Carl Nisarel

Bjórrúnar skaltu Jeffrey C. Dege rista --

    > Columbine HS had the highest rate of student suicide of any
    > HS in the country, but nobody gave a damn.

Where'd you get that bizarre non sequitur, Dege?

Tim Kroesen

...but you started this sub-argument off questioning there was no
relevant comparison betwixt sex/STD's and firearms; I showed there was
significant comparison regarding public safety; which indeed is the
pretext for all anti-gun arguments... I didn't bring 'sex' into this
argument anyway; some 'anti' did and I responded...

"The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Of course people have human rights, but to what extend freedoms
    > like sexual preference are in place depends in practice on the
    > actions of the electorate in chosing politicians who legislate on
    > these things.

As to my programming; I was taught to respect firearms as potentially
dangerous objects should be respected... not to irrationally run away
from and eschew them any more than automobiles and axes...

Tim K

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected] et>,
    > [email protected] (Tim Kroesen) wrote:
    > > That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract
STD's
    > > at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
    > > walls...
    > We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact
I
    > think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread)
the
    > comparison between banning guns and banning buggery.
    > I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues.
    > In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating...
    > > more babies are born with or contract STD's
    > > at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
    > > walls
    > ...particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there
is a
    > medical condition X which kills more people than any other single
medical
    > condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all
research,
    > public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest!
    > > It appears that even when you
    > > try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
    > > programmed anti-gun bias
    > I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as
    > anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the
British
    > regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex
    > law-making.
    > However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have
no
    > personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the
few
    > times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent);
also
    > because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't
think
    > it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties.
    > However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less
    > enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed
anti-gun
    > bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on
    > your side too?

Jeff McCann

"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Xns9535243391711stuartgreycomca...204.127.199.17...
    > "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    > > gruhn wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > > So you think you have a constitutional right to
    > >> > >own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution? Amazing.

    > >> Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can
    > >> you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because it
    > >> scares me"?
    > >
    > > Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to
    > > see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most
    > > people can manage a few small arms, only a few can
    > > safeguard a tank.

Is that so different than safeguarding a car?

    > IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should put
    > theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This is a red
    > herring. "You can't own weapons, because the theives and
    > criminals we keep letting lose might steal them".

Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing Authoritarian "Drug
Warriors" who claim that doctors can't prescribe certain drugs for
patients in need of them, because they might be diverted into illegal
commerce and abuse.

If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on crime, you are
mistaken. Crime rates are down (for manifold reasons), incarceration
rates in the US rival or exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes,
we kill more prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state judges have
been stripped of their duty to render individual justice by sentencing
laws, and foreign governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the
US.

The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the Right's spin
doctors for opposing the death penalty for terrorists. The fools either
ignore or don't understand the fact that a potential death penalty will
prevent many foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or
even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such legislation is
either cynical pandering to popular sentiment or, worse, sheer
stupidity.

    > If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a prison,
    > this wouldn't be a problem.

How, exactly, are liberals doing that?

    >What we need are more dead
    > criminals, not fewer firearms.

Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of victimizing innocent
people, to the degree that they are glad when the cops show up to arrest
them, thereby sparing them from the righteous wrath of the locals.

Jeff

Jeff McCann

"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Xns953522880A006stuartgreycomca...204.127.199.17...
[snip]

    > Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what the
    > pussy liberals have done to the educational system. The left
    > wing is using the schools to indoctrinate children into the
    > idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their
    > only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government
    > authorities. But since the assholes in the school never did a
    > damn thing to stop the practice of harassment, two kids went
    > fruitcake on them.

You nailed it right on the head! (if you'll pardon my violent and
phallocentric imagery, that is!}

Jeff

Gruhn

    > > idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their
    > > only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government

I tried that in school It was useless.

Stuart Grey

Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

    > Stuart Grey <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:Xns953522880A006stuartgreycomca...04.127.199.17:
    >
    >> Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> news:[email protected]:
    >>
    >>> Louis Boyd <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>> news:ce9hjr$mi1$1 @oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:
    >>>
    >>>> gruhn wrote:
    >>>>>>> So you think you have a constitutional right to
    >>>>>>>own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
    >>>>> Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
    >>>>> "because it scares me"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few
    >>>> miltary style weapons you sure as hell can't trust a
    >>>> politician who you and your neighbor helped elect to
    >>>> command several hundred thousand men equiped with those
    >>>> same weapons!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> So what you are saying is you think the
    >>> Columbine murderers should have had real hand
    >>> grenades instead of the homemade ones that
    >>> fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked
    >>> to see that, eh?
    >>
    >> Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy
    >> tobacco. Kids can't buy firearms.
    >>
    >
    > "What we know so far: the eighteen year old girlfriend
    > of one of the Columbine High School killers bought some
    > of the guns they used at a gun show nearby. Another gun
    > was purchased by a co-worker. The murder weapons were all
    > legally purchased in the immediate area."
    > www.spectacle.org/599/columb.html

And contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime, and
the people that armed them should be charged with accessory if
they didn’t provide adult supervision.

    >> Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what
    >> the pussy liberals have done to the educational system.
    >> The left wing is using the schools to indoctrinate
    >> children into the idea that they have no right to self
    >> defense, and that their only recourse to grievances is to
    >> appeal to government authorities. But since the assholes
    >> in the school never did a damn thing to stop the practice
    >> of harassment, two kids went fruitcake on them.
    >>
    >
    >
    > "Our school systems teach the children they are nothing
    > but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some
    > primordial soup of mud,"

I disagree. Most of them are not glorified apes, but rather
apes with the power of speech who have been trained to wear
clothes, after a fashion. There are very few true humans.

    > GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay, blaming the Columbine High
    > School shootings on the teaching of evolution, 8/99

I disagree. See above for why what happened, happened.

I can remember when schools had rifle teams, rifle ranges, and
real live bullets. I know of one school that had 20 .22 cal
target rifles, and 5 M1903/A3-03 with thousands of rounds of
ammunition. No one got shot.

In Texas, if you only had a Bowie Knife in your school locker,
you were considered lightly armed.

What’s different? See my comments above.

Stuart Grey

"Jeff McCann" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]
    :

    >
    > "Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9535243391711stuartgreycomca...204.127.199.17...
    >> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> news:[email protected]:
    >> > gruhn wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > > So you think you have a constitutional right to
    >> >> > >own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.
    >
    > You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution?
    > Amazing.
    >
    >> >> Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
    >> >> Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
    >> >> "because it scares me"?
    >> >
    >> > Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to
    >> > see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most
    >> > people can manage a few small arms, only a few can
    >> > safeguard a tank.
    >
    > Is that so different than safeguarding a car?
    >
    >> IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should
    >> put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This
    >> is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the
    >> theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal
    >> them".
    >
    > Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing
    > Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't
    > prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them,
    > because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and
    > abuse.

What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one
similar to this issue, and that's marijuana.

    > If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on
    > crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for
    > manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or
    > exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more
    > prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
    > breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state
    > judges have been stripped of their duty to render
    > individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign
    > governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US.

How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't
soft on crime?

    > The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the
    > Right's spin doctors for opposing the death penalty for
    > terrorists. The fools either ignore or don't understand
    > the fact that a potential death penalty will prevent many
    > foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or
    > even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such
    > legislation is either cynical pandering to popular
    > sentiment or, worse, sheer stupidity.

So, we can't kill terrorist because the foreign governments
who harbor the terrorist who kill us, won't help us to kill
terrorist or do anything to stop them if we do?

An interesting argument. However, no terrorist group ever
committed a terrorist act to get back a dead terrorist. They
do it to get back live imprisoned terrorist. That alone
justifies the death penalty for terrorist. How many innocent
lives is Kerry willing to sacrifice to keep his terrorist
buddies alive at tax payer expense?

    >> If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a
    >> prison, this wouldn't be a problem.
    >
    > How, exactly, are liberals doing that?

By letting the criminals out of jail early, trying to give
them the vote, calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in
prison "cruel and unusual punishment", demanding that racial
quotas be levied on the prison population, by dragging people
who defend their homes against invaders into court and making
them spend their life savings in legal costs, by giving rights
that don’t exist to criminals and denying the rights of the
honest man; and other such acts.

    >>What we need are more dead
    >> criminals, not fewer firearms.
    >
    > Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of
    > victimizing innocent people, to the degree that they are
    > glad when the cops show up to arrest them, thereby sparing
    > them from the righteous wrath of the locals.

During the Night stalker murder spree, there was a dramatic
rise in the number of firearms owned by private citizens.
People who were afraid of getting their eyes scooped out with
a spoon were armed and ready to blast any home invader to
hell.

During this time, residential burglaries dropped dramatically
because burglars feared for their lives.

Jeff McCann

"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Xns9535BE629E526stuartgreycomca...204.127.204.17...
    > "Jeff McCann" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]
    > :
    > >
    > > "Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns9535243391711stuartgreycomca...204.127.199.17...
    > >> "John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > >> news:[email protected]:
    > >>
    > >> > gruhn wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > > So you think you have a constitutional right to
    > >> >> > >own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.
    > >
    > > You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution?
    > > Amazing.
    > >
    > >> >> Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
    > >> >> Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
    > >> >> "because it scares me"?
    > >> >
    > >> > Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to
    > >> > see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most
    > >> > people can manage a few small arms, only a few can
    > >> > safeguard a tank.
    > >
    > > Is that so different than safeguarding a car?
    > >
    > >> IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should
    > >> put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This
    > >> is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the
    > >> theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal
    > >> them".
    > >
    > > Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing
    > > Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't
    > > prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them,
    > > because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and
    > > abuse.
    > What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one
    > similar to this issue, and that's marijuana.

Heroin leaps to mind. It is more effective with fewer side effects than
MS. Furthermore, we know that pain is one of medicine's most
undertreated syndromes, and this is in large part due to the tremendous
hassles MDs face from the DEA and law enforcement over prescription
analgesia and other Rxs with high abuse potential.

    > > If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on
    > > crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for
    > > manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or
    > > exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more
    > > prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
    > > breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state
    > > judges have been stripped of their duty to render
    > > individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign
    > > governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US.
    > How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't
    > soft on crime?

Read for comprehension. I wrote " . . . made America "soft" on crime .
. ."

    > > The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the
    > > Right's spin doctors for opposing the death penalty for
    > > terrorists. The fools either ignore or don't understand
    > > the fact that a potential death penalty will prevent many
    > > foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or
    > > even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such
    > > legislation is either cynical pandering to popular
    > > sentiment or, worse, sheer stupidity.
    > So, we can't kill terrorist because the foreign governments
    > who harbor the terrorist who kill us, won't help us to kill
    > terrorist or do anything to stop them if we do?

The problem isn't killing them, it's getting them into US custody for
prosecution. I have no major problem with the death penalty, per se,
but first you've got to get them into US custody. Many countries won't
extradite ANYONE who may be subjected to our death penalty, or help us
arrest them.

    > An interesting argument. However, no terrorist group ever
    > committed a terrorist act to get back a dead terrorist. They
    > do it to get back live imprisoned terrorist. That alone
    > justifies the death penalty for terrorist. How many innocent
    > lives is Kerry willing to sacrifice to keep his terrorist
    > buddies alive at tax payer expense?

I DON'T speak for Kerry, and BTW, its usually more expensive to execute
prisoners than to give 'em life without parole.

    > >> If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a
    > >> prison, this wouldn't be a problem.
    > >
    > > How, exactly, are liberals doing that?
    > By letting the criminals out of jail early, trying to give
    > them the vote, calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in
    > prison "cruel and unusual punishment", demanding that racial
    > quotas be levied on the prison population, by dragging people
    > who defend their homes against invaders into court and making
    > them spend their life savings in legal costs, by giving rights
    > that don't exist to criminals and denying the rights of the
    > honest man; and other such acts.

Give examples. Tell me why you believe that the "liberals"are letting
the criminals out of jail early, trying to give
them the vote (prisoners, not people who have completed their sentence),
calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in prison "cruel and unusual
punishment", or demanding that racial quotas be levied on the prison
population. Cite some examples.

    > >>What we need are more dead
    > >> criminals, not fewer firearms.
    > >
    > > Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of
    > > victimizing innocent people, to the degree that they are
    > > glad when the cops show up to arrest them, thereby sparing
    > > them from the righteous wrath of the locals.
    > During the Night stalker murder spree, there was a dramatic
    > rise in the number of firearms owned by private citizens.
    > People who were afraid of getting their eyes scooped out with
    > a spoon were armed and ready to blast any home invader to
    > hell.
    > During this time, residential burglaries dropped dramatically
    > because burglars feared for their lives.

I know, and all I can say is Good!

Jeff

John P. Mullen

Stuart Grey wrote:
    >
    > Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > Louis Boyd <[email protected]> wrote in
    > > news:ce9hjr$mi1$1 @oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:
    > >
    > >> gruhn wrote:
    > >>>>> So you think you have a constitutional right to
    > >>>>>own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>> Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
    > >>> Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to "because
    > >>> it scares me"?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few
    > >> miltary style weapons you sure as hell can't trust a
    > >> politician who you and your neighbor helped elect to
    > >> command several hundred thousand men equiped with those
    > >> same weapons!
    > >
    > >
    > > So what you are saying is you think the
    > > Columbine murderers should have had real hand
    > > grenades instead of the homemade ones that
    > > fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked
    > > to see that, eh?
    >
    > Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy tobacco.
    > Kids can't buy firearms.
    >
    > Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what the
    > pussy liberals have done to the educational system. The left
    > wing is using the schools to indoctrinate children into the
    > idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their
    > only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government
    > authorities. But since the assholes in the school never did a
    > damn thing to stop the practice of harassment, two kids went
    > fruitcake on them.

Lets not forget the police, which took no action on complaints against
the two.

John Mullen

John P. Mullen

"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:05:52 -0600, John P. Mullen <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
    > >>
    > >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:28:36 -0600, John P. Mullen <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. Also, the M-16 is not
    > >> >considered to be an assault weapon.
    > >>
    > >> There's no technical definition of "assault weapon" other than "an ugly
    > >> gun with a lot of black plastic that scares the Violence Policy Center".
    > >>
    > >
    > >If it makes a marine drool, it's an assault weapon.
    > >
    > >:-)
    >
    > I've known marines who'd drool looking through the windows of an Air
    > Force mess hall. Actually, I've been known to do the same, myself.
    > (Why can't the Army teach their cooks how to cook?)
    >

In the Navy, we felt the wingnuts dod OK, but for really fine grub,
nobody could beat the submarine service. We ate over at sub base
whenever we could.

    > >> The M-16 is not considered an assault rifle, because it doesn't use a
    > >> reduced-power full-caliber round.
    > >>
    > >> The AR-15 is not considered an assault rifle because it isn't capable
    > >> of full-automatic fire.
    > >
    > >Yep.
    > >
    > >But, the law is tricky.
    >
    > The law is absurd, and has nothing whatsoever to do with functional
    > distinctions between weapons, or with assault rifles as properly defined.

That is because it is written by people who do not understand firearms
with plenty of advice from special interest groups. Also, in the end,
it must be upheld by the courts. Magazine capacity is something they
understand. After all, when I was a kid, almost all police officers
carried the .38 special handgun. In 1963, a fellow I knew wrote a
computer program that evaluated all existing loads for that caliber, as
well as a few alternates and he concluded that the .38 special was one
of the worst choices for law enforcement.

    > >For example, when a kid in Pennsylvania, I had
    > >to install a block in the tubular magazine of my .22 cal bolt action
    > >rifle because otherwise, when loaded with .22 shorts, it would be
    > >considered a "machine gun" under then current law.
    > >
    > >Yet, we had a M1 carbine, an Enfield, two Springfields, a .30-40 Craig,
    > >a .32 winchester, a .35 Remington, several shotguns, a WWII Japanese
    > >sniper's rifle, a Luger, a .45 ACP Colt, something that took a 3in dia
    > >round, and a few other weapons that I would gladly take over a .22 in
    > >the matter of self-defense.
    >
    > The great thing the AWB death will mean to me is the end of magazine limits.
Well, I seldom used more than a half dozen bullets a day. I was taught
to make every bullet count. Then again, I was taught to hunt, not
assault foreign troops.

    :-)


    > Which means that .22LR gatling gun suddenly appears worth the scratch.
    > (It's mechanically fired, so it's not a machinegun, under the law,
    > but with ten round mags, why bother?)

Well, we talked about that. Under PA law, it would not be, as you say,
a machine gun. Anyone with reasonable machining skill could manufacture
a Gatling gun, but, the magazine would be a hindrance.

How about a 12 ga Gatlin gun?

    :-)

John Mullen

John P. Mullen

Stuart Grey wrote:
    >
    > <snip>"John P. Mullen" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    > <snip>
    > >
    > > The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms,
    > > but does not state that they have a right to the same arms
    > > the government has.
    >
    > You are wrong.
    >
    > Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: To provide for organizing,
    > arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such
    > Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
    > States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
    > of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
    > according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    >
    > The unorganized militia is every man between the ages of 18
    > and ??, regardless of their service or lack of service in the
    > military. Thus, the congress specifies what arms the militia
    > is to use as a way of standardization. What they didn't want
    > was for a hodge podge of arms and munitions to be used once
    > the militia was called into service turning it into a
    > logicistical nightmare.
    >

You really should read what you posted. It clearly refers to an
organized militia, not an unorganized one.

    > > Certainly, you wouldn't want a nuclear
    > > missile in your back yard.
    >
    > I wouldn’t want my neighbor to have one, no. And I believe the
    > constitution should be amended to admit there is no personal
    > right to WMD. However, that is no excuse for ignoring the
    > constitution as written. The ways of amending the constitution
    > do not include appointing socialist left wing judges to ignore
    > it.
Why not? THere are plenty of right wing judges who ignore it, too.


    > > At the time of its writing,
    > > those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons.
    >
    > No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It
    > would be fun to try, I suppose.

And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either.

    > > States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but
    > > most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of
    > > weapon.
    >
    > The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast
    > majority of the military of the United States, with the
    > federal government providing a core cadre and standardization
    > in weapons in training.
You are confusing the militia with the National Guard.

    > >> > Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the
    > >> > USA.
    > >>
    > >> The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt
    > >> for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent
    > >> goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the
    > >> constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the
    > >> downfall of the United States.
    > >>
    > > Well not the ACLU around here.
    >
    > It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same.

No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require citizens to
sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU.
Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy.

    > >> <snip>
    > >>
    > >> The left wing has perverted the courts by putting
    > >> socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to
    > >> do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that
    > >> this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very
    > >> problem. That is why we have the second amendment.
    > >
    > > And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind?
    >
    > See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about
    > the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second
    > amendment that are not in the constitution.
    >
Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A sawed-off
shotgun is a favorite of criminals.

    > There is the “rightâ€? to not be offended, which is a perversion
    > of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not
    > exist. What offends you is your own problem.

The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of more
substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because
offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often
taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself
illegal.

    > There is the “rightâ€? to force others to associate with you,
    > against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the
    > interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to
    > discriminate on the basis of race or whatever.

People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share it
its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to run
a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to
refuse to serve on the basis you suggest.

    > There is the “rightâ€? to all kinds of government entitlements,
    > and entitlement being all those things to which no individual
    > is entitled to as a right.

The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does
require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to race
or ethnicity.

    > > The
    > > right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a
    > > fair trial?
    > Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act.

So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you and
hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being
charged or ...

Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back
after it happens to you.


    > > The right of non-Christians to expect the same
    > > legal treatment as "Christians?"
    >
    > Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and
    > names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco
    > to be come just “Franciscoâ€? because the word San is Spanish
    > for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the
    > cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles),
    > which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic
    > mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to
    > not be offended.

Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made it
clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However, there
was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a
change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the case.

What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have a
greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols can
play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained. and
possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under duress
from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not
Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and
state.

Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you look
at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I
described above.

John Mullen

Gunner

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:46:03 GMT, Mitchell Holman
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Louis Boyd <[email protected]> wrote in news:ce9hjr$mi1$1
    >@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:
    >> gruhn wrote:
    >>>>> So you think you have a constitutional right to
    >>>>>own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an
    >>> answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?
    >>>
    >>
    >> If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few miltary style
    >> weapons you sure as hell can't trust a politician who you and your
    >> neighbor helped elect to command several hundred thousand men equiped
    >> with those same weapons!
    > So what you are saying is you think the
    >Columbine murderers should have had real hand
    >grenades instead of the homemade ones that
    >fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked
    >to see that, eh?
No. What he is saying the teachers who were of the proper age, should
have been armed. Then the two little bastards would have been dead
very early on and there would have been no massacre.

Btw..you might note the two twits violated 57 different Federal laws
during their rampage. Seems like the laws didnt do much good, now did
they?

Gunner


"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

Gunner

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >gruhn wrote:
    >>
    >> > > So you think you have a constitutional right to
    >> > >own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.
    >>
    >> Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give an
    >> answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?
    >Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it doesn't
    >fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small
    >arms, only a few can safeguard a tank.
    >John Mullen

Shit John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea?

Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

Gunner

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:49 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms, but does not
    >state that they have a right to the same arms the government has.

Yes it does.

Your claim..point out exactly where you think the right to same arms
as the military is invalid.

Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations.

Double dog dare you.


Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

Gunner

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:14:39 +0100, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Why would it have to be in a gun manual? Its just a collection of
    >words I choose to indicate what I meant.

Odd,.,.that sounds exactly like a dictionary (which btw..you keep
citing..but ignore requests for the links to the one you keep citing.)

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann