
looking for your secret cache of gasoline. And you'll be truly free.

NOW who's posting cockamamie ideas, hmmm?

Hey, if the hordes are going to do something bad when the gas stops flowing,
you need a plan. And 20 rounds just isn't going to cut it. g

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:02:59 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Of troops: properly disciplined.



Yeah, there are enough other historical examples and references to make it
clear that a "well regulated militia" meant one that was trained and
disciplined. Gunner really isn't off the mark with his definition. I just
get a kick out of him quoting the OED. g

Which makes me wonder what happened to drilling on the village green.

Looks like the wingers blew it up.
The tragedy of the commons, right?

That's
how they disciplined militias. If we're a militia, we ought to be out there
marching around and presenting arms, and all that stuff. Nobody has
suggested doing close-order drill to me since I was around 11.

Some of us may have been in the cub scouts .....
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:22:43 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing
your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else.

Tell us again why you *need* guns?

Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU.

LMAO.


I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG.

WANT is enough, Cliff. No need is required. It's a right, not a privilege
to be doled out.

Joe

So want is all you need to whine like a spoiled brat & shoot guns
(else you'll have a temper tantrum)?

Somehow I gathered that some things were a bit more important.

Why would they have needed an ammendment? How many other
"wants" do you have? Do they all need ammendments too, just
to make YOU happy? So that you can get your way?

BTW, That's NOT what the 2nd says. Back to Jr. High with
you; you just failed government class.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:29:05 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

Just Because is a good enough reason and sufficient need, Cliffie.

Nope.

Just because it's a right.

Given to you by whom exactly why?

And the 2nd Ammendment exists and doesn't need
arguments to prove its existence.

Immaterial.
Did we already lose you? Subject too complex?

As for the interpretation, I'm sure
there's no convincing you that it's an individual right - Right? Well, be
sure that there are plenty of us out here who are already convinced of that
fact.

Did we already lose you? Subject too complex?

And, no... I'm not some redneck in flyover country. I live in California,
in the SF Bay Area - Heart of the Left Coast.

Gunner's always complaining about the schools there.

Yeah, yeah... you will contend that redneck is a state of mind. If so, I'm
proud to be in that state of mind.

So is poor "Shu" no doubt.
It's absolutely amazing how many brag that they cannot think.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:39:12 +0000, Guido wrote:

Hmmm. Just re-read Thomas Hood's short comedy sketch "The
Yeomanry - An Unfavourable Review".

That I've never read or even heard of AFAIK.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:00:14 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:08:02 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Regulated as used in the 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with
regulations or goverment control...


By that silly "reasoning" they could hardly have used the term in
your much beloved second amendment, now could they?

[
Main Entry: reg·u·late
Pronunciation: 're-gy&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle
of regulare, from Latin regula rule
Date: 15th century
]

Cliff:

Here is the complete definition from the Merriam-Webster online
dictionary:
================================================= ======
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ry&va=regulate

Main Entry: reg·u·late
Pronunciation: 're-gy&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of
regulare, from Latin regula rule

1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the
control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or
concerning regulate the industries of a country
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the
pressure of a tire
================================================= =======

So it seems that "regulate" has/had other meanings than simply the
latin one, to rule.
Why didn't you post the whole definition?

BB,
The issue was Gunner's claims about the dates of words VBG.

The observant will note that I posted about the date. That was all
that was needed (have I recently noted my dislike of long posts?)

Guido & Ed showed him to be full of BS on the meanings & context
I think. He copied bad blogs again G. (Does that cause some sort
of disease, like reverse indigestion?)
--
Cliff

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:33:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Remember what Thomas Jefferson had to say about that?
"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither."

So, if 20-shot magazines are what people buy for personal security, what
do
they then deserve?

What freedom do they give up by purchasing 20-rounders, sir?

Well, that's an interesting question, and we'd have to get into the
consequences of living with a bunker mentality to get into it. But I doubt
if we'd reach any agreement on the subject.

Why does society deserve comity?

Because other people live here, too. Close to 300 million of them. And
it's
their country as much as it is yours.

What business is it of theirs what I store my ready ammo in?
You forget that when the **** hits the fan, these comity deservers
all flock to those who HAVE the larger magazines, don't you?

And which **** and fan are we discussing here, Larry? The Whiskey Rebellion,
or Shay's?

I'm beginning to think that your entire philosophy is based on fantasies of
roving mobs swarming across your front lawn.


If I ever had to run around with three full magazines, which is unlikely
in
the extreme, I wouldn't worry about what people thought. When people run
around in the woods with 20-shot magazines, I assume they're a little
nutz.
And I believe that's a common, as well as a generally accurate,
perception.

In the last post you said you had one in the gun and two in your
pockets. Your paragraph above this comment could be right out of a
Michael Moore movie, y'know? He uses the same "sane" talk about
himself and uses the "run around in the woods" and "nutz" type terms
on others he doesn't like.

Sometimes he's right. And, if you want to understand the politics of gun
control in the US, you first have to step back and see how you look to those
who would vote in ways you don't like. I'm not talking about HCI, but those
in the general population who might favor one gun-control law or another.

Most people aren't libertarian ideologues. That is to say, most of them do a
pretty good job, overall and in the long run, of sizing up the ideologues
and judging whether they're using their heads, or if their heads are using
them. They can sniff out a philosopher who's in love with his ideas. Most
people are pragmatists.


I have no fear of larger magazines. But I think you could do a
psychological
profile of the people who own them, and it wouldn't be a pretty sight.
That
isn't science. That's politics, and common sense, and experience.

There wouldn't be too many "pretty" profiles on anyone I've seen in
politics, power, or money. AAMOF, I don't think a pretty profile
would be found anywhere. We're all nuts, each in our own way.

Ta!

Speak for yourself, John. g

Ed Huntress

"Phillep" wrote in message
...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote

Redundant--you cant have the one without also having the other
anyways.....

Your lathe is "well regulated" only because there's some federal law
requiring it to stay in adjustment?

In this case, the "well regulated militia" means the able bodied men of a
community who have done "paramilitary drills" together.

("Paramilitary" organizations are presently illegal, and the laws making
them illegal are unconstitutional.)

Rather, what you would have is many, many, "one-man armies" ( otherwise
known as anarchy )

No, more like "posse".

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Regulated

Modern, and poorly worded, definition.

If your now wanting the definition for "Militia" then suggest go ****ing
look it up for yourself.

Jowoll, Mien Fuerher!!!

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html


IMO, one of the more thoughtful and intelligent responses on the topic to
date, I commend you--though some others might wanna burn ya at the stake--or
quicker yet, fill your belly fulla lead shot .

--

SVL

"Ed Huntress" wrote

Most people aren't libertarian ideologues.

Good thing, too. A _true_ libertarian would make just as much fuss about
laws which forbid him to walk down the street naked, as about laws which
forbid him to walk down the street armed.

Meaning absolutely no disrespect to our friend Larry, I do wonder if he is a
true libertarian :-)

-- TP

"Phillep" wrote in message
...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote

Redundant--you cant have the one without also having the other
anyways.....

Your lathe is "well regulated" only because there's some federal law
requiring it to stay in adjustment?

In this case, the "well regulated militia" means the able bodied men of a
community who have done "paramilitary drills" together.

("Paramilitary" organizations are presently illegal, and the laws making
them illegal are unconstitutional.)

Before you make that statement in front of a less-friendly group, you may
want to familiarize yourself with the case of Houston v. Moore (1820) and
the Militia Act of 1795.

Until 1917, the states were the sole authority for arming and organizing the
"unorganized" militia, subject to the overriding power of the federal
government to actually call them up. But Houston already had limited the
states' authority.

In any case, at no time in post-revolutionary American history have private
militias been authorized over the heads of the states, unless the state
consents. The Civil War regiments were the extreme example, in being thrown
together, and quickly authorized, by the states. But no such militias were
allowed to exist unless the state authorized them.

The history and the case law are clear on this point.


If your now wanting the definition for "Militia" then suggest go ****ing
look it up for yourself.

Jowoll, Mien Fuerher!!!

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

In light of your statement above, you may want to real your own Guncite
reference a little more closely. Here's a direct quote from it:

"A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control.
A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered
illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See
Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)"

That's basically correct, except that local governments cannot authorize
militias unless the state law or state constitution allows it. I don't think
you'll find more that one or maybe a few such state law provisions, which
likely were written before the Civil War.

Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:23:22 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

It all makes me wonder what part of "a well regulated militia" is so
****ing difficult for some folks to understand--

IIRC A standing military is rather new. Prior to that IIRC the
militias were called on if needed.

What is the timeframe on the 2nd and the standing military?
Ed may recall.

I'm not following your question, but you can find out a lot about the
militia he

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...tle=10&sec=311

....and he

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...icle01/42.html

Follow the cites, if you have time and interest, and you'll have the whole
legal picture.

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:04:03 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...



The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and
bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

Damn. And I didn't even know you had one. Next time I need a definition
from
the OED, I won't have to ask Guido anymore. d8-)


Ed,

I have some doubt as to them having ever been in that dictionary to begin
with.

Google is your friend.

While you are looking it up, be sure to look up the definition of the
word "Gay" for the same time period.

You will not find any mention of homosexuality until the 1960s being
included in that term.

The language changes over time, so you must know the meaning of words
used in that time period, not as they are used today.

Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:27:43 +0000, Guido wrote:

PrecisionMachinisT wrote:


...LOL...

Appears theres quite a few blogs out there where you copied that one
from--doubtless most of em say its TRUE so it MUST be, eh???

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

--not worth my time and effort to argue over a number of carefully selected
( and out of context ) writings from the period in attempt to show that
"well regulated" didn't apply equally to government.


It's a direct cut&paste from the OED up until

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use

which is some blogger's commentary. The 1927 OED has no
definition but just lists the usages. Perhaps the latest
version lists more. However, you should consider that this a
combination word so you have to look at 'Regulated'.

Governed by rule, properly controlled, or directed,
adjusted to some standard, etc
Also freq. in combs. as badly-, ill-, well-

Of troops: properly disciplined.

Dates please?

Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:01:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:01:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The second amendment is not for gun collectin, target practice,
hunting,
or self defense.
It is about poltitical power. The power to make a revoultion and the
power to stop a revolution. This is the last balance of power.
We need the same kind of magazines that governments have.

There's a comforting thought, Clark. That really scores big. You've
probably
just driven another 10-penny nail into the coffins of gun owners.

So not only do you wish to trivialize the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st
as well?

Ed...Ed Chamberlain.... " We have peace in our times"

Appeasement is for those who wish plow for others.

"Appeasement"? Where do you live, in some foreign country?

Those are your fellow citizens, Gunner. They have as much right to decide
what goes on here as you do.

Ed Huntress


You are the one whimpering about the political correctness of "big
magazines" and how they might offend the anti-gun crowd and we should
give up our rights to appease them.

Big hint Ed...first it was Saturday Night Specials..then it was
handguns in general, then it was big magazines and assault weapons...

A clue for you Ed..as Sugerman indicated..they dont give a **** about
any particular gun or feature..they want them all gone. All your
blather about appeasing that crowd is wasted hot air..cause they dont
care if it has a 2 round magazine or a 200 rounder. Tis a gun and
thats all they care about. They use whatever they can get a handle on
to propagandize and demonize and will continue to do so, whether or
not we lay down and drop trou and grease our asses for them or not.

Fortunately the People are catching on..and they are voting OUT the
anti0gun extremists in numbers. See the memo last election from the
DNC to tone down the anti-gun rhetoric as it was costing them seats?
Why is that Ed? Oh..thats right..the People vote them out for their
anti-gun extremism.

Guess what...we dont have to appease them any more. And their buds in
the Media are catching on as well. I dont see an Evil Handgun as
wallpaper during a tv news report about a knifing. Used to be damned
common. The Leftist Media was the propaganda arm of the Antis..and
they and the editors and writers were the willing accomplices. THOSE
were the people who spread the propaganda that caused the gun bans
Ed...just like those that did the same in England and Oz.


Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:50:16 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:00:54 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:51:18 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing
your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else.

Tell us again why you *need* guns?

Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU.

LMAO.


I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG.

Nope, you're the moron claiming there's a reason to provide a need. :/

You just wiped out most of the arguments FOR the 2nd amendment
BSEG.

Maybe if you stopped eating that **** you'd stop that stupid grinning, and maybe
you'd be able to come up with something intelligent for a change.

Want to try for 1 out of 10?

Want to try a logical argument for once?

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:49:45 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)

Why would they have needed an ammendment?

Didn't you pay attention in history class either? The amendments are there to
limit the federal government's powers. Comprende?

How many other
"wants" do you have? Do they all need ammendments too, just
to make YOU happy? So that you can get your way?

BTW, That's NOT what the 2nd says. Back to Jr. High with
you; you just failed government class.

The 2nd doesn't say anything about proving any "need" to YOU either, does it?

"tonyp" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote

Most people aren't libertarian ideologues.

Good thing, too. A _true_ libertarian would make just as much fuss about
laws which forbid him to walk down the street naked, as about laws which
forbid him to walk down the street armed.

Meaning absolutely no disrespect to our friend Larry, I do wonder if he is
a
true libertarian :-)

There will be a test:

1) A tax man is walking down the street and spontaneously catches on fire.
Do you:
a) **** on him to put the fire out
b) let him burn and continue on your way
c) call your friends to see if anyone has extra marshmallows

2) Your neighborhood drug dealer is running a special on Panama Red, but
he's short-weighing the bags. Do you:
a) call attention to his short-weighing, encouraging a passing gang of Boy
Scouts
to beat him to death
b) offer to keep quiet about it if he splits the profits with you
c) buy a bag, toke up, and hum "caveat emptor" while drawing a curl of smoke
up your nose

3) A highway is going through your property and the state declares eminent
domain. Do you:
a) hire a lawyer to negotiate the best possible price
b) tip over the ten drums of toxic chemicals stored in your garage so no one
can
come within two miles of your property for seven generations
c) grab your grease gun, head for the statehouse, and spray the legislature
with
200 rounds of Black Talon ammo

Scores will be kept confidential.

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:08:28 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

(snip)
And another astute policital observer explains the reasons he supports
20-round magazines...

Nope. Another astue person explains one reason he opposes caving in to
irrational demands from neurotic people. I didn't think it was all that
complicated. I did try to type it slowly.

they have problems with high-capacity magazines, black rifles, or anything
else,
they can just get over it. It's not my problem.

Well, yeah, actually it IS your problem.

Nope. Wrong. Just because you wish it was my problem doesn't make it my problem.
Just because they wish it was my problem doesn't make it my problem. Their(and
YOUR) neuroses will continue to be their(and YOUR) problems. Your mental
problems are not like little rubber balls that you can just bounce around to
other people. You can't just give your problems to other people. If YOU have a
problem with something, it's YOUR problem. That's a fact of life, no matter how
much you live in denial.

That's why you've just spent your
time posting a dozen or so messages on the subject. If it wasn't a problem,
you'd have no reason to do so.

Oh, I may have other problems, like a refusal to admit the futility of reasoning
with neurotic people, but that still doesn't cancel out the fact that their
problems are their problems.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:34:56 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
Since there's no place in the US with
a speed limit of 120 mph or so, we should just go ahead and outlaw any of
those
dangerous cars, shouldn't we?

Probably, yes.

I think.

Coulda fooled me.........

Doesn't look too difficult either.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...


Want to try a logical argument for once?


I doubt you'd even recognize one, particularily if it passed through your
thick ****ing skull at ~3,500 fps.

--

SVL

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:37:37 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
BTW, The subject was the need & the US Constitution. You got lost.

Nope, YOUR subject was some imagined "need" and the US Constitution. You keep
dodging every time people keep asking you about this imagined need, so it's
obvious you realize the dishonesty.

While
we're on the red herring subject of "valid use", do you have a "valid use" for a
car that will drive above the speed limit? Since there's no place in the US with
a speed limit of 120 mph or so, we should just go ahead and outlaw any of those
dangerous cars, shouldn't we?

Something that accelerates well enough to get into traffic is nice.
Along with that is the power to go faster than the speed limit.

Nice? You "need" nice? Hardly. BTW, where in the Constitution does it grant you
the right to even drive a car?

I assume that they took your license long ago but that between
your stays in jail you still drive. Should you be allowed guns too?

Never been arrested. I see no reason I should be "allowed" guns, since I'm not a
subject. I'm an American citizen, and we are not "allowed" guns. We have rights
which include the right to keep and bear arms. You really should have paid
attention in Civics class. :/

Of course, that would be ASSuming YOUR "logic" was
really valid and not just a pretense to further your real agenda.

Teaching wingers to think before flapping the lips?

Before you can teach anything you have to know something.


Are you going to claim that they make fine hammers?

Nope, they don't go much good for driving nails.

Tell Gunner.

He knows that already.

Please supply some logic here. A bit of foorp would be nice too.

How would you know? Logic would be lost on you, I think.

I am amused that you lack both.

Again, you wouldn't know it if you saw it anyway.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:39:42 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:48:00 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:28:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

Untainted fact, Ed, six people are dead because one kook with a huge
magazine was allowed to legally carry that piece of **** into the
woods, and commit murder. Six dead, others wounded, one huge clip
against only one sporting weapon. Either admit that those huge clips
aren't needed,

Needed? My copy of the Constitution doesn't have a requirement that anything
pass a standard of "need". Does yours?

What does it say about your neighbor's craven desire for nukes?
Those are "arms" too, right?

Nothing. I notice you didn't anwer my question. A Freudian avoidance, maybe?

The clever will note that you asked me no question.
Wingers, OTOH .....

Will they? I see at least 2 questions in my post up there. If you're going to
lie, you really should try to make them less obvious lies. If those "clever"
people note your obvious lies like that they might begin to wonder about your
honesty.

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:34:56 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
Since there's no place in the US with
a speed limit of 120 mph or so, we should just go ahead and outlaw any
of
those
dangerous cars, shouldn't we?

Probably, yes.

I think.

Coulda fooled me.........

Doesn't look too difficult either.

So, go ahead and market cars that will go over 500 mph then you ****ing
dumbass !!!

Just *please* dont go puttting airbags in them, however...........

--

SVL

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:29:05 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

Just Because is a good enough reason and sufficient need, Cliffie.

Nope.

Yes.

Just because it's a right.

Given to you by whom exactly why?

Inalienable. Bestowed by "Nature's God" as put forth in the Declaration of
Independence. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights only enumerate some
of our rights to stress their importance. They do not enumerate them.

And the 2nd Ammendment exists and doesn't need
arguments to prove its existence.

Immaterial.
Did we already lose you? Subject too complex?

Bite me, Cliffie.

As for the interpretation, I'm sure
there's no convincing you that it's an individual right - Right? Well,
be
sure that there are plenty of us out here who are already convinced of
that
fact.

Did we already lose you? Subject too complex?

You're too kind Cliffie. Bite me.

And, no... I'm not some redneck in flyover country. I live in
California,
in the SF Bay Area - Heart of the Left Coast.

Gunner's always complaining about the schools there.

The schools here ARE bad. Unfortunately. You might remember me from some
time ago. I grew up in Philadelphia and North Central Jersey. Only one
year of high school in CA. From there, college in CA and the colleges are
decent.

Yeah, yeah... you will contend that redneck is a state of mind. If so,
I'm
proud to be in that state of mind.

So is poor "Shu" no doubt.
It's absolutely amazing how many brag that they cannot think.

Shu?

I think fine Cliffie. Don't brag so much though.

BTW, bite me.

Joe

--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:22:43 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 02:16:17 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:10:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:32:49 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Something evidently you are totally unfamiliar with, basing
your posts on fear, paranoia and phobia and nothing else.

Tell us again why you *need* guns?

Tell us again why you think anybody needs to prove any "need" to YOU.

LMAO.


I'm not the one claiming any need BSEG.

WANT is enough, Cliff. No need is required. It's a right, not a
privilege
to be doled out.

Joe

So want is all you need to whine like a spoiled brat & shoot guns
(else you'll have a temper tantrum)?

I want to be afforded the full benefit of my 2nd Amendment. No whine. No
spoiled brat behavior. I just demand it and assume it.

Somehow I gathered that some things were a bit more important.

Why would they have needed an ammendment?

To make it extremely clear. Just in case some jerks in the future decide
that they would like to curtail gun ownership and free use.

How many other
"wants" do you have? Do they all need ammendments too, just
to make YOU happy? So that you can get your way?

I'll settle for the ones in the Constitution and in common law.

BTW, That's NOT what the 2nd says. Back to Jr. High with
you; you just failed government class.

Firstly Cliffie... Bite me! I didn't fail. You are a moron.

Second, I *DO* know what the Amendment says and have its correct
interpretation. It describes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Rather than just saying you disagree, you have to insult me. You're a
sniveling little ****. Come talk to me that way to my face you jerk! Brave
on Usenet, huh?

regards,
Joe

--
Cliff

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:04:03 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...



The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and
bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

Damn. And I didn't even know you had one. Next time I need a definition
from
the OED, I won't have to ask Guido anymore. d8-)


Ed,

I have some doubt as to them having ever been in that dictionary to begin
with.

Google is your friend.

While you are looking it up, be sure to look up the definition of the
word "Gay" for the same time period.

You will not find any mention of homosexuality until the 1960s being
included in that term.

The language changes over time, so you must know the meaning of words
used in that time period, not as they are used today.


Not sure I understand--are you telling me you *used* to be gay or something
here ???

====

Clocks were "regulated" a LONG time ago.........this well before the second
amendment.........

So what you spose *controlled* the action of them clocks ???

--

SVL

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:27:43 +0000, Guido wrote:

PrecisionMachinisT wrote:


...LOL...

Appears theres quite a few blogs out there where you copied that one
from--doubtless most of em say its TRUE so it MUST be, eh???


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

--not worth my time and effort to argue over a number of carefully
selected
( and out of context ) writings from the period in attempt to show that
"well regulated" didn't apply equally to government.


It's a direct cut&paste from the OED up until

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use

which is some blogger's commentary. The 1927 OED has no
definition but just lists the usages. Perhaps the latest
version lists more. However, you should consider that this a
combination word so you have to look at 'Regulated'.

Governed by rule, properly controlled, or directed,
adjusted to some standard, etc
Also freq. in combs. as badly-, ill-, well-

Of troops: properly disciplined.

Dates please?

http://www.singlesites.com/Gay_Dating.htm

--

SVL

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:54:39 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:

http://www.oed.com/

Help yourself. Hardly out of context. The language changes over time
and at the time of the Founders..that is EXACTLY what the terms meant.
Not governmental regulation.

Go look up "gay" in a dictionary that was printed before the 1960s and
see if it means anything to do with homosexual.

Someone mentioned the word "quisling"...find that in a dictionary
printed before 1943.

Your denial is embarrassingly pathetic.

Gunner


I checked your link--seems you forgot to give out your user name and
password.

No problem, just email it to me in private......

--

SVL

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:01:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:01:55 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


The second amendment is not for gun collectin, target practice,
hunting,
or self defense.
It is about poltitical power. The power to make a revoultion and the
power to stop a revolution. This is the last balance of power.
We need the same kind of magazines that governments have.

There's a comforting thought, Clark. That really scores big. You've
probably
just driven another 10-penny nail into the coffins of gun owners.

So not only do you wish to trivialize the 2nd Amendment, but the 1st
as well?

Ed...Ed Chamberlain.... " We have peace in our times"

Appeasement is for those who wish plow for others.

"Appeasement"? Where do you live, in some foreign country?

Those are your fellow citizens, Gunner. They have as much right to decide
what goes on here as you do.

Ed Huntress



No they do not.

Those are your fellow citizens, Ed. Do they have as much right to
declare that all persons named Ed Huntress or Gunner or John Husvar must
be hanged from light poles?

How the Hell did you get out of my killfile anyway? I suppose now I have
to go make it a global kill. Well, maybe not. Maybe this time you'll
answer politely.

NRA has been much a Quisling organization, treated as useful idiots who
don't know how thoroughly they've been circumvented, outmaneuvered, and
nullified.

NRA is and has been the single most important factor in the rise of the
gun control movement. Why? Because it and too many of its members
believe in reasonable compromise while its opponents do not. That's a
sad commentary on the largest pro-gun organization in the world.

Compromise is anathema to the rabidly emotional anti-gun mentality
unless compromise means they get a little more of their wants while gun
owners lose a little more.

No more! NRA and gun owners compromised in 1934 on the Federal Firearms
Act, again in 1968 with the Gun Control Act, and again and again and
again ad nauseam, throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s as presidential
Executive Orders (both parties) further reduced the choices available to
gun owners. Part of how the anti-gun forces got away with this is
because they propagandize that nobody _needs_ thus and so, or some other
thing, or whatever they don't like at a given moment.

The NRA ultimately goes along with it in the spirit of reasonable
compromise -- and American citizens lose just that one little bit more
Constitution-protected liberty, just as the Fabian salami-slicers wanted.

Such "reasonableness" makes the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be
the mere piece of paper written by dead old white men that the anti-gun
organizations claim -- or worse, make it the "Living, Breathing
Document" that can be changed at will or whim rather than going through
the, intentionally unwieldy, amendment process. Where does one draw the
line? Where does one say: "This far and not a millimeter farther?

Too late: the line was crossed in 1934.

Why on God's green earth would anyone care what emotionally-driven
cowards, who can't seem to reason past tautology, think about your
choice of firearm. Why should anyone?

"If nobody can get guns, then there won't be any gun crimes." Well, no
kidding! Welcome back to the age of biggest and strongest rules. I
suppose that's not so bad. After all, we now live in an era where them
as has the gold makes the rules, assisted by them as can convince the
population that a simple majority represents goodness, right, and truth.

Feh! Utter nonsense.

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 00:28:44 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:04:03 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Gunner" wrote in message
...



The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and
bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

Damn. And I didn't even know you had one. Next time I need a definition
from
the OED, I won't have to ask Guido anymore. d8-)


Ed,

I have some doubt as to them having ever been in that dictionary to begin
with.

Google is your friend.

While you are looking it up, be sure to look up the definition of the
word "Gay" for the same time period.

You will not find any mention of homosexuality until the 1960s being
included in that term.

The language changes over time, so you must know the meaning of words
used in that time period, not as they are used today.


Not sure I understand--are you telling me you *used* to be gay or something
here ???

Ah...no. What Im telling you is that Regulated means working smoothly,
in good order, functioning correctly. Not under the control of a
governmental agency.

Clocks were "regulated" a LONG time ago.........this well before the second
amendment.........

Yep. And at that time, it had nothing to do with red tape and
governmental control.

So what you spose *controlled* the action of them clocks ???

The people who posessed one, or a trainer..ie the clock repair person.
Not a governmental agency.

Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:26:15 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:27:43 +0000, Guido wrote:

PrecisionMachinisT wrote:


...LOL...

Appears theres quite a few blogs out there where you copied that one
from--doubtless most of em say its TRUE so it MUST be, eh???


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

--not worth my time and effort to argue over a number of carefully
selected
( and out of context ) writings from the period in attempt to show that
"well regulated" didn't apply equally to government.


It's a direct cut&paste from the OED up until

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use

which is some blogger's commentary. The 1927 OED has no
definition but just lists the usages. Perhaps the latest
version lists more. However, you should consider that this a
combination word so you have to look at 'Regulated'.

Governed by rule, properly controlled, or directed,
adjusted to some standard, etc
Also freq. in combs. as badly-, ill-, well-

Of troops: properly disciplined.

Dates please?

http://www.singlesites.com/Gay_Dating.htm

This has what, exactly to do with the fact you are in denial about the
changing language?

Gunner



Come shed a tear for Michael Moore-
Though he smirked and lied like a two-bit whore
George Bush has just won another four.
Poor, sad little Michael Moore

Diogenes

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:14:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted:

Hey, if the hordes are going to do something bad when the gas stops flowing,
you need a plan. And 20 rounds just isn't going to cut it. g

There are 40 rounds preloaded into mags but I didn't mention just
how large (or small) my cache of copper jacketed persuasion was,
Ed. I'll leave that to your already vivid imagination.

The price was a whopping $8.99 each for a couple S&W 15-rd mags.
I happily would have bought 20- or 30-rd mags if they'd had them.
The hi-cap mags were $3 each cheaper than the stock 10-rd mags.

Having a gun means being able to defend yourself when necessary,
and hoping that never becomes a reality. Your 45 proves that you
take that at least somewhat seriously. (It's not a 22.)

I grew up in CA where earthquakes were a part of life. We had a
little minor damage along the way, but it showed us that being
prepared for life's little bothers was an easy way to prevent
them from becoming major life threats. This is no different.

I bought my 9mm primarily for protection in the wilds when I hike
and take photographs. The potential hordes sped my purchase. If
you wish to think of that as being paranoid, go right ahead (and
be mistaken.)

P.S: I opted for a V-8 in my pickup when I ordered it new because
it was a safer engine. More power = easier on-ramp performance
and collision avoidance features. Does that choice make me nutz,
too? BTW, the V-8 got better gas mileage than the inline 6 they
used to offer (19mpg for the 302 vs. 18mpg for the 300cid I-6).


--------------------------------------
PESSIMIST: An optimist with experience
--------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Web Database Development

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:39:12 +0000, Guido wrote:


Hmmm. Just re-read Thomas Hood's short comedy sketch "The
Yeomanry - An Unfavourable Review".


That I've never read or even heard of AFAIK.

"Song of a shirt"
http://www.photoaspects.com/chesil/hood/

But he mainly did punchesque comedy sketches, mostly of a
punning form.

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:27:43 +0000, Guido wrote:


PrecisionMachinisT wrote:


...LOL...

Appears theres quite a few blogs out there where you copied that one
from--doubtless most of em say its TRUE so it MUST be, eh???

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

--not worth my time and effort to argue over a number of carefully selected
( and out of context ) writings from the period in attempt to show that
"well regulated" didn't apply equally to government.


It's a direct cut&paste from the OED up until

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use

which is some blogger's commentary. The 1927 OED has no
definition but just lists the usages. Perhaps the latest
version lists more. However, you should consider that this a
combination word so you have to look at 'Regulated'.

Governed by rule, properly controlled, or directed,
adjusted to some standard, etc
Also freq. in combs. as badly-, ill-, well-

Of troops: properly disciplined.


Dates please?


Hey you have the OED look it up yourself its under the entry
for 'regulated' which is in-between 'regulate' and
'regulater'. As a courtesy the troops bit is from 1690.

Johan wrote:

Where does one draw the
line? Where does one say: "This far and not a millimeter farther?

Too late: the line was crossed in 1934.




I agree with you Johan, the line was drawn in 1791 with the words, "in
no way infringe".
The bill of rights and constitution are just pieces of paper that cannot
protect us. WE need to protect those rights, and those that passively
condoned the 1934 NFA committed a grave error.
It was like passively condoning your wife sleeping at her boyfriend's
house. Next she sleeps with him in your house [1968 GCA], and next she
wants you to move out [1994 AWB].
The moral is, "Don't tolerate the transgressions."

--
Be careful what you pray for, it can happen.

Gunner wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:26:15 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:27:43 +0000, Guido wrote:


PrecisionMachinisT wrote:


...LOL...

Appears theres quite a few blogs out there where you copied that one
from--doubtless most of em say its TRUE so it MUST be, eh???



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

--not worth my time and effort to argue over a number of carefully

selected

( and out of context ) writings from the period in attempt to show that
"well regulated" didn't apply equally to government.


It's a direct cut&paste from the OED up until

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use

which is some blogger's commentary. The 1927 OED has no
definition but just lists the usages. Perhaps the latest
version lists more. However, you should consider that this a
combination word so you have to look at 'Regulated'.

Governed by rule, properly controlled, or directed,
adjusted to some standard, etc
Also freq. in combs. as badly-, ill-, well-

Of troops: properly disciplined.


Dates please?

http://www.singlesites.com/Gay_Dating.htm


This has what, exactly to do with the fact you are in denial about the
changing language?


Er. the language hasn't really changed on this. 'Regulated'
still means regulated, which is the participial adjective of
'Regulate':

To control, govern, or direct by rule, or regulation;
to subject to guidance or restriction; to adapt to
circumstances or surroundings.
refs from 1630

The Watcher wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:39:42 -0500, Cliff wrote:


On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:48:00 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:


On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:28:08 -0500, Cliff wrote:


On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 01:53:41 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:


Untainted fact, Ed, six people are dead because one kook with a huge
magazine was allowed to legally carry that piece of **** into the
woods, and commit murder. Six dead, others wounded, one huge clip
against only one sporting weapon. Either admit that those huge clips
aren't needed,

Needed? My copy of the Constitution doesn't have a requirement that anything
pass a standard of "need". Does yours?

What does it say about your neighbor's craven desire for nukes?
Those are "arms" too, right?

Nothing. I notice you didn't anwer my question. A Freudian avoidance, maybe?

The clever will note that you asked me no question.
Wingers, OTOH .....


Will they? I see at least 2 questions in my post up there. If you're going to
lie, you really should try to make them less obvious lies. If those "clever"
people note your obvious lies like that they might begin to wonder about your
honesty.

If you look careful you'll see that you didn't ask any
question of Cliff.