<1176855088.191627.290220@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented

Gun control was introduced into this country by communist jews

The best argument for gun control is that the gunhuggers are
racists, nutcases, hate groups, and neonazis like you.

The best argument for gun control is that the gunhuggers are
racists, nutcases, hate groups, and neonazis like you.

Interesting to note that all these antisemitic types aren't very bright.

Cause and effect? Or just coincidence?

Good doctoral dissertation subject, at least...

Dan

On 17 Apr 2007 17:11:28 -0700,

topicalconversationandinsi...@hotmail.com wrote:

Gun control was introduced into this country by communist jews
immigrating frrom eastern europe in the early 20th century. Communism
was inventee by jews, and gun control was one of the most important
aspects of communism because communists wanted to destroy the
constitution and take away the freedom of religion, freedom of speech,
every other basic freedom and then put innocent people in gulags (once
the jewish communists became the ruling party that is). Jewish
communists knew that they could not destroy the constitution and take
away freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc
if peoiple had the means andf ability to protect their lives, so gubn
control was essential in making the people helpless to fight back
against communis,. Tghis is why gun control is associated with the
left wing in America, and why leftwingers in this country want to take
away guns.

No, son. Gun control is a misguided effort by well-meaning but
frightened people to make themselves feel safer. They erroneously
believe that by taking guns away from law abiding citizens, they'll
take them out of the hands of criminals and wack jobs as well. They
won't.

And by the way, Skippy. Lots of "lefties" oppose gun control.

On Apr 17, 5:11 pm,

Gun control was introduced into this country by communist jews
immigrating frrom eastern europe in the early 20th century.

Hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment is all about gun
control. So sayeth the court system.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

Some good ones:

United States vs. Miller 1939:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC11

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length"
at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any
part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute to the common defense."

United States v. Cruikshank 1876:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC12

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but
this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,
leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation
by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is
called, in The City of New York v. Miln, the "powers which relate to
merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly
called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the
Constitution of the United States."

There are much, much more. But the Miller case is probably definitive.

- Jordan

On Apr 17, 5:11 pm,

Gun control was introduced into this country by communist jews
immigrating frrom eastern europe in the early 20th century.

Hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment is all about gun
control. So sayeth the court system.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

Some good ones:

United States vs. Miller 1939:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC11

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length"
at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any
part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute to the common defense."

United States v. Cruikshank 1876:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC12

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but
this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,
leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation
by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is
called, in The City of New York v. Miln, the "powers which relate to
merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly
called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the
Constitution of the United States."

There are much, much more. But the Miller case is probably definitive.

- Jordan

Hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment is all about gun
control. So sayeth the court system.

[snip]

There are much, much more. But the Miller case is probably definitive.

- Jordan

On Apr 17, 5:11 pm,

Gun control was introduced into this country by communist jews
immigrating frrom eastern europe in the early 20th century.

Hate to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment is all about gun
control. So sayeth the court system.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

Some good ones:

United States vs. Miller 1939:http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC11

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use
of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length"
at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any
part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could
contribute to the common defense."

United States v. Cruikshank 1876:http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC12

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but
this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be
infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no
other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,
leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation
by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is
called, in The City of New York v. Miln, the "powers which relate to
merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly
called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the
Constitution of the United States."

There are much, much more. But the Miller case is probably definitive.

- Jordan