On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Wayne was running on about some new bill, H.R. 1022 I think, that the
Democrats from Hell had introduced, which must be something awful.
snip

While I am a life member of the NRA, this is more fund raising
and s**t disturbing.

In most cases a single member in either house can place a "hold"
on a bill. Thus all of the gun legislation was passed with at
least the tacit cooperation of the so-called "pro gun"
legislators.

This again appears to be more punch-n-judy show for the suckers,
er... ah .. campaign contributors and voters.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:19 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Wayne was running on about some new bill, H.R. 1022 I think, that the
Democrats from Hell had introduced, which must be something awful.
snip

While I am a life member of the NRA, this is more fund raising
and s**t disturbing.

In most cases a single member in either house can place a "hold"
on a bill. Thus all of the gun legislation was passed with at
least the tacit cooperation of the so-called "pro gun"
legislators.

This again appears to be more punch-n-judy show for the suckers,
er... ah .. campaign contributors and voters.

Not to mention us new members. g

I forgot to mention that the sweet young thing offered me a lifetime
membership at the reduced rate of $700. I told her she'd have to reduce it a
hell of a lot more than that before it was a good deal for me...

--
Ed Huntress

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:


John

Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"


We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff


why would anyone want to brush a swamp?


And you septics claim to understand English ?

--
geoff



We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we
made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do not
understand each other

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:


John

Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"


We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff


why would anyone want to brush a swamp?


And you septics claim to understand English ?

--
geoff



We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?

Oh, hell, the French, the Spaniards, and the Dutch had been here for years
before the Mayflower. Except for the Dutch, they were here for nearly a
century before the English settlement at Jamestown, for that matter. The
English were come-latelies to North America.


It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we
made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do not
understand each other

I don't think we have much trouble understanding you. As for the differences
in punctuation and spelling, your source of today's accepted standards is
the same as ours: typesetters of the 17th and 18th centuries. We just had
different typesetters. And we had Noah Webster. g

--
Ed Huntress

Please tell us of one instance in which a gun was successfully tried
for murder.

So if the gun itself isn't the nutter, the gun is owned BY the nutter.

on 9/12/2007 5:42 PM Dave said the following:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:


John

Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's
there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"


We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff


why would anyone want to brush a swamp?


And you septics claim to understand English ?

--
geoff



We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that
we made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do
not understand each other

Dave

Now Dave, don't get your shorts all knotted up.
The main US language is still English. We both have idioms that the
other does not understand.
We also have a segment that is unintelligible even to us, like you and
your cockney, and that rhyming thing that no one understands.
Besides, you no longer talk like the Pilgrims either. And let's not
mention Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales.
They might as well have been written in German.
When it is important, we speak the same language.




--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sep 12, 1:21 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote:


My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.


I so wish I had a ballot.
That said, it does not render my views and my ability to express them
as impotent.
It's that 'forest-from-the-trees' thing, Morris.

I peek over the fence and worry myself sick.

A lot of my peers were on loan to Iran to build their electrical
networks. They made a lot of friends. So many Iranians we'd love to
have as neighbours. What's with the war drums?

Won't you add impeachement to you arsenal of keyboard and ballot?

respectfully,

r

Colin Wilson wrote:
Please tell us of one instance in which a gun was successfully
tried
for murder.

So if the gun itself isn't the nutter, the gun is owned BY the
nutter.

And then it's the "nutter", the ownership or possession of firearm by
which is unlawful everywhere in the United States, who commits the
murder.

Now, why it is that killing someone with underwear is OK with you but
not if a firearm is used?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

And then it's the "nutter", the ownership or possession of firearm by
which is unlawful everywhere in the United States, who commits the
murder.

The bigest problems with having so many guns is that.
1) the nutters can get them more easily.
2) borderline nutters can get them easily.
3) young kids can, and do, get them to play with and kill others by
mistake much too often.
4) killing or injuring someone at a distance is so easy,

And the reason that guns should be much more closely controlled is that
with almost all other weapons you have to get close to the person you
injure/kill.

But by controlled I mean that all guns and ammunition should be easily
identifiable and the original owner made equally responsible for their
use or misuse, with no exceptions at all, unless that owner could prove
that they had sold the gun/ammo to another identifiable responsible
person.
Regrettably at this time that could not happen in any country where the
law often lets people totally avoid responsibility.
However if it could be achieved the level of gun related crime/accidents
would drop at an amazing rate.


--
replace spamblock with my family name to e-mail me
Pics at http://www.meekings.net/diving/index.shtml
and http://www.meekings.net/photo-groups/nui/index.shtml

J. Clarke wrote:
willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 11:34 PM Gunner said the following:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:29:43 GMT, raden wrote:



In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes


Gunner wrote:


On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:32:19 GMT, raden
wrote:



Short hair, no rings, no necklaces, no body metal, no ties, no
wris****ches and I have all my fingers left


Four beers for the carpenters .. as the germans say



Free men own guns


And dead people are the result


Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Gunner


He doesn't think, he just parrots the anti Second Amendment
cult.



We don't have a second amendment, you thick septic



Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

Gunner


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees
weapons ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have
read
it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"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".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?


It seems that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit disagrees with your intepretation.

True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms in the
Second Amendment is an individual right, not a right belonging to a "well
regulated militia" or to members of a militia.

On Sep 12, 9:16 pm, (Jerome Meekings)
wrote:

4) killing or injuring someone at a distance is so easy,

I do not know you, but I assure you that killing another human being,
either takes a 'flash' decision, or a calculated one.
If I need to keep the supply lines open to my brothers in the field,
I'd take out the opposition with a .50 caliber.
Even from 2000 yards. No need to be close-up and personal.

If I need to rid the neighbourhood from a low-life who raped my ( or
anybody's) 14-year-old daughter...I'd prefer to use my bare hands. I
wouldn't want a weapon. I'd want his last view of the world to be my
smile.

Killing is either strategic, or personal.


r

Jerome Meekings wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And then it's the "nutter", the ownership or possession of firearm
by
which is unlawful everywhere in the United States, who commits the
murder.

The bigest problems with having so many guns is that.
1) the nutters can get them more easily.
2) borderline nutters can get them easily.
3) young kids can, and do, get them to play with and kill others by
mistake much too often.
4) killing or injuring someone at a distance is so easy,

Have any statistics to support any of those contentions?

And the reason that guns should be much more closely controlled is
that with almost all other weapons you have to get close to the
person you injure/kill.

Uh, you _want_ to get close to someone who is trying to kill you
because?

But by controlled I mean that all guns and ammunition should be
easily
identifiable and the original owner made equally responsible for
their
use or misuse, with no exceptions at all, unless that owner could
prove that they had sold the gun/ammo to another identifiable
responsible person.
Regrettably at this time that could not happen in any country where
the law often lets people totally avoid responsibility.
However if it could be achieved the level of gun related
crime/accidents would drop at an amazing rate.

Pie in the sky. Tell us a proven method of accomplishing all this
"easy identification" that does not create another huge government
beaurocracy.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Jerome Meekings wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And then it's the "nutter", the ownership or possession of firearm
by
which is unlawful everywhere in the United States, who commits the
murder.
The bigest problems with having so many guns is that.
1) the nutters can get them more easily.
2) borderline nutters can get them easily.
3) young kids can, and do, get them to play with and kill others by
mistake much too often.
4) killing or injuring someone at a distance is so easy,

Have any statistics to support any of those contentions?

And the reason that guns should be much more closely controlled is
that with almost all other weapons you have to get close to the
person you injure/kill.

Uh, you _want_ to get close to someone who is trying to kill you
because?

But by controlled I mean that all guns and ammunition should be
easily
identifiable and the original owner made equally responsible for
their
use or misuse, with no exceptions at all, unless that owner could
prove that they had sold the gun/ammo to another identifiable
responsible person.
Regrettably at this time that could not happen in any country where
the law often lets people totally avoid responsibility.
However if it could be achieved the level of gun related
crime/accidents would drop at an amazing rate.

Pie in the sky. Tell us a proven method of accomplishing all this
"easy identification" that does not create another huge government
beaurocracy.

Why don't you guys take this discussion to GUNS "R" US?

On Sep 12, 11:43 pm, Ralph wrote:


Why don't you guys take this discussion to GUNS "R" US?

Because then we wouldn't have the pleasure of your intelligent input.

doesn't it amaze you how every thread that might possibly involve an OT
subject degenerates into a pro/anti gun arguement? don't you guys have
something better with which to occupy your synapses?
"


..

True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms
in the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a right belonging to a
"well regulated militia" or to members of a militia.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:17:35 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:
Gunner wrote:
raden wrote:

Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"

We used to call it a "bog brush" at school

why would anyone want to brush a swamp?

"bog" being a UK slang expression for toilet ;-)

I seem to recall a similar shared "Whut the hell...?" between the UK
term 'Bum Bag' = USA term 'Fanny Pack' Going either way it could be
considered an insult if one was looking for a reason to be insulted.

-- Bruce --

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:36:14 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:07:01 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:20:38 -0400, willshak
wrote:

on 9/12/2007 5:09 AM Gunner said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:21:29 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:


| How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

I, and a great many others here, have so belonged.


United States Code 13

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and
of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.


Pay particular attention to Section 2

Gunner



311.(a) says the militia shall consist of 'able bodied males' between
the ages of 17 and 45, and 'females who are members of the National
Guard'.
I read that as males not in that age group, or females not in the
National Guard, are not members of a militia.
That's what it says, whether or not one disagrees with it.
(2) refers to 'members of the militia', which is defined in 311 (a)

From http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

"Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used
interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided
difference between the two. _Militia were men in arms formed _to protect
their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a
small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile
and able to assemble quickly. _Minutemen were selected from militia
muster rolls by their commanding officers_. Typically 25 years of age or
younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and
physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as
Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the
first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.

Bring on more insults.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/tech...d5882.jpg.html


Since you wish to make claims regarding the 18th century....

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Militia

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves,
... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
- "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either
Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall
have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American
... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the
federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever
remain, in the hands of the People."
- Tench Coxe, 1788.

http://www.a-human-right.com/predict2_s.jpg
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5320-2/freedom.jpg


Oh..btw...the 45yr age restriction is unlawful, according to Federal
ADA laws.

In practice..the age restriction is ignored. Keep in mind that in
1778...45 yrs of age was close to the average life expectancy, so that
was considered close to elderly.




Oh..something else you should read...

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things
have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to
make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If
during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in
their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door
and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had
nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush
of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at
hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of
officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed
machine would have ground to a halt."
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag
Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_gulag.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg


Since you have difficulties with written word....perhaps pictures may
be of assistance to you...

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_order.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg


http://www.a-human-right.com/history_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_colors3.jpg

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5329-2/defender.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_how.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_rob.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_grenades.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_irs.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/panther_s.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_constitutional.jpg

Here we go! Hang on, folks, it's the battle of the Gun Quotes, and it's
going to be a bumpy ride...

So presenting verifyable data points to counter raw emotionalism from
my opponents is somehow a bad thing?

That depends on whether you like your rides bumpy. d8-)

Don't get grumpy, Gunner. I just know what's coming, and it could be a
beaut. If it were me I'd list all the citations from US v Emerson, 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals, and expect responses in November or so. g


Those are at hand..waiting in the wings. Think of them as claymores
for when the gomers human wave the wire...

G

Interesting and thought provoking pictures eh?

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:37:34 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

pony tail as a teenager, but am back to above-the collar now. The
current buzz-cut fad, presumably war-inspired, leaves me cold.

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war. Circle goes
around--when I was a little kid buzz cuts and crew cuts were popular.
When I was a bit older styles got longer (I remember when the Beatles,
as they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, had scandalously long hair)
and longer and longer and then shorter and shorter and shorter and now
we're back to buzz cuts. In another 30 years or so it will be long
again.


****..when I went to war..I wore a mohawk most of the time.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:05:03 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:

John
Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"


We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff


why would anyone want to brush a swamp?

And you septics claim to understand English ?


No such claims were ever made. We do however claim to understand
American.

Now Redbone, clatz the dog while ranching the skeeter.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we
made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do not
understand each other

Dave


Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery, small pox, syphillis
and broken promises just to name a few...

And you think thats a good thing?

Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

Gunner, Native American

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:05:05 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:24:45 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
raden wrote:

In message , Dave
writes

In the UK if we had the right to carry a gun and be immune to defending
ourselves against a mugger with a knife, or a burglar in the house,
then I am all for it.

Do you understand nurfink?


I understant that you're aren't qualified to own a gun, in your nanny
state.

One of the more sensible laws we have

True. Here in the US we dont let the mentally ill own firearms
either.


So you're "gunner" in name only then ?


Huh? My real world nickname is Gunner. Has been for over 30 yrs.

Btw..I do get a clean bill of health every 2 yrs. I have the card in
my pocket as proof.

CCW permit.

And your proof is where again?

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:07:56 GMT, raden wrote:

Actully..you did have a Bill of Rights, which guarenteed weapons
ownership, until you used it for bumwad

Now you are simply a serf, owned by the State.

Doesnt that collar around your neck bother you?

I don't own a gun, nor do I want to

Stockholm Syndrome at its worst.

not owning one doesn't make me feel oppressed

And you lick the hand that binds you as well...

Hey one - nill to England against Russia


Whatever that ment.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:20:03 GMT, raden wrote:


If you want to rebut by pointing out that there is no tyranny, then I
give you my very happiest smiley. :-)

One of our political comedians offered three thousand pounds ( the
proceeds from an article he wrote) to anyone who killed George Bush, and
as a true patriot, you should all be leaping at the chance


--
geoff


If someone offered 3 pence and a imperial gallon of Stout for your
demise...Id be hunting a hole if I were you.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:36:10 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
Dead bad people for the most part.

You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Spoils your day a bit if you're not a baddie, though


Of course it does. Nearly as bad as crashing through your windshield
on the highway.

Done that at 80 mph


Or falling off a ladder

That's for silly people

Or drowning in a swimming pool

Or bleeding to death after misusing a power tool

You'll like this ...

very gory - failed suicide bomber ...

http://nothingtoxic.com/media/118188...s_of_a_Failed_
Suicide_Bomber


Or choking to death on food

Pretzel ? we wish

Etc

So you have no issues with banning motorcars, ladders, swimming pools,
power tools and food.

Correct?

No, these are all things designed for things other than killing people

Sport aside, guns are there to kill


Sport aside...thats mighty white of you.

Odd..Ive 60 some firearms..and only a few have taken a life. And those
being surplus military arms of other countries.

Least..that I care to discuss here.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:51:04 +0100, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

Uh, what does "the number of murders by gun crime" have to do with
"letting the mentally ill own firearms"? Are you suggesting that
committing murder is prima facie evidence that one is mentally ill?
If not then what are you suggesting?

A normal level-headed person doesn't commit murder unless they're sick
- or perhaps to use an old phrase, criminally insane.


Not true in the least.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:03:05 +0100, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

So you're only 3 times more likely to be murdered in the US - so much
for guns keeping crime down...

With 5 x the population of the UK..seems like we are ahead on safety
points.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Your stats are working great - we're only 27 times less likely to be
murdered by a gun toting luntic

27 times more likely to be murdered by a gun - I wonder why...

You left out the part about being murdered by other means, or raped or
robbed..

But then..I knew you would.

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:16:07 +0900,
(Jerome Meekings) wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

And then it's the "nutter", the ownership or possession of firearm by
which is unlawful everywhere in the United States, who commits the
murder.

The bigest problems with having so many guns is that.
1) the nutters can get them more easily.
2) borderline nutters can get them easily.
3) young kids can, and do, get them to play with and kill others by
mistake much too often.
4) killing or injuring someone at a distance is so easy,

And the reason that guns should be much more closely controlled is that
with almost all other weapons you have to get close to the person you
injure/kill.

But by controlled I mean that all guns and ammunition should be easily
identifiable and the original owner made equally responsible for their
use or misuse, with no exceptions at all, unless that owner could prove
that they had sold the gun/ammo to another identifiable responsible
person.
Regrettably at this time that could not happen in any country where the
law often lets people totally avoid responsibility.
However if it could be achieved the level of gun related crime/accidents
would drop at an amazing rate.

Pray tell...how would you accomplish this?

There are a bit more than 300,000,000 firearms in the US.

Think our people will simply turn them in or register them?

Snicker..think again

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:48:16 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Michael A. Terrell
writes
raden wrote:

One of the more sensible laws we have


Certainly! If you were allowed to own guns, you might tuurn back
into real men.

What would you know


It doesnt take much skill to recognize castrati such as yourself.

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:50:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:01:24 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"willshak" wrote in message
...


Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees weapons
ownership?
Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have read it,
completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
"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".
How many gun owners belong to a "well regulated militia"?

It's not a clause (except to a lawyer), because it contains no predicate.
It's a phrase, and the sentence is a type called "nominative absolute."
Nominative absolute sentences tell you nothing about the dependency of the
clause ("the right of the people..." etc.) upon the phrase. It may be a
dependency, or it may be incidental. Often it's a sufficient but not
necessary condition.

Nobody ever gets this right, so don't feel badly about it. And it wouldn't
be the first time the FFs wrote something that was intentionally ambiguous.
The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to get the anti-federalists to
calm down and ratify the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not at all in agreement with much of any of this post. However, most
of it is opinion or subject to argument. However, that last piece is
not. The Bill of Rights was proposed by Congress and submited to the
States AFTER the Constitution had been ratified. The Constitution was
ratified by the 9th state on June 21, 1788 and became effective on
March 4, 1789. The first Congress under the Constitution submitted the
Bill Of Rights to the States for consideration as Amendments to the
Constitution on September 25, 1789. The Bill of Rights (or the first
10 Amendments to the Constitution) became effective on December 15,
1791. Clearly this timeline shows that the purpose was NOT "to get the
anti-federalists to calm down and ratify the Constitution" though
admittedly there was much talk about a Bill of Rights at the various
legislatures when the states were debating the Constitution. The
Federalist Papers and "anti-Federalist Papers" represent a number of
articles discussing this in the context of the times (along with a lot
of other issues of concern with the proposed Constitution).

"In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized
opposition. Only after two leading Antifederalists, Adams and Hancock,
negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for
ratification on February 6, 1788 (187–168). Antifederalists had
demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider
it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had
retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the
Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be
considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into
effect. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the
Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in
the hope that it would be amended."[7]

Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire,
Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their
ratification instruments. They all sent recommendations for amendments
with their ratification documents to the new Congress. Since many of
these recommendations pertained to safeguarding personal rights, this
pressured Congress to add a Bill of Rights after Constitutional
ratification. Additionally, North Carolina refused to ratify the
Constitution until progress was made on the issue of the Bill of
Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their
quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were
not totally in vain." [from Wikipedia - yeah I know that is not
autoritative]



Dave Hall
Gunner does identify the source of the idea of our 2nd Amendment as a
"right," however, which is English common law.


Oddly enough..virtually every state in the Union also includes some
form of 2nd Amendment guarantee in its state constitution as well

Gunner

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:55:55 -0700, Robatoy
wrote:

On Sep 12, 1:21 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote:


My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.


I so wish I had a ballot.
That said, it does not render my views and my ability to express them
as impotent.
It's that 'forest-from-the-trees' thing, Morris.

I peek over the fence and worry myself sick.

A lot of my peers were on loan to Iran to build their electrical
networks. They made a lot of friends. So many Iranians we'd love to
have as neighbours. What's with the war drums?

Won't you add impeachement to you arsenal of keyboard and ballot?

respectfully,

r

Its not the Iranian people...its the fuctards that run their
government.

Germans are nice folks. Stick a Shicklegrubber at the top...and all
bets are off.

Unless the Iranians get the stones to remove the clerics and that evil
cocksucking dwarf from power...they are going to wind up like the
Germans did in 1945.

And you can take that to the bank.

Gunner

Robatoy wrote:
| On Sep 12, 1:21 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
|
|| My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.
|
| I so wish I had a ballot.

Y'know, I was thinking about that a while back. Not your (r's) ballot
specifically, but the notion that citizens of a country aren't the
only stakeholders in choosing that country's leaders.

It was just idle thinking, of course, because no one in any country
would be willing to give someone from another country a role in
choosing their country's leadership. Still, it's an interesting
thought - and I've wondered how things would play if the world outside
the USA could elect one senator and one representative to our
legislature...

| That said, it does not render my views and my ability to express
| them as impotent.
| It's that 'forest-from-the-trees' thing, Morris.

Absolutely true - that's the "keyboard' part of the arsenal. Discourse
/can/ bring about change when well-chosen words are spoken/written in
a suitable context.

Well, in a manner of speaking, we're all trees in the forest - even
though we'd each like to speak our own piece and be heard as
individuals.

It's being worth listening to that's the real challenge.

| I peek over the fence and worry myself sick.

I'll be the first to admit that you have noisy neighbors who (at least
sometimes) appear to be completely irrational. :-)

Observe - great. Worry yourself sick - please don't. As a constructive
friend, you're highly valued - and I would prefer you stay healthy.

FWIW, before you get into deep worry mode, it makes sense to ask:
"Hey, what's going on here? Do I need to worry about you?" There are a
couple of benefits to this: first, there may not be as much reason to
worry as you originally thought - and second, you've stimulated your
neighbor to focus (even if just a little) more on what you see as a
problem.

| A lot of my peers were on loan to Iran to build their electrical
| networks. They made a lot of friends. So many Iranians we'd love to
| have as neighbours. What's with the war drums?

Fear and a certain amount of bigotry. Fear that Iran will develop
nuclear weapons as powerful as those we have and fear that they'll act
irresponsibly.

I worked (and socialized) with some Irani immigrants in San Jose. I
was pleased to give 'em all the furniture I'd built for my apartment
when I returned to Iowa, and I'd be still more pleased to have them
living next door here.

In order to beat the war drums, it's necessary to /ignore/ the value
of individuals. I've concluded that "hawkishness" is inversely
proportional to the number of places from which one's friends come and
inverse-squared with one's appreciation for cultures other than one's
own.

| Won't you add impeachement to you arsenal of keyboard and ballot?

That's not really a solution to the problems we've created for
ourselves - for a number of reasons. For instance: How would you feel
knowing the head of household next door had carelessly shot a
_friend_?

IMO, our stars never shone so brightly as when we focused our efforts
on sharing our best with others in need - and they never dimmed so
rapidly as when our politicians changed their focus from 'help' to
'control'.

They _still_ don't have 24-hour electricity in Baghdad.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

F. George McDuffee wrote:

| Over time, we grew our own, until we are again overrun.

Perhaps we can learn from our mistakes. Next time we might consider
drinking the tea and throwing the _politicians_ into the harbor. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

So you're only 3 times more likely to be murdered in the US - so much
for guns keeping crime down...
With 5 x the population of the UK..seems like we are ahead on safety
points.

You really are a dumb gun fanatic looking for an excuse.

The figures are per thousand people of population. This takes into
account the population difference.

I'd stop digging if I were you.

Morris Dovey wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Sep 12, 1:21 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.

I so wish I had a ballot.

Y'know, I was thinking about that a while back. Not your (r's)
ballot
specifically, but the notion that citizens of a country aren't the
only stakeholders in choosing that country's leaders.

It was just idle thinking, of course, because no one in any country
would be willing to give someone from another country a role in
choosing their country's leadership. Still, it's an interesting
thought - and I've wondered how things would play if the world
outside
the USA could elect one senator and one representative to our
legislature...

Probably about like they play in Puerto Rico and like they played in
the Phillippines.

That said, it does not render my views and my ability to express
them as impotent.
It's that 'forest-from-the-trees' thing, Morris.

Absolutely true - that's the "keyboard' part of the arsenal.
Discourse
/can/ bring about change when well-chosen words are spoken/written
in
a suitable context.

But only if the people with power to effect change see the words.

Well, in a manner of speaking, we're all trees in the forest - even
though we'd each like to speak our own piece and be heard as
individuals.

It's being worth listening to that's the real challenge.

Getting heard is harder than being worth listening to.

I peek over the fence and worry myself sick.

I'll be the first to admit that you have noisy neighbors who (at
least
sometimes) appear to be completely irrational. :-)

Observe - great. Worry yourself sick - please don't. As a
constructive
friend, you're highly valued - and I would prefer you stay healthy.

FWIW, before you get into deep worry mode, it makes sense to ask:
"Hey, what's going on here? Do I need to worry about you?" There are
a
couple of benefits to this: first, there may not be as much reason
to
worry as you originally thought - and second, you've stimulated your
neighbor to focus (even if just a little) more on what you see as a
problem.

A lot of my peers were on loan to Iran to build their electrical
networks. They made a lot of friends. So many Iranians we'd love to
have as neighbours. What's with the war drums?

Fear and a certain amount of bigotry. Fear that Iran will develop
nuclear weapons as powerful as those we have and fear that they'll
act
irresponsibly.

Several of nations have nuclear weapons as powerful as those we have
and are not a problem. I don't think that anyone in the US gives a
damn if the Brits or the French have nuclear weapons of any degree of
power. Iran though is run by Islamic fundamentalists, and while the
ones running Iran have not done so recently, Islamic fundies seem to
like to blow up anything they dislike and don't really seem to give
much of a damn who, including themselves, gets hurt in the process.
If it Iranians nuked a city somewhere and the whole country got paved
as a result they'd be acclaimed as gloriout martyrs to the Jihad.

That's why Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. In fact
Pakistan having them is a bit scary--the current regime there seems to
be reasonable, but it doesn't even have the whole country under
control--there are places in Pakistan that the cops don't go without a
military escort, and there have been attempts to assassinate the
current leader. If the fundies take over Pakistan then it's quite
possible that Very Bad Things will follow.

I worked (and socialized) with some Irani immigrants in San Jose. I
was pleased to give 'em all the furniture I'd built for my apartment
when I returned to Iowa, and I'd be still more pleased to have them
living next door here.

Every Japanese I've met has been a good guy. So has every German.
That doesn't mean that Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust didn't happen.

It's not the man in the street that starts wars, it's the government.
In the late '30s and early '40s both countries had rather nasty
governments that didn't much care who got hurt while they pursued
their dreams of power and there was precious little that the man in
the street could do about it. A lot of good, decent Japanese and
Germans got killed either by or for those governments.

Do you really trust the Iranian government? You don't seem to trust
the US government and the US government is at least notionally
answerable to the populace, so why is the Iranian government more
trustworthy?

In order to beat the war drums, it's necessary to /ignore/ the value
of individuals. I've concluded that "hawkishness" is inversely
proportional to the number of places from which one's friends come
and
inverse-squared with one's appreciation for cultures other than
one's
own.

So which would you rather? Some of those valuable individuals die
sooner while the Iranian government is prevented from obtaining
nuclear weapons that it doesn't need, or a lot more die later when
that government uses those weapons?

Why is the Iranian government so Hell-bent on nuclear weapons anyway?
That money could be far better spent expanding the economy.

Won't you add impeachement to you arsenal of keyboard and ballot?

That's not really a solution to the problems we've created for
ourselves - for a number of reasons. For instance: How would you
feel
knowing the head of household next door had carelessly shot a
_friend_?

What does this have to do with impeachment? And how often does that
particular scenario happen anyway? That's another statistic that you
people pull up at the drop of the hat without understanding it--"shot
someone you know" is not the same as "shot a friend".

IMO, our stars never shone so brightly as when we focused our
efforts
on sharing our best with others in need - and they never dimmed so
rapidly as when our politicians changed their focus from 'help' to
'control'.

They _still_ don't have 24-hour electricity in Baghdad.

And they aren't going to until the Iraqis quit blowing each other to
Kingdom Come.

That's why the US is there right now, to try to keep the lid on until
the government is strong and stable enough to do so without help.
Now, I'm sure you're going to counter with the argument that
everything will be peachy-keen in Iraq if the US leaves. And you're
right, it will, if you define "peachy-keen" as "The Mahdi Army
overthrows the government, establishes a Shiite dominated Islamic
fundamentalist state, arrests and imprisons or executes anybody who
dissents, lines up all the troublemakers and lots of other innocents
who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and
shoots them, establishes a new secret police, and Moqtada Al-Sadr is
elected President for Life by a 110 percent majority".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the
first
ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes
that
we made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but
do not understand each other

Dave


Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery, small pox,
syphillis
and broken promises just to name a few...

Actually that was the Spanish that started all that. By the time the
British arrived small pox, syphilis, and broken promises were well
established. The slavery part the indigenous population had already
figured out on their own.

And you think thats a good thing?

Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

And the Spanish put an end to that whole human sacrifice thing.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Ralph wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Jerome Meekings wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

And then it's the "nutter", the ownership or possession of
firearm
by
which is unlawful everywhere in the United States, who commits
the
murder.
The bigest problems with having so many guns is that.
1) the nutters can get them more easily.
2) borderline nutters can get them easily.
3) young kids can, and do, get them to play with and kill others
by
mistake much too often.
4) killing or injuring someone at a distance is so easy,

Have any statistics to support any of those contentions?

And the reason that guns should be much more closely controlled is
that with almost all other weapons you have to get close to the
person you injure/kill.

Uh, you _want_ to get close to someone who is trying to kill you
because?

But by controlled I mean that all guns and ammunition should be
easily
identifiable and the original owner made equally responsible for
their
use or misuse, with no exceptions at all, unless that owner could
prove that they had sold the gun/ammo to another identifiable
responsible person.
Regrettably at this time that could not happen in any country
where
the law often lets people totally avoid responsibility.
However if it could be achieved the level of gun related
crime/accidents would drop at an amazing rate.

Pie in the sky. Tell us a proven method of accomplishing all this
"easy identification" that does not create another huge government
beaurocracy.

Why don't you guys take this discussion to GUNS "R" US?

Hey, ask the stupid Brit that just couldn't resist stirring the
anthill.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article ,
Owain wrote:

raden wrote:
nick hull writes
... Probably have used a gun
as a drill more often than to kill something
Right tool for the right job, eh ?

Aldi don't always have drills on special, but Walmart always has ammo :-)

..38 makes a pretty good 3/8" drill in certain situations, it's saved my
ass more than once

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Now, why it is that killing someone with underwear is OK with you but
not if a firearm is used?

Actually the law gives a discount to murderers who use chainsaws rather
than guns, in that there is often an extra penalty for using a gun but
none for using a chainsaw

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:36:14 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

snip


Don't get grumpy, Gunner. I just know what's coming, and it could be a
beaut. If it were me I'd list all the citations from US v Emerson, 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals, and expect responses in November or so. g


Those are at hand..waiting in the wings. Think of them as claymores
for when the gomers human wave the wire...

G

Interesting and thought provoking pictures eh?

Yeah, they are. They look like print ads. Who produced them?

--
Ed Huntress

I forgot it also prevents pregnancy.
Karl



On Sep 12, 7:13 am, Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:27:31 -0000, "

wrote:
The perfect machinists clothing. No sleeves, no tie, not loose, only
comes in black and made in extra large. What more can you ask for?:
http://www.allaboutdance.com/s.nl/it...ionid=0a000447...
Karl

Crom but thats soooooo gay......geeze....





On Sep 10, 5:10 pm, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:17:39 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

"user" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair cut
short...

--
Ed Huntress

Back in the early to mid 70's when I was living with my grandparents and
had grown my hair to about my belt loops, Grandpa and I went to the store
one evening. Saw the ugliest looking person you ever saw. Grandpa asked
him, "What happened to you?"
The guy answered, "I got my ponytail caught in the lathe at work!"

Yikes

5 minutes later and several aisles over, Grandpa told me, "I ain't gonna
ever tell you to get your hair cut again."

Didn't have long hair very much after that.

Man, these stories are piling up. My 1943 edition of _How to Run a Lathe_
doesn't say anything about it. d8-)

A kid at the highschool where a friend's wife teaches always wore
baggy track pants to school - regimental. Thought he was IT.

One day he somehow got his drawstring caught (wrapped around) on the
wood lathe. Got a few good wraps of the track pants wound up too. They
got the lathe stopped in time to save "the boys" - but JUST.
Didn't faze the idiot at all - - -

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -