| 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 |
28 Jan 2005 10:48:45 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:34:51 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:28:58 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:43:50 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:42382ec3.463729156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
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.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads? Flame throwers? Is
there no justification for banning those?
There is no line, not currently. If you feel there needs to be a line may I
suggest a Constitutional Amendment.
So you think until we make an amendment, that nuclear warheads should
be a legal purchase for anyone?
They are, of course, extremely expensive and the crew required to feed
and care for them is an ongoing expense.
Uh, no a kid of 12 can make one with the right materials and access to
the web.
Another person who thinks that the "right materials" are free or cheap.
Must be why nations spend billions trying to develop those weapons.
I didn't say anything about the materials being free or cheap.
You claimed a kid of 12 could make a nuke. To get the materials to do
that he would have to have a very, very large allowance. ;)
They don't have to develop them. They know how to make them. The
materials are tightly controlled (making them expensive) - because get
this - there's a line we draw as to what weapons should be available
to just anyone.
As I noted, they are not cheap or free. ;)
Apparently you don't think there is.
What? A line to prevent who gets them? When have said that? Pay
closer attention to attributions in these NGs.
You are wrong.
Nope.
Kind of makes that war we waged on Iraq seem kind of pointless,
doesn't it?
Yep. However, that is the reason we tend to get together with other
nations to keep certain ones from having them.
So we go to war to keep other nations from having them, but it's A-OK
in your opinion for your neighbor to put one together and keep it in
his garage if he can afford to.
Just when did I say that? Try not to judge people by what biases are in
your own mind.
Then exactly what are you arguing? That there is a reason for some
weapons not to be available to the general public? You appear to be
on both sides of that issue.
It depends on the weapon. I believe that the right to keep and bear
arms (or the Second Amendment) applies to rifles, shotguns and sidearms
or handguns and their modern equivalents. Those are the instruments
that agree with this passage from US v Miller:
"..And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time.."
I don't believe that RKBA for individual citizens applies to nukes or
F-16s. Some others do.
Gee, can you spell hypocrit?
I knew that you could.
Apparently you can't. You forgot an "e".
See, I knew that you could.
Glad you have a sense of humor. ;)
--
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: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 03:02:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:48:45 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:34:51 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:28:58 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:43:50 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:42382ec3.463729156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
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.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads? Flame throwers? Is
there no justification for banning those?
There is no line, not currently. If you feel there needs to be a line may I
suggest a Constitutional Amendment.
So you think until we make an amendment, that nuclear warheads should
be a legal purchase for anyone?
They are, of course, extremely expensive and the crew required to feed
and care for them is an ongoing expense.
Uh, no a kid of 12 can make one with the right materials and access to
the web.
Another person who thinks that the "right materials" are free or cheap.
Must be why nations spend billions trying to develop those weapons.
I didn't say anything about the materials being free or cheap.
You claimed a kid of 12 could make a nuke. To get the materials to do
that he would have to have a very, very large allowance. ;)
Uh, I said with the right materials. I didn't say a normal 12 year
old can afford the right materials.
They don't have to develop them. They know how to make them. The
materials are tightly controlled (making them expensive) - because get
this - there's a line we draw as to what weapons should be available
to just anyone.
As I noted, they are not cheap or free. ;)
Apparently you don't think there is.
What? A line to prevent who gets them? When have said that? Pay
closer attention to attributions in these NGs.
That was the point to the example - that there needs to be a line
drawn as to what weapons are available to the common citizen.
You are wrong.
Nope.
Kind of makes that war we waged on Iraq seem kind of pointless,
doesn't it?
Yep. However, that is the reason we tend to get together with other
nations to keep certain ones from having them.
So we go to war to keep other nations from having them, but it's A-OK
in your opinion for your neighbor to put one together and keep it in
his garage if he can afford to.
Just when did I say that? Try not to judge people by what biases are in
your own mind.
Then exactly what are you arguing? That there is a reason for some
weapons not to be available to the general public? You appear to be
on both sides of that issue.
It depends on the weapon. I believe that the right to keep and bear
arms (or the Second Amendment) applies to rifles, shotguns and sidearms
or handguns and their modern equivalents. Those are the instruments
that agree with this passage from US v Miller:
"..And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time.."
I've always thought that, that amendment was about the ability of the
common citizen to protect himself from a corrupt government if he felt
the need. Unfortunately it's now too easy for the common citizen to
do major damage to his neighbors and it's obvious that many common
citizens are crazy as loons and can't be trusted with major weapons.
The amendment has been conquered by technology and as a society we can
no longer afford that kind of freedom. One way or another, all
current societies draw that line. The question has always been -
where.
I don't believe that RKBA for individual citizens applies to nukes or
F-16s. Some others do.
Gee, can you spell hypocrit?
I knew that you could.
Apparently you can't. You forgot an "e".
See, I knew that you could.
Glad you have a sense of humor. ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 10:18:40 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:48:45 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Another person who thinks that the "right materials" are free or cheap.
Must be why nations spend billions trying to develop those weapons.
I didn't say anything about the materials being free or cheap.
You claimed a kid of 12 could make a nuke. To get the materials to do
that he would have to have a very, very large allowance. ;)
Uh, I said with the right materials. I didn't say a normal 12 year
old can afford the right materials.
Then you agree that the right materials are neither cheap or that easy
to find.
They don't have to develop them. They know how to make them. The
materials are tightly controlled (making them expensive) - because get
this - there's a line we draw as to what weapons should be available
to just anyone.
As I noted, they are not cheap or free. ;)
Apparently you don't think there is.
What? A line to prevent who gets them? When have said that? Pay
closer attention to attributions in these NGs.
That was the point to the example - that there needs to be a line
drawn as to what weapons are available to the common citizen.
Then we will most likely disagree on just where that fine line needs to
be drawn.
You are wrong.
Nope.
Kind of makes that war we waged on Iraq seem kind of pointless,
doesn't it?
Yep. However, that is the reason we tend to get together with other
nations to keep certain ones from having them.
So we go to war to keep other nations from having them, but it's A-OK
in your opinion for your neighbor to put one together and keep it in
his garage if he can afford to.
Just when did I say that? Try not to judge people by what biases are in
your own mind.
Then exactly what are you arguing? That there is a reason for some
weapons not to be available to the general public? You appear to be
on both sides of that issue.
It depends on the weapon. I believe that the right to keep and bear
arms (or the Second Amendment) applies to rifles, shotguns and sidearms
or handguns and their modern equivalents. Those are the instruments
that agree with this passage from US v Miller:
"..And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time.."
I've always thought that, that amendment was about the ability of the
common citizen to protect himself from a corrupt government if he felt
the need.
The amendment is, yes. The right to keep and bear arms, however, has
many uses.
Unfortunately it's now too easy for the common citizen to
do major damage to his neighbors and it's obvious that many common
citizens are crazy as loons and can't be trusted with major weapons.
Then don't give them a nuke or the materials to build one.
The amendment has been conquered by technology and as a society we can
no longer afford that kind of freedom.
Then you have to pass another amendment. Have at it.
One way or another, all
current societies draw that line. The question has always been -
where.
I stated where I think it should be. Where do you think it should be?
--
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 |
26 Jan 2005 08:11:15 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:42382ec3.463729156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
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.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads? Flame throwers? Is
there no justification for banning those?
There is no line, not currently.
Wrong, moron. The NFA34 drew a line, and that has been
constitutional since 1934. Since then, other specific weapons
have been enumerated, and none has been overturned on 2nd Amen
grounds.
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia. This has been confirmed since 1939
by EVERY Appellate Circuit.
It is not enough that any weapon may be shown to have military
utility; everything from entrenching tools and wire to nuclear
warheads can be shown to have military utility. The touchstone
is whether the POSSESSION OR USE by THE OWNER can be shown to
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well
regulated militia; alas, YOU owning a bazooka or a bowie knife
or not owning any has NO bearing on whether the well regulated
militia, today being the National Guard, is preserved or kept
efficient! Since ALL the NG inventory is provided by the feds,
YOUR possession or use of any weapon is simply unnecessary for
the militia to do its business (body armor, notwithstanding; the
right of a NGman to secure his own body armor, since the fed
govt is in violation of the 2nd Amen by FAILING TO PROVIDE FOR
IT, is clearly protected!)
As a later court stated, the pistol found with Miller, clearly a
weapon with military utility, would have been equally NOT
protected by the 2nd Amen. It's not the nature of the generic
weapon class, but whether the SINGLE weapon in question was
related to militia preservation; Miller's wasn't.
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.
If you feel there needs to be a line may I
suggest a Constitutional Amendment.
Why, fool? The 2nd Amen already deals with all that! IF YOU WANT
A FEDERAL "GUN RIGHT" I suggest YOU go for an amendment, as
there is currently NO SUCH federal protection! But, as Lee say,
be careful of what you wish for! That can of worms opens at both
ends!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 04:09:58 PM |
|
|
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7A713.EA8789C@Krulick.com...
Scout wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:42382ec3.463729156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
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.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads? Flame throwers? Is
there no justification for banning those?
There is no line, not currently.
Wrong, moron. The NFA34 drew a line, and that has been
constitutional since 1934. Since then, other specific weapons
have been enumerated, and none has been overturned on 2nd Amen
grounds.
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.
That is a blatant lie and you know it, sk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 07:08:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:09:58 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7A713.EA8789C@Krulick.com...
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.
That is a blatant lie and you know it, sk.
What Miller plainly says in so many words is a lie?
--
"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: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 09:03:00 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7nfgv057cj4s5pbldb9r31ea7c3cm5rm76@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:09:58 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7A713.EA8789C@Krulick.com...
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.
That is a blatant lie and you know it, sk.
What Miller plainly says in so many words is a lie?
No, silly sockpuppet, and don't lie about what I say. Try citing where
Miller says what he says it does.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 08:10:36 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7nfgv057cj4s5pbldb9r31ea7c3cm5rm76@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:09:58 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7A713.EA8789C@Krulick.com...
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.
That is a blatant lie and you know it, sk.
What Miller plainly says in so many words is a lie?
No such words in Miller, so what Steve stated is a lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 08:29:26 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:KqSdnVZPUKc60GXcRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7nfgv057cj4s5pbldb9r31ea7c3cm5rm76@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:09:58 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7A713.EA8789C@Krulick.com...
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.
That is a blatant lie and you know it, sk.
What Miller plainly says in so many words is a lie?
No such words in Miller, so what Steve stated is a lie.
A lie yes, but who is the liar? Is Mr. Krulick the liar or is it the Brady
Center? As for me, I say the latter. What say you?
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 04:44:25 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aV6Kd.3825$8H2.178@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:KqSdnVZPUKc60GXcRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7nfgv057cj4s5pbldb9r31ea7c3cm5rm76@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:09:58 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7A713.EA8789C@Krulick.com...
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.
That is a blatant lie and you know it, sk.
What Miller plainly says in so many words is a lie?
No such words in Miller, so what Steve stated is a lie.
A lie yes, but who is the liar? Is Mr. Krulick the liar or is it the
Brady
Center? As for me, I say the latter. What say you?
Personally I consider them both liars. One for producing the lie, and the
other for knowingly spreading a lie around.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 05:09:29 PM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qt6dnfnhAIdI82TcRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aV6Kd.3825$8H2.178@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:KqSdnVZPUKc60GXcRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7nfgv057cj4s5pbldb9r31ea7c3cm5rm76@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:09:58 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7A713.EA8789C@Krulick.com...
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.
That is a blatant lie and you know it, sk.
What Miller plainly says in so many words is a lie?
No such words in Miller, so what Steve stated is a lie.
A lie yes, but who is the liar? Is Mr. Krulick the liar or is it the
Brady
Center? As for me, I say the latter. What say you?
Personally I consider them both liars. One for producing the lie, and the
other for knowingly spreading a lie around.
Calling a person a liar assumes that they know the truth in the first place.
It would mean that they would be required to be capable of independent
thought and reasoning. In this case, that is not a good assumption.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 05:31:56 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JweKd.3990$8H2.3299@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:qt6dnfnhAIdI82TcRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:aV6Kd.3825$8H2.178@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:KqSdnVZPUKc60GXcRVn-hQ@adelphia.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:7nfgv057cj4s5pbldb9r31ea7c3cm5rm76@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:09:58 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7A713.EA8789C@Krulick.com...
The Miller ruling is straightforward: NO weapon has 2nd Amen
protection where its possession or use BY ITS OWNER does not
have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia.
That is a blatant lie and you know it, sk.
What Miller plainly says in so many words is a lie?
No such words in Miller, so what Steve stated is a lie.
A lie yes, but who is the liar? Is Mr. Krulick the liar or is it the
Brady
Center? As for me, I say the latter. What say you?
Personally I consider them both liars. One for producing the lie, and the
other for knowingly spreading a lie around.
Calling a person a liar assumes that they know the truth in the first
place.
It would mean that they would be required to be capable of independent
thought and reasoning. In this case, that is not a good assumption.
In Steve's case, I reluctantly have to agree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 12:27:08 PM |
|
|
Steve Krulick wrote:
Scout wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:42382ec3.463729156@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
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.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads? Flame throwers? Is
there no justification for banning those?
There is no line, not currently.
Wrong, moron. The NFA34 drew a line, and that has been
constitutional since 1934. Since then, other specific weapons
have been enumerated, and none has been overturned on 2nd Amen
grounds.
Just what line was that, Steve? One can still own fully automatic
weapons, you just have to register 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 04:08:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:27:08 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Steve Krulick wrote:
Wrong, moron. The NFA34 drew a line, and that has been
constitutional since 1934. Since then, other specific weapons
have been enumerated, and none has been overturned on 2nd Amen
grounds.
Just what line was that, Steve? One can still own fully automatic
weapons, you just have to register them.
But you have no Constitutional right to do so. The state can ban
ownership and you'd have no recourse.
--
"Given that you exist and that you are aware of your situation and
surroundings, you will find yourself in a place which has conditions
exactly suitable to your being there. If the environment was
hostile or incompatible in some important way then you would not be
there in the first place. Therefore the suitability and seeming
perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence of anything
more than your existence in it."
- Edward Warren, "The naturalistic fallacy"
(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 04:53:16 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n45gv09901i75glirmf4hi4089voa3tj2n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:27:08 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Steve Krulick wrote:
Wrong, moron. The NFA34 drew a line, and that has been
constitutional since 1934. Since then, other specific weapons
have been enumerated, and none has been overturned on 2nd Amen
grounds.
Just what line was that, Steve? One can still own fully automatic
weapons, you just have to register them.
But you have no Constitutional right to do so. The state can ban
ownership and you'd have no recourse.
Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States
"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)
Even without the 2nd Amendment the States can not disarm the people, because
the government has a rightful call upon those armed people as the basis of
it's militia which it has a just right to utilities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 07:07:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:53:16 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n45gv09901i75glirmf4hi4089voa3tj2n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:27:08 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Just what line was that, Steve? One can still own fully automatic
weapons, you just have to register them.
But you have no Constitutional right to do so. The state can ban
ownership and you'd have no recourse.
Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States
Miller ... Hale ...
Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)
Try something remotely current. In 1886 slavery was barely illegal.
--
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(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 08:10:05 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lfgv0pmpfhhk9o2b2ofulnbh3hoi8ciss@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:53:16 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n45gv09901i75glirmf4hi4089voa3tj2n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:27:08 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Just what line was that, Steve? One can still own fully automatic
weapons, you just have to register them.
But you have no Constitutional right to do so. The state can ban
ownership and you'd have no recourse.
Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States
Miller ... Hale ...
Well, in Miller, they didn't say the people ahve no such Constitutional
right and Hale isn't a Supreme Court case.
Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)
Try something remotely current.
IOW you can't deal with the truth. Further I'm unaware that the 2nd
Amendment has been changed since it was ratified. As such the Court's
comments on it in 1886 are just as valid as anything "current". I will also
note that the Supreme Court has never overturned this ruling which means it
still expresses the stated opinion of the Court.
I accept your admission you can't deal with the facts.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:30:23 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:53:16 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n45gv09901i75glirmf4hi4089voa3tj2n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:27:08 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Just what line was that, Steve? One can still own fully automatic
weapons, you just have to register them.
But you have no Constitutional right to do so. The state can ban
ownership and you'd have no recourse.
Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States
Miller ... Hale ...
Hale is not a USSC case no matter how hard you puff.....
Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)
Try something remotely current. In 1886 slavery was barely illegal.
Let us know just what case overturned it.
--
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 |
27 Jan 2005 11:29:28 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n45gv09901i75glirmf4hi4089voa3tj2n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:27:08 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Steve Krulick wrote:
Wrong, moron. The NFA34 drew a line, and that has been
constitutional since 1934. Since then, other specific weapons
have been enumerated, and none has been overturned on 2nd Amen
grounds.
Just what line was that, Steve? One can still own fully automatic
weapons, you just have to register them.
But you have no Constitutional right to do so. The state can ban
ownership and you'd have no recourse.
Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States
"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)
Even without the 2nd Amendment the States can not disarm the people, because
the government has a rightful call upon those armed people as the basis of
it's militia which it has a just right to utilities.
Unfortunately, the Court feels that a state banning individual
possession of a machine gun (or other specific firearm) is not a
prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms. It is merely a
limitation on that right it does not remove it. See also Morton Grove.
--
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 |
27 Jan 2005 11:27:08 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:27:08 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Steve Krulick wrote:
Wrong, moron. The NFA34 drew a line, and that has been
constitutional since 1934. Since then, other specific weapons
have been enumerated, and none has been overturned on 2nd Amen
grounds.
Just what line was that, Steve? One can still own fully automatic
weapons, you just have to register them.
But you have no Constitutional right to do so.
I have not claimed I do. However, if one is to really read Miller, than
one can conclude that machine guns and other military weapons are
exactly the ones protected.
The state can ban
ownership and you'd have no recourse.
Some states do. But not because of your reading of the Second Amendment.
It is because the Second Amendment has not been incorporated as to
apply to the states.
--
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 12:25:50 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
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.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads? Flame throwers? Is
there no justification for banning those?
If one looks at the USSC case in Miller, there is the following statement:
"And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time."
That would be rifles, shotguns, sidearms (handguns) and their modern
equivalents.
--
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 04:11:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:25:50 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Kate wrote:
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads? Flame throwers? Is
there no justification for banning those?
If one looks at the USSC case in Miller, there is the following statement:
"And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind
in common use at the time."
That would be rifles, shotguns, sidearms (handguns) and their modern
equivalents.
And, if one looks at a later ruling, US v Hale, one finds:
"Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second
Amendment protects the individual possession of military
weapons."
--
"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
.
|
|
| | |
