| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2007 05:29:44 PM |
| Object: |
Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US History:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
16 Apr 2007 06:25:18 PM |
|
|
In article <1176762584.789659.115490@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US History:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Budikka
Yes it's interesting, and I'm waiting with great interest to find out
more about this deluded fool who thought it would be a good idea o do
this. I know a former Scout from my old troup is a student there, so
I'll be watching for names when they get the info out.
Wrong date, though. Today's the 16th. {;-)
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
18 Apr 2007 06:54:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:25:18 GMT, *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <1176762584.789659.115490@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US History:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Budikka
Yes it's interesting, and I'm waiting with great interest to find out
more about this deluded fool who thought it would be a good idea o do
this. I know a former Scout from my old troup is a student there, so
I'll be watching for names when they get the info out.
Wrong date, though. Today's the 16th. {;-)
Yes, the 16th not the 4th, and there is no 15th month.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
16 Apr 2007 06:54:55 PM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2007 15:29:44 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <1176762584.789659.115490@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US History:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Budikka
How many infants have the US been responsible for killing in Iraq?
More than 500,000?
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
17 Apr 2007 05:55:12 PM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2007 15:29:44 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US History:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Budikka
He's an atheist.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
16 Apr 2007 05:34:13 PM |
|
|
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
16 Apr 2007 04:53:58 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
########
+ @T
########
The lame troll hits! The lame troll hits!
You are mildly annoyed.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
17 Apr 2007 05:50:15 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Free men have arms; slaves do not.
William Blackstone
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
17 Apr 2007 09:02:48 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Free men have arms; slaves do not.
Fortunately, gun control is not the same thing as banning guns. We want
regulation, not bans.
BIG difference.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
16 Apr 2007 10:41:28 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Libs love to find broad rights, hidden in the penumbras and under the
cushions of their favorite Constitutional Amendments. But when it comes to
the 2nd, they tell us that it means the precise opposite of what it says,
supposedly allowing government complete and unquestioned authority over our
rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
16 Apr 2007 11:53:44 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Libs love to find broad rights, hidden in the penumbras and under the
cushions of their favorite Constitutional Amendments. But when it comes to
the 2nd, they tell us that it means the precise opposite of what it says,
supposedly allowing government complete and unquestioned authority over our
rights.
Actually, for anyone that actually _READ_ the 2nd Amendment and knows
the history behind it, they would know that the 2nd Amendment is not
about gun rights.
The 2nd Amendment refers to a standing army -- a militia -- being able
to be armed only for militia purposes (the security of a free State).
You see, the Founders were smarter than most give them credit for.
In the first Amendment, they wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting....
If the Founders had intended the 2nd Amendment to be what gun-rights
advocates say, then they should've wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms.
But they didn't. I wonder why...?
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
16 Apr 2007 11:07:44 PM |
|
|
On Apr 16, 11:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fester wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fston...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Libs love to find broad rights, hidden in the penumbras and under the
cushions of their favorite Constitutional Amendments. But when it comes to
the 2nd, they tell us that it means the precise opposite of what it says,
supposedly allowing government complete and unquestioned authority over our
rights.
Actually, for anyone that actually _READ_ the 2nd Amendment and knows
the history behind it, they would know that the 2nd Amendment is not
about gun rights.
The 2nd Amendment refers to a standing army -- a militia -- being able
to be armed only for militia purposes (the security of a free State).
and what happens any time a militia forms? the government raids it!
there is no such thing as a militia in america. there is just
government-run military.
You see, the Founders were smarter than most give them credit for.
In the first Amendment, they wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting....
If the Founders had intended the 2nd Amendment to be what gun-rights
advocates say, then they should've wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms.
But they didn't. I wonder why...?
in fact, they did give the right to the *people*. the text states: "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."
the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. why? so those PEOPLE
can form militias to protect the security of a free state. it does not
say that they should join a standing army run by the government who
will issues guns to them. it says that they should keep and bear arms
through their own accord so that they can form militias themselves.
the founding fathers loathed the idea of a standing army.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
17 Apr 2007 05:42:09 AM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176782864.831554.199630@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 11:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fester wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fston...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Libs love to find broad rights, hidden in the penumbras and under the
cushions of their favorite Constitutional Amendments. But when it
comes to
the 2nd, they tell us that it means the precise opposite of what it
says,
supposedly allowing government complete and unquestioned authority over
our
rights.
Actually, for anyone that actually _READ_ the 2nd Amendment and knows
the history behind it, they would know that the 2nd Amendment is not
about gun rights.
The 2nd Amendment refers to a standing army -- a militia -- being able
to be armed only for militia purposes (the security of a free State).
and what happens any time a militia forms? the government raids it!
there is no such thing as a militia in america. there is just
government-run military.
You see, the Founders were smarter than most give them credit for.
In the first Amendment, they wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting....
If the Founders had intended the 2nd Amendment to be what gun-rights
advocates say, then they should've wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms.
But they didn't. I wonder why...?
in fact, they did give the right to the *people*. the text states: "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."
the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. why? so those PEOPLE
can form militias to protect the security of a free state. it does not
say that they should join a standing army run by the government who
will issues guns to them. it says that they should keep and bear arms
through their own accord so that they can form militias themselves.
the founding fathers loathed the idea of a standing army.
Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 28:
<quote>
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is
then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of
self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and
which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with
infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an
individual state. In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme
power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of
which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no
regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms,
without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage
and despair.
</quote>
The intent of the amendment was to ensure that we as individuals shall
possess the right to defend ourselves and that original right may not be
usurped by government! I mourn for those students who may have chosen to
possess the means to defend themselves but were denied those means by a
liberal, nanny state.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
17 Apr 2007 08:32:44 AM |
|
|
snex <snex@comcast.net> writes:
On Apr 16, 11:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fester wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fston...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Libs love to find broad rights, hidden in the penumbras and under the
cushions of their favorite Constitutional Amendments. But when it comes to
the 2nd, they tell us that it means the precise opposite of what it says,
supposedly allowing government complete and unquestioned authority over our
rights.
Actually, for anyone that actually _READ_ the 2nd Amendment and knows
the history behind it, they would know that the 2nd Amendment is not
about gun rights.
The 2nd Amendment refers to a standing army -- a militia -- being able
to be armed only for militia purposes (the security of a free State).
and what happens any time a militia forms? the government raids it!
there is no such thing as a militia in america. there is just
government-run military.
New York still has a state militia.
http://www.ulsterguard.us/history.htm
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
17 Apr 2007 12:16:46 AM |
|
|
snex wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fester wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fston...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Libs love to find broad rights, hidden in the penumbras and under the
cushions of their favorite Constitutional Amendments. But when it comes to
the 2nd, they tell us that it means the precise opposite of what it says,
supposedly allowing government complete and unquestioned authority over our
rights.
Actually, for anyone that actually _READ_ the 2nd Amendment and knows
the history behind it, they would know that the 2nd Amendment is not
about gun rights.
The 2nd Amendment refers to a standing army -- a militia -- being able
to be armed only for militia purposes (the security of a free State).
and what happens any time a militia forms? the government raids it!
Right, because it wasn't formed and regulated BY THAT government. It
was an illegal militia.
there is no such thing as a militia in america. there is just
government-run military.
Right, and the right of the military to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.
You see, the Founders were smarter than most give them credit for.
In the first Amendment, they wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting....
If the Founders had intended the 2nd Amendment to be what gun-rights
advocates say, then they should've wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms.
But they didn't. I wonder why...?
in fact, they did give the right to the *people*.
....of the government-run militia.
the text states: "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."
the right OF THE PEOPLE
--in a government-regulated militia--
to keep and bear arms. why? so those PEOPLE
can form militias to protect the security of a free state.
And who does the regulating again?
it does not
say that they should join a standing army run by the government who
will issues guns to them.
Then who does the regulating? You?
it says that they should keep and bear arms
through their own accord so that they can form militias themselves.
It doesn't say that.
the founding fathers loathed the idea of a standing army.
Right. So, are you advocating the dismantling of our standing army, or
are you pissing and moaning over the text of the Amendment?
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
16 Apr 2007 11:23:15 PM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 12:16 am, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fester wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fston...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Libs love to find broad rights, hidden in the penumbras and under the
cushions of their favorite Constitutional Amendments. But when it comes to
the 2nd, they tell us that it means the precise opposite of what it says,
supposedly allowing government complete and unquestioned authority over our
rights.
Actually, for anyone that actually _READ_ the 2nd Amendment and knows
the history behind it, they would know that the 2nd Amendment is not
about gun rights.
The 2nd Amendment refers to a standing army -- a militia -- being able
to be armed only for militia purposes (the security of a free State).
and what happens any time a militia forms? the government raids it!
Right, because it wasn't formed and regulated BY THAT government. It
was an illegal militia.
such hypocrasy! the revolutionary army wasnt formed and regulated by
the government of england, yet i suppose you supported *their* right
to keep and bear arms against england? or would you prefer that we
were still an english colony?
there is no such thing as a militia in america. there is just
government-run military.
Right, and the right of the military to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.
the amendment does not say this.
You see, the Founders were smarter than most give them credit for.
In the first Amendment, they wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting....
If the Founders had intended the 2nd Amendment to be what gun-rights
advocates say, then they should've wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms.
But they didn't. I wonder why...?
in fact, they did give the right to the *people*.
...of the government-run militia.
the amendment does not say this.
the text states: "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."
the right OF THE PEOPLE
--in a government-regulated militia--
to keep and bear arms. why? so those PEOPLE
can form militias to protect the security of a free state.
And who does the regulating again?
the people themselves. you know, the people who formed militias to
fight the british?
it does not
say that they should join a standing army run by the government who
will issues guns to them.
Then who does the regulating? You?
already answered
it says that they should keep and bear arms
through their own accord so that they can form militias themselves.
It doesn't say that.
the language is plain. the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. what part of that do you not understand?
the founding fathers loathed the idea of a standing army.
Right. So, are you advocating the dismantling of our standing army, or
are you pissing and moaning over the text of the Amendment?
im exposing your stupid lies about what the constitution says. really,
do you think nobody would bother to read it for themselves, and that
theyd just take your word for it?
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007 |
17 Apr 2007 12:29:38 AM |
|
|
snex wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:16 am, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:53 pm, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
Fester wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fston...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9914BF8BB4E7Efreddybear@66.150.105.47...
"Andres64" <andres...@excite.com> wrote in
news:1176762853.222198.209290@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 16, 6:29 pm, "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
In a nation where 91% of adults believe in a god and 78% believe that
the "Prince of Peace" was the son of this god, we got, this morning,
the new deadliest school shooting in US
History:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6560685.stm
Go figure.
Good ol' "Christian" values.
Heh. Gun control is a librul value, and look what good it did.
Libs love to find broad rights, hidden in the penumbras and under the
cushions of their favorite Constitutional Amendments. But when it comes to
the 2nd, they tell us that it means the precise opposite of what it says,
supposedly allowing government complete and unquestioned authority over our
rights.
Actually, for anyone that actually _READ_ the 2nd Amendment and knows
the history behind it, they would know that the 2nd Amendment is not
about gun rights.
The 2nd Amendment refers to a standing army -- a militia -- being able
to be armed only for militia purposes (the security of a free State).
and what happens any time a militia forms? the government raids it!
Right, because it wasn't formed and regulated BY THAT government. It
was an illegal militia.
such hypocrasy! the revolutionary army wasnt formed and regulated by
the government of england, yet i suppose you supported *their* right
to keep and bear arms against england? or would you prefer that we
were still an english colony?
Are we in a war against the governing body of this country?
there is no such thing as a militia in america. there is just
government-run military.
Right, and the right of the military to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.
the amendment does not say this.
The militia isn't the military? So, the words are very similar by
coincidence?
You see, the Founders were smarter than most give them credit for.
In the first Amendment, they wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting....
If the Founders had intended the 2nd Amendment to be what gun-rights
advocates say, then they should've wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms.
But they didn't. I wonder why...?
in fact, they did give the right to the *people*.
...of the government-run militia.
the amendment does not say this.
Then who does the regulating?
the text states: "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."
the right OF THE PEOPLE
--in a government-regulated militia--
to keep and bear arms. why? so those PEOPLE
can form militias to protect the security of a free state.
And who does the regulating again?
the people themselves.
You mean, "We the People"?
you know, the people who formed militias to
fight the british?
Ah, so the government. Glad you agree with me.
it does not
say that they should join a standing army run by the government who
will issues guns to them.
Then who does the regulating? You?
already answered
it says that they should keep and bear arms
through their own accord so that they can form militias themselves.
It doesn't say that.
the language is plain. the right OF THE PEOPLE
--in a well-regulated militia--
to keep and bear arms
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. what part of that do you not understand?
Perhaps it's your attempt at diversion by snipping out the proviso.
the founding fathers loathed the idea of a standing army.
Right. So, are you advocating the dismantling of our standing army, or
are you pissing and moaning over the text of the Amendment?
im exposing your stupid lies about what the constitution says.
And where have I lied?
really,
do you think nobody would bother to read it for themselves, and that
theyd just take your word for it?
No, I *WANT* them to read it for themselves. They will see your
snippage and see you for the liar you are.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
16 Apr 2007 11:32:09 PM |
|
|
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are cutting us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
-Crosby Stills Nash & Young
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 644 days to go.
Reject the Works of Satin!
I am a radical Muslin. Please read my blog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 08:49:33 AM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2007 04:32:09 GMT, in alt.atheism , Lars Eighner
<usenet@larseighner.com> in
<slrnf28jgf.1bof.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com> wrote:
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are cutting us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
-Crosby Stills Nash & Young
I hate it when I screw up the subject line.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
16 Apr 2007 11:38:40 PM |
|
|
On Apr 16, 11:32 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are cutting us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
-Crosby Stills Nash & Young
so much for standing armies being necessary for a free and secure
state.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner>
Countdown: 644 days to go.
Reject the Works of Satin!
I am a radical Muslin. Please read my blog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School |
17 Apr 2007 01:03:44 AM |
|
|
snex wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:32 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are cutting us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
-Crosby Stills Nash & Young
so much for standing armies being necessary for a free and secure
state.
And maniacs shooting up a school is disruptive to the free and secure state?
However, I DO know what is disrputive to the free and secure state:
Invasions of privacy under the cloak of security.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel very secure when some agency
decides to pry into my most personal of e-mails and telephone calls. Do
you?
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 12:16:19 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 1:03 am, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:32 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drummin'.
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it.
Soldiers are cutting us down.
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her and
Found her dead on the ground?
How can you run when you know?
-Crosby Stills Nash & Young
so much for standing armies being necessary for a free and secure
state.
And maniacs shooting up a school is disruptive to the free and secure state?
perhaps those maniacs would be stopped if college students were
allowed to keep and bear arms, so that they might keep a well-
regulated school militia. jebus knows it would beat the local flatfeet
and rent-a-cop security bozos that botched the job.
However, I DO know what is disrputive to the free and secure state:
Invasions of privacy under the cloak of security.
I don't know about you, but I don't feel very secure when some agency
decides to pry into my most personal of e-mails and telephone calls. Do
you?
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 12:26:18 AM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to get a
gun here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 12:29:30 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 12:26 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to get a
gun here.
do you think somebody who is determined to shoot you will be deterred
by lesser crimes of gun ownership?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 12:32:27 AM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176787770.567740.61380@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 17, 12:26 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to get
a
gun here.
do you think somebody who is determined to shoot you will be deterred
by lesser crimes of gun ownership?
If they can't get a gun .. yes.
Anyway .. it works nicely here thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School |
17 Apr 2007 01:37:25 AM |
|
|
snex wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:26 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to get a
gun here.
do you think somebody who is determined to shoot you will be deterred
by lesser crimes of gun ownership?
Let's put it this way, if someone is determined to shoot me, it won't
matter if I have a gun or not. I'll still be just as dead.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 01:58:28 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:yPKdnRAO3IN3wbnbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
snex wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:26 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to get
a
gun here.
do you think somebody who is determined to shoot you will be deterred
by lesser crimes of gun ownership?
Let's put it this way, if someone is determined to shoot me, it won't
matter if I have a gun or not. I'll still be just as dead.
Of course, it will matter if the person who wants to shoot you has a gun or
not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 12:49:53 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 1:37 am, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:26 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to get a
gun here.
do you think somebody who is determined to shoot you will be deterred
by lesser crimes of gun ownership?
Let's put it this way, if someone is determined to shoot me, it won't
matter if I have a gun or not. I'll still be just as dead.
you have a better chance of survival with the gun.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 01:58:55 AM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176788993.112088.271310@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 17, 1:37 am, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:26 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to
get a
gun here.
do you think somebody who is determined to shoot you will be deterred
by lesser crimes of gun ownership?
Let's put it this way, if someone is determined to shoot me, it won't
matter if I have a gun or not. I'll still be just as dead.
you have a better chance of survival with the gun.
You have an even better chance if NEITHER of you has a gun.
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School Shooting: 4/15/2007) |
17 Apr 2007 11:07:37 AM |
|
|
On Apr 17, 1:58 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176788993.112088.271310@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 17, 1:37 am, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:26 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to
get a
gun here.
do you think somebody who is determined to shoot you will be deterred
by lesser crimes of gun ownership?
Let's put it this way, if someone is determined to shoot me, it won't
matter if I have a gun or not. I'll still be just as dead.
you have a better chance of survival with the gun.
You have an even better chance if NEITHER of you has a gun.
but life doesnt work that way. if criminals want guns, criminals will
get guns. meanwhile, law abiding citizens will be stuck with their
thumbs up their asses.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: First US College Shooting, 5/4/1907 (Was: Deadliest US School |
17 Apr 2007 08:42:52 AM |
|
|
snex wrote:
On Apr 17, 1:37 am, DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Apr 17, 12:26 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1176786979.854481.50560@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
absolutely not. i also do not feel very secure being told that i
cannot keep firearms (or other weapons) in my own house and on my
person and defend myself with them if the need should ever arise. what
if you were in a situation like that of these students? would you
prefer to sit there helplessly hoping that you arent his next target,
or would you prefer that somebody have the ability to stop this
madman?
In Australia I feel very secure not having a gun.
And I'd feel more secure knowing that a madman is much less likely to get a
gun here.
do you think somebody who is determined to shoot you will be deterred
by lesser crimes of gun ownership?
Let's put it this way, if someone is determined to shoot me, it won't
matter if I have a gun or not. I'll still be just as dead.
you have a better chance of survival with the gun.
Actually, the gunman could target those that he knows carry guns first
to eliminate the chances that he'll be gunned down.
--
******************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and every age, the priest had *
* been hostile to Liberty." --Thomas Jefferson *
******************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
