Russ wrote:


I hate to break it to you darling, but having a twenty round mag in
the woods while hunting is already illegal. Of course, that's only in
the six or so states I have actually hunted. Wisconsin may be
different but my bet is not.

He wasen't legally allowed to carry it into the woods and murder is
already illegal.

Wisconsin does not have a limitation on the capacity of magazines or number of
rounds in the gun for gun deer hunting.

David

WHERE IS THE NEED OF A HUNTER TO HAVE MORE THAN FOUR ROUNDS IN HIS
WEAPON?

Possible answers:
A. Lousy shot
B. Poacher
C. Murder is his objective.
D. Out of stater that doesn't care if he's breaking laws or not.
E. All of the above.

The only thing you have to fear while hunting now is other hunters.


Russ

Many, if not most, deer hunters don't fire their weapons until just before deer
season. Why do you allow as many as four rounds in the gun? Every hunter should
be able to get one shot kill heart shots out to 400 yards every time. Sure.

I don't have as much experience poaching as you do, but I've read that they use
the same type of weapon as anyone else.

As far as C & D, I recommend that you no longer hunt with these people.

Go reread the 2nd Amendment until you realize how foolish your message is.

David

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:05:35 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:

snip

You're pathetic. Go back to playing doctor with your animals.


Lady Chatterly

Damn another ignorant hoplophobe! Download and keep this article for
reference the next time you want to be stupid.

A CRITICAL GUIDE TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT[

snip

Lady Chatterly: 1
Wingers & Gunnutz: 0
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:01:55 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
...
snipped for brevity-------------------------------

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

Guido you are an idiot. Please sive this for study the next time you decide
to be a hoplophobe.

"the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that
instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their
user".

We have yet another crazed animist it looks like.

[
Mutant Marsupials Take Up Arms Against Australian Air Force
The reuse of some object-oriented code has caused tactical headaches
for Australia's armed forces. As virtual reality simulators assume
larger roles in helicopter combat training , programmers have gone to
great lengths to increase the realism of the their scenarios,
including detailed landscapes and -- in the case of the Northern
Territory's Operation Phoenix -- herds of kangaroos (since groups of
disturbed animals might well give away a helicopters position).

The head of the Defense Science and Technology Organization's Land
Operations/Simulations division reportedly instructed developers to
model the local marsupials' movements and reaction to helicopters.

Being efficient programmers, they just re-appropriated some code
originally used to model infantry detachments reactions under the same
stimuli, changed the mapped icon from a soldier to a kangaroo, and
increased the figures' speed of movement.

Eager to demonstrate their flying skills for some visiting American
pilots, the hotshot Aussies "buzzed" the virtual kangaroos in low
flight during a simulation. The kangaroos scattered, as predicted, and
the Americans nodded appreciatively . . . and then did a double-take
as the kangaroos reappeared from behind a hill and launched a barrage
of stinger missiles at the hapless helicopter. (Apparently the
programmers had forgotten the remove "that" part of the infantry
coding).

The lesson? Objects are defined with certain attributes, and any new
object defined in terms of the old one inherits all the attributes.
The embarrassed programmers had learned to be careful when reusing
object-oriented code, and the Yanks left with the utmost respect for
the Australian wildlife.

Simulator supervisors report that pilots from that point onwards have
strictly avoided kangaroos, just as they were meant to.
]

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:13:55 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Hardly a blog Guido. A rather well written, reseached legal
scholarship by a noted authority on the subject.

Or do you call Blackstone a blogger as well?

Is Gunner bowing to educated "liberal" folks?

LMAO !!!
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:00:36 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:

At least he's smart enough not to argue with bots. d8-)

%%%% You can bite my ass also. )

Lady Chatterly?
You must be very, very kinky.
Have you met our beloved jb?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:00:40 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Guess what...we dont have to appease them any more.

Fire at will, eh?
--
Cliff

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:42:58 GMT in
misc.survivalism :

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.

"Hussy" used to be a good thing, meant the woman in question was a good
person, married and managing the household well. Now ...

Same sort of changes have occurred with aweful, artificial, plastic,
prevent, bald and a host of other terms. Shoot, ceramic used to refer to
pottery, now it refers to machine tools (among others.)

--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:00:40 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Guess what...we dont have to appease them any more.


Fire at will, eh?


Fire at "Will!!!"

Hell no "FIRE AT CLIFF!!!!"

The Independent of Clackamas County

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:43:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.

You're going to get in over your head on this one, Watcher, if you keep it
up. In one sense, Cliff is right: the function of the militia has been
superseded, both in fact and under law. The 2nd is at least partially
obsolete and non-functional.

Based on YOUR declaration that it's so? Sorry, I don't recognize your authority.

On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second amendment
plainly states it.

The Watcher wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)

Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?


I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?


Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.

The only reason Clif wants to ban fire arms is some day he is going to
mouth off to the wrong person and he will get a second mouth in the
middle of his fore head.

The Independent of Clackamas County

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:16:21 GMT, "David Moffitt"
wrote:

I also notice that you are so ****ed up about the issue
though that you've taken to responding to automatic repliers
with 1000 line blogs too.

%%%% Sorry to disappoint you but it was written before "blogs".

No 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound
woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil?
Is that wrong? People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence,
they're begging for the rule of brute force, when the biggest, strongest
animals among men were always automatically "right". Guns end that,
and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make
it work.

Don't upset the good Lady.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:20:32 GMT, Johan wrote:

American citizens lose just that one little bit more
Constitution-protected liberty, just as the Fabian salami-slicers wanted.

Is this about your beloved "patriot acts" again?
Or those famous executive orders of the shrubbie?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:20:32 GMT, Johan wrote:

"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.

The guy with the most & biggest guns?
Or the best lies?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:20:32 GMT, Johan wrote:

who can't seem to reason past tautology

Are you thinking of "Guns make you safer"?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:58:45 GMT, Lady Chatterly
wrote:

Feh! Utter nonsense.

You have yet again proven to everyone that you are an utter and
complete imbecile.

He does, however, get many extra points for being so
good at it.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:47:11 GMT, Clark Magnuson
wrote:



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."

What are you going to do? Shoot?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:19:58 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

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.

What need is there for that?

Want to try for 1 out of 10?

Want to try a logical argument for once?

Want to try for 1 out of 11?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:23:39 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

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

(snip)

Why would they have needed an ammendment?

A)
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.

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

Hence there was no need, right?

Now, about the FPS issues ....
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:33:33 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

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.

Those are the gunnutz, right? That so badly need to go blasting
away at anything that moves (and much that does not)?

An unarmed opponent ...... want to try for 1 out of 12?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:38:10 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

And I always wonder why some people only seem capable of quoting half of the
second Amendment. I guess it really is "so ****ing difficult". Does it choke you
or something? Do those words stick in your throat? Here you go, I'll type the
WHOLE thing for you. Stick this in your pipe and try it on.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't mention who's supposed to do the regulating, but it does QUITE
CLEARLY mention that little detail about "the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You have two arms, right?
What are you bitching about?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:48:04 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

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.

It's YOUR "imagined need" VBG.

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?

So no ammendment is or was needed?

BTW, You have no such "right".

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.

Why do I doubt this?

I see no reason I should be "allowed" guns,

Nor do I.

since I'm not a subject.

Nor a writer.

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. :/

Shock *I* passed. Did you? Probably not. Too liberal a thing,
education?

Can you name many groups that are not allowed near guns? I can.
What rights are you spewing about? You seem very confused. Got
Nukes?

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.

It might help if you went back to seventh grade, right?

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.

Got shot in the foot did he?

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.

1+1= ?
Why?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:50:22 GMT, (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.

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

Need clues?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:02:56 +0000, Guido wrote:

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.

Spoilsport G.
There should be a law against giving idiots too many free clues
all at once .... LOL ... clearly it's not good for them ......
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:57:11 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:02:56 +0000, Guido wrote:

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

My questions have been open for anyone who wishes to claim there's some
imaginary standard of "need". Especially since the original poster seems to have
dropped the ball. Hardly surprising, since there IS no such standard except in
the fevered imagination of the gun grabbers.

You are going to upset a lot of crazed gunnutz & wingers that have
written & posted large volumes explaining exactly why they need .....
crotch-protectors?

Naturally, if they are not good for anything there can hardly be any
actual need for them and hence you don't need them.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:51:57 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:


"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.

You are either circular or very confused. Which?

Got any foorp of "nature's god"?

What came before the US Constitution, as ammended?
Before it was ammended so much?

Is it the holy word?

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.

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?

You're too kind Cliffie. Bite me.

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.

The schools here ARE bad. Unfortunately. You might remember me from some
time ago.

Where & when?

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.

Gummer's against them. Liberal spit education & all that.
Trade school?

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?

You might like her. Run a search of the recent (one year tops)
archives of AMC.

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

BTW, bite me.

Have you met Lady Chatterly yet?

Joe

You need to work on a proper sig.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:37:32 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

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.

Let me say that a little better...

The Constitution and Bill of Rights call out certain important rights. They
do not exactly enumerate them. There are more than appear in these two
documents.

I apologize for typing a little quicker than I ought.

No problem.

But "Only to stress their importance" implies that the "Bill of
Rights" is redundant.

The current administration would no doubt agree with you.

IF a "right"is not so spelled out (like the right of the States
to regulate who may have guns and how that are to be used)
do you have any such "rights"?
Why would some need to be enumerated but not others?

NOW you have a problem ...... GGG
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:00:44 GMT, "Joe Halbleib"
wrote:

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?

I'd wager many in the prisons and nut houses would just love
a few of your noisemakers.
Why don't you take them a few Nukes?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 13:31:41 GMT, Johan wrote:

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

Just curious.

Where in either or all definitions of either or both words does it say
the regulation _must_ be done by a government? The definition of militia
does say it _may_ be, but it doesn't exclude militias that are not
organized by a government, i.e. that are self organized and regulated.
In fact, it clearly states that a militia may exist and function in
opposition to government. Such a militia could still be well-regulated,
with a properly trained and functioning membership; using, of course,
that particular definition of regulated.

The legal definitions of "militia" seem more restrictive, but even there
space is left for less restrictive interpretations. And, of course, a
militia in opposition to a given government probably wouldn't concern
itself with that government's legal definitions of anything overmuch
anyway.

Are the Brownies a militia?
Can they have Nukes?

How many wars have there been between various US States?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 21:28:05 GMT, Lady Chatterly
wrote:

The legal definitions of "militia" seem more restrictive, but even there
space is left for less restrictive interpretations. And, of course, a
militia in opposition to a given government probably wouldn't concern
itself with that government's legal definitions of anything overmuch
anyway.

Buttercup.

"Buttercup"??

Rosebud !!!

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:18:19 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:29:19 GMT, yourname wrote:



PrecisionMachinisT wrote:
"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.



actually the word militia ,when used in the Constitution refers only to
state run bodies. Exclusively. As in ther is no mention of private
miliitisa in the Constitution.

Wrong. As mentioned in the Constitution, it makes no distinction
between state, private or local groups.

Why should it need to?
Don't you know what the US Constitution is all about? Perhaps
some day you will read it.

What a riot !!!
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:18:19 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

actually the word militia ,when used in the Constitution refers only to
state run bodies. Exclusively. As in ther is no mention of private
miliitisa in the Constitution.

Wrong. As mentioned in the Constitution, it makes no distinction
between state, private or local groups.

I suggest you take a look at US Code Title 10 for the composition of
the Militia...

I suggest that you look at the rights of the States.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:18:19 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

As was noted previously, the Civil War was a prime
example of many privately armed, trained and supplied groups who
offered their services to the US and Confederate governments. Hence
the rather wild hodgepodge of uniforms, colors and accouterments that
one finds when reviewing Civil War photos and unit histories.

No common uniform?
Which ones were terrorists sent to Cuba & other places?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:43:01 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:09:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Wrong. It makes no mention of them at all. It therefore defaults to the
states, or to the federal government, depending upon the time period you're
talking about and the particular authority you mean.

Wrong again..have you forgotten the 10Th Amendment?

"powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States
or to the people."

Last I knew 10 2.
Hence it's LATER.

In addition, the States get FIRST CHOICE, after the feds.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:43:01 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:09:05 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Wrong. It makes no mention of them at all. It therefore defaults to the
states, or to the federal government, depending upon the time period you're
talking about and the particular authority you mean.

Wrong again..have you forgotten the 10Th Amendment?

"powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States
or to the people."

Since the States were not mentioned as sole controllers of the
militias...nor was the Federal government, and both the States and the
Federals could draw on the militia...it would appear the militia is a
pool under no ones organization. It is is in the perview of the States
to pick officers, and to provide training, but thats pretty much it
until it is called to action.

Hence it's up to the States to control & decide who gets guns
(or not).
Good going, Sherlock. You win another one.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:02:56 +0000, Guido wrote:



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


Spoilsport G.
There should be a law against giving idiots too many free clues
all at once .... LOL ... clearly it's not good for them ......

You'll note that it didn't do him any good.

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:10:43 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.

What if you want to keep playing with your rubber duckie?

Do you need an ammendment for that too or can we just
think that you are nutz about that too?

Do you have a RIGHT to your rubber duckies? Where does it
say? IF so, who gave it to you & why? Were they nutz too?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:06:36 GMT, (The Watcher)
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:43:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)
Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?

I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?

Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.

You're going to get in over your head on this one, Watcher, if you keep it
up. In one sense, Cliff is right: the function of the militia has been
superseded, both in fact and under law. The 2nd is at least partially
obsolete and non-functional.

Based on YOUR declaration that it's so? Sorry, I don't recognize your authority.

Who has the most & biggest guns? That's "authority", right?

On the other hand, if you're going to use historical references to defend
your case of "people's" rights,

No need to use historical references to defend any case. The second amendment
plainly states it.

States what??
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:06:38 -0800, The Independent of Clackamas
County wrote:



The Watcher wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:37:51 -0500, Cliff wrote:

(snip)

Hence, does the need for the 2nd still exist?


I recommend professional help for this obsession on imaginary "needs".

OTOH It might be an issue of State's Rights ...?


Yeah, or people's rights, like the 2nd Amendment states. :/
Bad case of denial you got going there, Cliffie.

The only reason Clif wants to ban fire arms is some day he is going to
mouth off to the wrong person and he will get a second mouth in the
middle of his fore head.

The Independent of Clackamas County

We have found another nutcase that needs no guns.
Probably should be kept away from rocks as well before
that harm themselves much more.
Bangs to the head .... ? Genetic?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 7:42:56 GMT, Lady Chatterly
wrote:

In article Cliff
wrote:

But what is the cronology?
Was the 2nd enacted before the standing military
existed? I suspect so but .... in which case it was
in support of the prior militias, which might be considered to
nolonger exist.

Do you ask if the cronology is?

Nope.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:39:29 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


(Gunner may find that last note interesting, in another context.)

Well, he can march in lockstep carrying a stick, right? IF it's
a small stick. And he can march ..... takes some thinking .....
--
Cliff