| 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: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 04:40:05 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ac1ev0djlqfikpu27crhlnkaqsqm9b40hf@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:25:46 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15rdv0dpcsmhfs9kkgvm2jcc5scp9odrlg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item
present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Heck let's try a couple more of those wonders
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a freedom of speech - of any kind - in
the US these days."
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' freedom of the press - of any kind -
in
the US these days."
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure - of any kind - in the US these days."
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' to be free from quartering troops - of
any kind - in the US these days."
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a trial by jury - of any kind - in the
US these days."
Wonder how many other rights he feels civilians don't actually 'need'?
Can't tell the difference between "guaranteed" and "needs", eh?
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 05:07:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm. That's why I don't think you have one.
--
"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 05:47:00 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4k8gv0tmj9d3nuqeifnj25b3vnubif2lp6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
Cite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Krulick" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 09:47:29 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4k8gv0tmj9d3nuqeifnj25b3vnubif2lp6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
Cite.
Guffaw! Snout doesn't provide relevant cites, but everyone else
must for HIM! Of course, this has been posted hundreds of times,
but he ignores it and blithely remains stooooooooooooopid! Watch
him ignore it THIS time, too!:
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
"Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms"
applies only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and
not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no
serious claim to any express constitutional right of an
individual to possess a firearm...
"It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees."
UNITED STATES v. TOT.
No. 7961. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Decided Oct. 28, 1942.
It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this
amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and
those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike
those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of
religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as
a protection for the STATES in the maintenance of their militia
organizations against possible encroachments by the federal
power.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an
individual federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" a
handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right. She is
wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the
states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.
Ed. 615 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23
L.Ed. 588 (p.124) (1876). Moreover, even as against federal
regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual
right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court
held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a
sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had
not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178,
59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower
federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
preserves a collective, rather than individual, right.
CASES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3756. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 27, 1942.
The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the
right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not
follow from this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under
the Second Amendment which reads "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 to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon
the people by the federal constitution.
Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon
local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment
being to prevent the federal government and the federal
government only from infringing that right... the limitation
imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was
not absolute and this dictum received the sanction of the court
in the recent case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,
182, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206.
QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
Nos. 82-1045, 82-1076 and 82-1132.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Decided Dec. 6, 1982. As Amended Dec. 10, 1982.
"Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the
right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second
amendment. Because the second amendment is not applicable to
Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals
is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No.
81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
"We agree with the district court that the right to keep and
bear arms in Illinois is so limited by the police power that
a ban on handguns does not violate that right... the framers...
envisioned that local governments might exercise their police
power to restrict, or prohibit, the right to keep and bear
handguns."
"There is no right under the Illinois Constitution to possess a
handgun, nor does the state have an overriding state interest in
gun control which requires it to retain exclusive control in
order to prevent home rule units from adopting conflicting
enactments."
USA v BAER
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000)
http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/001102.html
The Supreme Court has long held that "the Second Amendment
guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not
have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Lewis v. United
States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (quoting United States v.
Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)). The Court in Lewis concluded
that federal legislation regulating the receipt and possession
of firearms by felons "do[es] not trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties," including those
guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Id. In light of this
authority, the circuits have consistently upheld the
constitutionality of federal weapons regulations like section
922(g) absent evidence that they in any way affect the
maintenance of a well regulated militia. See, e.g., Love v.
Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Wright,
117 F.3d at 1271-74 (upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which bars
possession of machine gun, against Second Amendment challenge);
United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1018-1020 (same); United
States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding
Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1242, against Second
Amendment challenge); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387
(10th Cir. 1977) (upholding 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), which bars
possession of unregistered machine gun, against Second Amendment
challenge).
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
Hale introduced no evidence and made no claim of even the most
tenuous relationship between his possession of the weapons and
the preservation of a well regulated militia. Citing dicta from
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct.
1056, 1060, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), Hale argues that the Second
Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or
collective entities like militias.
This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the
Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from
regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would
interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia.
See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818; United States v.
Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926,
98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521(1978); Cody, 460 F.2d 34.
Whether the "right to bear arms" for militia purposes is
"individual" or "collective" in nature is irrelevant where, as
here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the
preservation or efficiency of a militia.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 12:14:52 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't. They have ruled that you don't have Second Amendment
protection on that weapon unless the weapons bears some efficacy for use
in a militia. Not the same thing.
--
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: "Steve Krulick" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 09:53:16 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
They have ruled that you don't have Second Amendment
protection on that weapon unless the weapons bears some efficacy for use
in a militia.
No, the military utility of a class of weapon is NOT what is at
issue, but whether the OWNER'S possession or use of HIS weapon
has a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency
of a well regulated militia!
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second
Amendment protects the individual possession of military
weapons.
In Miller, the Court simply recognized this historical
residue. The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing
that the possession of a certain weapon has "some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia," the Second Amendment does not guarantee
the right to possess the weapon.
This court has on at least three occasions, citing and
relying on Miller, denied challenges to the constitutionality of
arms control legislation, because there was no evidence of a
reasonable relationship to the maintenance of a militia.
It is not sufficient to prove that the weapon in question
was susceptible to military use. Indeed, as recognized in Cases,
most any lethal weapon has a potential military use. Rather, the
claimant of Second Amendment protection must prove that his or
her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well
regulated militia. Where such a claimant presented no evidence
either that he was a member of a military organization or that
his use of the weapon was "in preparation for a military
career", the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of
the weapon."
Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any
individual's possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably
related to a well regulated militia." "Technical" membership in
a state militia (e.g., membership in an "unorganized" state
militia) or membership in a non-governmental military
organization is not sufficient to satisfy the "reasonable
relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a
hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient.
See Warin, 530 F.2d 103.
Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that
Hale's possession of the weapons in question was not reasonably
related to the preservation of a well regulated militia. The
allegation by Hale that these weapons are susceptible to
military use is insufficient to establish such a relationship.
Hale introduced no evidence and made no claim of even the most
tenuous relationship between his possession of the weapons and
the preservation of a well regulated militia.
Not the same thing.
Just so! NOT the same thing as what YOU claimed!:
UNITED STATES v. Francis J. WARIN.
No. 75-1734. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 4, 1976.
"Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms"
applies only to the RIGHT OF THE STATE to maintain a militia and
not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no
serious claim to any express constitutional right of an
individual to possess a firearm...
"It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with
every argument made by defendant and amicus curiae, Second
Amendment Foundation, all of which are based on the erroneous
supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the
RIGHTS of individuals rather than THOSE OF THE STATES or that
defendant's automatic membership in the "sedentary militia" of
Ohio brings him within the reach of its guarantees."
UNITED STATES v. TOT.
No. 7961. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Decided Oct. 28, 1942.
It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this
amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and
those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike
those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of
religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as
a protection for the STATES in the maintenance of their militia
organizations against possible encroachments by the federal
power.
HICKMAN v. BLOCK No. 94-55836. United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 5, 1996.
We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second
Amendment is a RIGHT held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.
Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court
found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to
protect the RIGHT OF THE STATES to keep and maintain armed
militia.
Because the Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT OF THE STATES
to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the
position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.
The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the
Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that
the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its
first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated
militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in
furtherance of state security that "the right of the people
to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.
LOVE v. PEPERSACK No. 94-1582. United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 3, 1995.
Citing law review articles, Love argues that she has an
individual federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" a
handgun, and Maryland may not infringe upon this right. She is
wrong on both counts. The Second Amendment does not apply to the
states. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.
Ed. 615 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23
L.Ed. 588 (p.124) (1876). Moreover, even as against federal
regulation, the amendment does not confer an absolute individual
right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court
held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a
sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had
not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178,
59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower
federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment
preserves a collective, rather than individual, right.
CASES v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3756. Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Nov. 27, 1942.
The Federal Firearms Act undoubtedly curtails to some extent the
right of individuals to keep and bear arms but it does not
follow from this as a necessary consequence that it is bad under
the Second Amendment which reads "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 to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon
the people by the federal constitution.
Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon
local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment
being to prevent the federal government and the federal
government only from infringing that right... the limitation
imposed upon the federal government by the Second Amendment was
not absolute and this dictum received the sanction of the court
in the recent case of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,
182, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206.
QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
Nos. 82-1045, 82-1076 and 82-1132.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Decided Dec. 6, 1982. As Amended Dec. 10, 1982.
"Under the controlling authority of Miller we conclude that the
right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second
amendment. Because the second amendment is not applicable to
Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals
is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No.
81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
"We agree with the district court that the right to keep and
bear arms in Illinois is so limited by the police power that
a ban on handguns does not violate that right... the framers...
envisioned that local governments might exercise their police
power to restrict, or prohibit, the right to keep and bear
handguns."
"There is no right under the Illinois Constitution to possess a
handgun, nor does the state have an overriding state interest in
gun control which requires it to retain exclusive control in
order to prevent home rule units from adopting conflicting
enactments."
USA v BAER
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
235 F.3d 561, 564 (10th Cir. 2000)
http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/001102.html
The Supreme Court has long held that "the Second Amendment
guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not
have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia.'" Lewis v. United
States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (quoting United States v.
Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939)). The Court in Lewis concluded
that federal legislation regulating the receipt and possession
of firearms by felons "do[es] not trench upon any
constitutionally protected liberties," including those
guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Id. In light of this
authority, the circuits have consistently upheld the
constitutionality of federal weapons regulations like section
922(g) absent evidence that they in any way affect the
maintenance of a well regulated militia. See, e.g., Love v.
Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Wright,
117 F.3d at 1271-74 (upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which bars
possession of machine gun, against Second Amendment challenge);
United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1018-1020 (same); United
States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1988) (upholding
Switchblade Knife Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1242, against Second
Amendment challenge); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387
(10th Cir. 1977) (upholding 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), which bars
possession of unregistered machine gun, against Second Amendment
challenge).
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
Hale introduced no evidence and made no claim of even the most
tenuous relationship between his possession of the weapons and
the preservation of a well regulated militia. Citing dicta from
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265, 110 S.Ct.
1056, 1060, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990), Hale argues that the Second
Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or
collective entities like militias.
This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the
Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from
regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would
interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia.
See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818; United States v.
Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926,
98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521(1978); Cody, 460 F.2d 34.
Whether the "right to bear arms" for militia purposes is
"individual" or "collective" in nature is irrelevant where, as
here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the
preservation or efficiency of a militia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 10:34:54 AM |
|
|
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 10:45:14 AM |
|
|
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Wait for it!
He's gonna soon say that that only applies to the National Guard!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 08:45:21 PM |
|
|
"AH#49 writes" <GRONK@BCComics.net> wrote in message
news:41FA6C1A.A8DB773F@BCComics.net...
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that
unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally
possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Wait for it!
He's gonna soon say that that only applies to the National Guard!
But of course. He's caught in an "Isham Loop" from which there is no escape.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 10:07:50 AM |
|
|
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Not all of us. I am too old except as a volunteer.
--
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: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 11:21:25 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EPWdnc9PlKBJKWbcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that
unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Not all of us. I am too old except as a volunteer.
There it is. You're the militia, too. Besides, you and your weapons can
serve to support the militia, can't they?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
30 Jan 2005 11:40:16 AM |
|
|
Yardpilot wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EPWdnc9PlKBJKWbcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that
unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Not all of us. I am too old except as a volunteer.
There it is. You're the militia, too. Besides, you and your weapons can
serve to support the militia, can't they?
When do I leave, sir...... ;)
--
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: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
30 Jan 2005 01:29:47 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tMqdnR2CT5ljhmDcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EPWdnc9PlKBJKWbcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that
unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally
possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Not all of us. I am too old except as a volunteer.
There it is. You're the militia, too. Besides, you and your weapons can
serve to support the militia, can't they?
When do I leave, sir...... ;)
We're rounding up the horses right now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
31 Jan 2005 09:53:12 AM |
|
|
Yardpilot wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tMqdnR2CT5ljhmDcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EPWdnc9PlKBJKWbcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that
unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally
possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Not all of us. I am too old except as a volunteer.
There it is. You're the militia, too. Besides, you and your weapons can
serve to support the militia, can't they?
When do I leave, sir...... ;)
We're rounding up the horses right now.
Alright, I am a new rider so I would like one that ain't been ridden
before. That way we can start out even....
--
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: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
01 Feb 2005 08:15:35 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vtadnXa81dj4yWPcRVn-hg@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tMqdnR2CT5ljhmDcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EPWdnc9PlKBJKWbcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that
unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally
possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Not all of us. I am too old except as a volunteer.
There it is. You're the militia, too. Besides, you and your weapons can
serve to support the militia, can't they?
When do I leave, sir...... ;)
We're rounding up the horses right now.
Alright, I am a new rider so I would like one that ain't been ridden
before. That way we can start out even....
My neighbor is a genuine certified horse-raising lady. I relayed your
comment to her, and I thought she was going to choke with laughter. Good
one, RD!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 10:31:03 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EPWdnc9PlKBJKWbcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Not all of us. I am too old except as a volunteer.
True, but such volunteers can free up manpower that would otherwise be
wasted on administrative details and rear area logistics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
30 Jan 2005 11:39:43 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EPWdnc9PlKBJKWbcRVn-rw@comcast.com...
Yardpilot wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F9B93D.212F834A@Krulick.com...
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Since we're all the militia....
Not all of us. I am too old except as a volunteer.
True, but such volunteers can free up manpower that would otherwise be
wasted on administrative details and rear area logistics.
Damn, boy, if I get called up, I want to be where the shooting is.
Trying to take away my fun...... ;)
--
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 |
28 Jan 2005 10:56:06 AM |
|
|
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
Well, that certainly seems your position. You seem to feel that unless
people have a 'need' you recognize it isn't guaranteed.
No, the courts have ruled that you have no right to personally possess
a firearm.
No, they haven't.
Yes they have. They've said there is NO 2nd Amen right to own
and carry weapons independent of militia service.
Not the same thing, Steve. Cruikshank says that the right to keep and
bear arms is not granted by the Constitution and is not reliant on it
for its existence. You are talking about the Second Amendment
protection of that right.
They have ruled that you don't have Second Amendment
protection on that weapon unless the weapons bears some efficacy for use
in a militia.
No, the military utility of a class of weapon is NOT what is at
issue, but whether the OWNER'S possession or use of HIS weapon
has a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency
of a well regulated militia!
*****. That is not what Miller said.
UNITED STATES v. HALE.
No. 91-3830. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 1992.
Not a USSC case
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 02:39:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:51:42 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:25:46 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:15rdv0dpcsmhfs9kkgvm2jcc5scp9odrlg@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Heck let's try a couple more of those wonders
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a freedom of speech - of any kind - in
the US these days."
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' freedom of the press - of any kind - in
the US these days."
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure - of any kind - in the US these days."
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' to be free from quartering troops - of
any kind - in the US these days."
"VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a trial by jury - of any kind - in the
US these days."
Wonder how many other rights he feels civilians don't actually 'need'?
Can't tell the difference between "guaranteed" and "needs", eh?
Are you ahead of Daniel in school, or behind him?
(laughter)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 08:50:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Nothing 'justifies' owning one, though. 'Justification' isn't the
issue.
--
"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: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 04:08:02 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ga1ev0h6s7jv2sm7m8ldktu6kl2jh0hqq9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Nothing 'justifies' owning one, though.
Because there is no need to justify owning one.
'Justification' isn't the
issue.
Correct. It is none of your business.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 04:39:01 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ga1ev0h6s7jv2sm7m8ldktu6kl2jh0hqq9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Nothing 'justifies' owning one, though.
Sure it does. I want it. Good enough for me, and it should be good enough
for everyone else unless you can prove some reason why I should not be able
to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 05:06:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:39:01 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ga1ev0h6s7jv2sm7m8ldktu6kl2jh0hqq9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Nothing 'justifies' owning one, though.
Sure it does. I want it. Good enough for me
But not justification.
and it s | | | |
