| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 12:13:51 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:41:09 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:petdv050abv4h4g19lfmeckddud8hrk97p@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:27:13 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:22:14 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
All handguns should be banned.
Criminals would just LOVE that.
It would make it so much easier on the police, though.
It would lead to more problems for them.
How?
They would lose theirs too.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 12:13:34 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:27:13 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:22:14 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
All handguns should be banned.
Criminals would just LOVE that.
It would make it so much easier on the police, though.
"You have a handgun? Off to jail with you."
Including them.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 04:23:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:34 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:27:13 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:22:14 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
All handguns should be banned.
Criminals would just LOVE that.
It would make it so much easier on the police, though.
"You have a handgun? Off to jail with you."
Including them.
Unless the law specifically exempted the police. And there's no
federal law prohibiting the state from passing such laws.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 05:01:00 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:526gv0hj7nutj9m4vqqdevd42kppeu080p@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:34 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:27:13 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:22:14 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
All handguns should be banned.
Criminals would just LOVE that.
It would make it so much easier on the police, though.
"You have a handgun? Off to jail with you."
Including them.
Unless the law specifically exempted the police. And there's no
federal law prohibiting the state from passing such laws.
But there is Constitutional law.
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute
the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well
as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General
Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying
the constitutional provision in question out of view [the Second Amendment]
prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the
United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public
security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General
Government."
Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)
The federal government has the power to call upon the militia, as such you
can't disarm the people.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:04:28 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:34 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:27:13 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:22:14 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
All handguns should be banned.
Criminals would just LOVE that.
It would make it so much easier on the police, though.
"You have a handgun? Off to jail with you."
Including them.
Unless the law specifically exempted the police.
Which would make it a bad law, IMHO. Do you have so much faith in the
police that you think none of them would ever go bad?
And there's no
federal law prohibiting the state from passing such laws.
There is a Supreme Court decision that says the states cannot prohibit
the people from keeping and bearing arms. See Presser.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 07:12:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:44:46 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:27:13 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:22:14 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
All handguns should be banned.
Criminals would just LOVE that.
It would make it so much easier on the police, though.
"You have a handgun?
*BAM!*
Off to jail with you."
After a lengthy murder trial.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:37:44 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Many people hunt with handguns. That means that most of my guns remain
pretty sane according to you.
If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police? Do think
that they are all honest and will never cause harm to others that is
unlawful?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:21:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:07:48 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:sp88v0p8d40u43orofcgkn38vh8hghu22h@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
Cite?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:10:30 PM |
|
|
In article <8Y2dnQF60szVs2ncRVn-pQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:sp88v0p8d40u43orofcgkn38vh8hghu22h@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
Cite?
That amendment between the first and the third.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:36:02 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051510304109%spam@aol.com...
In article <8Y2dnQF60szVs2ncRVn-pQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:sp88v0p8d40u43orofcgkn38vh8hghu22h@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
Cite?
That amendment between the first and the third.
Doesn't say anything about an exception for the military and the police.
Indeed it doesn't even talk about the military or the police.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:07:12 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
State where the US Constitution says that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:07:07 PM |
|
|
In article <41F42E20.72BFA902@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
State where the US Constitution says that.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Republicans...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:32:10 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051507071912%spam@aol.com...
In article <41F42E20.72BFA902@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
State where the US Constitution says that.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Republicans...
I see no exception for military and police. Indeed the words military and
police aren't even found in the 2nd Amendment.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 02:06:19 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <41F42E20.72BFA902@BCComics.net>, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
State where the US Constitution says that.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Republicans...
The Second Amendment never mentions the police or any law enforcement.
It mentions the militia as there to protect the free state and it
mentions a little something called the right of the people to keep and
bear arms.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 06:51:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:07:12 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
State where the US Constitution says that.
Try the second amendment.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:32:38 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0lh8v05tqnisi1180l26tcnrt7e496l3ha@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:07:12 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
State where the US Constitution says that.
Try the second amendment.
He can try it.....but it's not going to say that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 10:37:35 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:07:12 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
State where the US Constitution says that.
Try the second amendment.
I guess you are yet another one that doesn't understand it either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 02:07:18 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:07:12 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
State where the US Constitution says that.
Try the second amendment.
Just where in there? It is a short amendment.....you should have no
problem pointing the particular passages you are referring to.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 02:05:03 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:37:44 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Why do you make an exception for the military and the police?
The Constitution does, and who am I to gainsay the founders?
It does? Just where are the police mentioned in the Constitution?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 06:21:28 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:12:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Hast thou read the 2nd Amendment? I also advise you understand what
"regulated" meant in the 18th century.
And, of course, if we ban all guns not used for hunting crime will
just drop like dead weight.
If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 07:43:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:21:28 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:12:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Hast thou read the 2nd Amendment?
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
I also advise you understand what "regulated" meant in the 18th century.
It's what the SCOTUS thinks it means in the 21st that matters. Wait
until you finish your Government 101 class.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 12:13:06 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:21:28 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:12:34 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Hast thou read the 2nd Amendment?
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
Since that is all males between the ages of 17 and 45 that would be
anyone trying to take guns away from those people.
I also advise you understand what "regulated" meant in the 18th century.
It's what the SCOTUS thinks it means in the 21st that matters. Wait
until you finish your Government 101 class.
That's true. However, SCOTUS has not made any decisions on the right to
keep and bear arms in the 21st century.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 04:23:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:06 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
Since that is all males between the ages of 17 and 45
Who are members of the National Guard.
that would be anyone trying to take guns away from those people.
Only if they were the guns provided by the militia. The courts have
consistently held that personal possession of firearms has nothing to
do with the second.
I also advise you understand what "regulated" meant in the 18th century.
It's what the SCOTUS thinks it means in the 21st that matters. Wait
until you finish your Government 101 class.
That's true. However, SCOTUS has not made any decisions on the right to
keep and bear arms in the 21st century.
The decisions made in the 20th (Miller in SC, Hale in the 8th) support
that the second doesn't guarantee the right to personally possess
military type firearms.
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 04:59:07 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:lt5gv09rl3ld7kna3mkikpqhih32gtfkuh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:06 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
Since that is all males between the ages of 17 and 45
Who are members of the National Guard.
Really? Every able-bodied males between 17 and 45 is in the National Guard?
Why do they need recruitment then?
Or is this simply a demonstration of your inability to read and comprehend
the law?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 07:29:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:59:07 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:lt5gv09rl3ld7kna3mkikpqhih32gtfkuh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:06 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
Since that is all males between the ages of 17 and 45
Who are members of the National Guard.
Really? Every able-bodied males between 17 and 45 is in the National Guard?
No, ... every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 WHO IS a
member of the National guard ...
Reading it your way every female citizen is a member of the NG.
And we can't send the troops out until Granny finds her crutches.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 08:19:21 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:jtggv0dh9fiecoctnhdou30l34gdr1h493@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:59:07 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:lt5gv09rl3ld7kna3mkikpqhih32gtfkuh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:06 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
Since that is all males between the ages of 17 and 45
Who are members of the National Guard.
Really? Every able-bodied males between 17 and 45 is in the National
Guard?
No, ... every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 WHO IS a
member of the National guard ...
Sorry, but only females in the militia of the United States have to be in
the National Guard.
I accept your admission you are unable to read and understand a simple law.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:01:53 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:59:07 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:lt5gv09rl3ld7kna3mkikpqhih32gtfkuh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:06 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
Since that is all males between the ages of 17 and 45
Who are members of the National Guard.
Really? Every able-bodied males between 17 and 45 is in the National Guard?
No, ... every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 WHO IS a
member of the National guard ...
Perhaps you should read the US Code before you make yourself a bigger
ignoramus. It is 10 USC 311 and the URL was provided to you.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:09:52 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:59:07 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:lt5gv09rl3ld7kna3mkikpqhih32gtfkuh@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:06 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
Since that is all males between the ages of 17 and 45
Who are members of the National Guard.
Really? Every able-bodied males between 17 and 45 is in the National Guard?
No, ... every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 WHO IS a
member of the National guard ...
Perhaps you should read the US Code before you make yourself a bigger
ignoramus. It is 10 USC 311 and the URL was provided to you.
That moron can't comprehend, let alone read.
Not to fret.
Shaun Cole will set him straight!
(well after...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:00:15 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:13:06 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Who's trying to disarm the militia?
Since that is all males between the ages of 17 and 45
Who are members of the National Guard.
Nope. Learn to read. Try 10 USC 311. Here is the URL:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311
that would be anyone trying to take guns away from those people.
Only if they were the guns provided by the militia.
Huh? Re read Miller.
The courts have
consistently held that personal possession of firearms has nothing to
do with the second.
No, they haven't. The Miller Court (where all this modern
misunderstanding came from) stated that a sawed off shotgun did not have
Second Amendment protections from the registration section of the 1934
NFA and that the Act was not unconstitutional. The courts have not
ruled the right to keep and bear arms by individuals.
I also advise you understand what "regulated" meant in the 18th century.
It's what the SCOTUS thinks it means in the 21st that matters. Wait
until you finish your Government 101 class.
That's true. However, SCOTUS has not made any decisions on the right to
keep and bear arms in the 21st century.
The decisions made in the 20th (Miller in SC, Hale in the 8th) support
that the second doesn't guarantee the right to personally possess
military type firearms.
You are half right. The Second Amendment offers no protection to those
individuals who wish to own military style or type firearms from the
1934 NFA and other limitations. However, the USSC also states that the
right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution
nor is it reliant on the Constitution for its existence. I do believe
that would include the Second Amendment. See US v Cruikshank. They also
said that the states could not ban firearms so as to protect the federal
usage of the militia. See Presser v Illinois.
Hale was a 8th Circuit case, not a USSC one and only gets its opinion
from misstating Miller.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
