| 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 |
23 Jan 2005 11:21:03 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 21 Jan 2005 11:30:04 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
said in alt.atheism:
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of
automatic
pistols and rifles (exception: antiques because of their historical
value), but I also think that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should
remain legal to own. With the exception of ownership of antiques
and
historical pieces, there is no reason that a civilian should own a
functional automatic weapon.
An antique doesn't have to be fully functional to be valuable (as
long
as it's not grossly damaged).
True. However, it is not unusual for antique firearms still be
functional. And functional antique firearms are more valuable than
ones that have fallen into disrepair. What's more, from the
collectors' point of view, it would be a crime against history to
deface or modify an antique gun. It would be like painting swimsuits
on some of Rapheal's paintings.
If a collector had a Tommy Gun in his collection, an exception for
automatic weapons would allow him to keep it in the acquired condition,
while the lack of exception would have him breaking the law. It is not
likely that he would ever use the weapon except in an extreme
emergency, but even ownership could get him into trouble.
Not federally if he has the proper registration and paid the $200 tax.
YMMV by state.
Do you really think that The Spirit of
St. Louis could fly today without a lot of restoration?
An airplane is not the same as a firearm.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as
to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
An excellent quote to show the intolerance of the Catholic church and
many fundamentalists to science and its advancement.
Mark Sebree
--
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 |
22 Jan 2005 05:18:03 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2005 23:48:31 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
said in alt.atheism:
True. However, it is not unusual for antique firearms still be
functional. And functional antique firearms are more valuable than
ones that have fallen into disrepair. What's more, from the
collectors' point of view, it would be a crime against history to
deface or modify an antique gun. It would be like painting swimsuits
on some of Rapheal's paintings.
Removing the equivalent of a firing pin wouldn't be defacing anything.
If a collector had a Tommy Gun in his collection, an exception for
automatic weapons would allow him to keep it in the acquired condition,
while the lack of exception would have him breaking the law. It is not
likely that he would ever use the weapon except in an extreme
emergency
Or someone could steal it and use it? Nah, that NEVER happens.
Do you really think that The Spirit of
St. Louis could fly today without a lot of restoration?
An airplane is not the same as a firearm.
An antique is an antique, unless you plan on using it.
--
"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 |
22 Jan 2005 06:18:20 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ukn5v0h7fbohhivo1dbqoelhhulf23h00c@4ax.com...
On 21 Jan 2005 23:48:31 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
said in alt.atheism:
True. However, it is not unusual for antique firearms still be
functional. And functional antique firearms are more valuable than
ones that have fallen into disrepair. What's more, from the
collectors' point of view, it would be a crime against history to
deface or modify an antique gun. It would be like painting swimsuits
on some of Rapheal's paintings.
Removing the equivalent of a firing pin wouldn't be defacing anything.
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 07:15:55 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
"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: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:11:03 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not be shot"
is not even in question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:21:36 AM |
|
|
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not be shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own a
weapon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:30:38 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own a
weapon.
CITE!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:37:58 AM |
|
|
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:22:19 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050937582590%spam@aol.com...
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's
there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an
automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:31:37 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050937582590%spam@aol.com...
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's
there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is
incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an
automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not
be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 02:10:57 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:PtCdnXfFjo93cW7cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
<snip>
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to
own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a
prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
Well your instructor may know more law than I do, but at least I don't bill
you for my services.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:49:00 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lxTId.159223$Uf.101930@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:PtCdnXfFjo93cW7cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
<snip>
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to
own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I
just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a
prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
Well your instructor may know more law than I do, but at least I don't
bill
you for my services.
:o)
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 02:46:19 PM |
|
|
In article <lxTId.159223$Uf.101930@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:PtCdnXfFjo93cW7cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
<snip>
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to
own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a
prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
Well your instructor may know more law than I do, but at least I don't bill
you for my services.
David
He goes to a junior college and tries to claim that makes him an expert
at every topic that is discussed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:16:52 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051246195010%spam@aol.com...
In article <lxTId.159223$Uf.101930@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:PtCdnXfFjo93cW7cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
<snip>
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right
to
own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I
just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a
prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
Well your instructor may know more law than I do, but at least I don't
bill
you for my services.
David
He goes to a junior college and tries to claim that makes him an expert
at every topic that is discussed.
Well Osprey is not doing bad. He is beating you.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:39:14 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:onVId.159259$Uf.42414@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051246195010%spam@aol.com...
In article <lxTId.159223$Uf.101930@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:PtCdnXfFjo93cW7cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
<snip>
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right
to
own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I
just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a
prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
Well your instructor may know more law than I do, but at least I don't
bill
you for my services.
David
He goes to a junior college and tries to claim that makes him an expert
at every topic that is discussed.
Well Osprey is not doing bad. He is beating you.
David
Isn't that a pity? They make fun of a school? You know it is hard enough
with people who work full time, raise a family..to find time to go to
school. You would think that people would encourage that instead of ad
hominem attack's...it is a pity.
I never claimed to be an expert, he just like to lie for what ever strange
reason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 09:36:08 PM |
|
|
In article <5sSdnbpSl5uVqGncRVn-3A@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:onVId.159259$Uf.42414@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051246195010%spam@aol.com...
In article <lxTId.159223$Uf.101930@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:PtCdnXfFjo93cW7cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
<snip>
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right
to
own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I
just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a
prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
Well your instructor may know more law than I do, but at least I don't
bill
you for my services.
David
He goes to a junior college and tries to claim that makes him an expert
at every topic that is discussed.
Well Osprey is not doing bad. He is beating you.
David
Isn't that a pity?
Look at this pathetic little coward. He is so afraid he can't address
people directly. No wonder he needs a gun to get the mail.
They make fun of a school? You know it is hard enough
with people who work full time, raise a family..to find time to go to
school. You would think that people would encourage that instead of ad
hominem attack's...it is a pity.
I never claimed to be an expert, he just like to lie for what ever strange
reason.
You and Scout are perfect for one another. You both live in denial.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:35:46 PM |
|
|
In article <onVId.159259$Uf.42414@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051246195010%spam@aol.com...
In article <lxTId.159223$Uf.101930@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:PtCdnXfFjo93cW7cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
<snip>
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right
to
own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I
just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a
prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
Well your instructor may know more law than I do, but at least I don't
bill
you for my services.
David
He goes to a junior college and tries to claim that makes him an expert
at every topic that is discussed.
Well Osprey is not doing bad. He is beating you.
He is scared shitless of me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:42:41 PM |
|
|
In article <PtCdnXfFjo93cW7cRVn-pg@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050937582590%spam@aol.com...
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's
there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is
incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an
automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not
be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own
a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I have access to Westlaw, I am going to look up this case as well. I just
got off the phone with one of my instructors who happen to be a prosecuting
attorney in PA, he said basically the same thing you just said.
Stop being a follower.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Krulick" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:51:22 PM |
|
|
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050937582590%spam@aol.com...
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
That's not refutation, Lint; it's gainsaying.
Read the decision:
Alas, you can "read" it all you want, but your past comments
prove you simply don't COMPREHEND what you read!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
Why? What have you proven? You've pointed him to a ruling that
doesn't say what YOU claim!
Where did they say that Miller's POSSESSION OR USE of HIS weapon
WAS protected? NOWHERE!
The SCotUS clearly said that since Miller and Layton's
possession or use of the weapon in question (NOT the TYPE of
weapon in the abstract!) had no "reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," which
would be hard to have, as they were NOT in the NG at the time,
being professional bootleggers and all, THEY had no 2nd Amen
protection against being prosecuted under NFA34.
The only issue before the court was to address the direct appeal
of the US govt to the lower court's "duly interposed demurrer
[which] alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue
measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved for the
States [10th Amen], and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it
offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the
Constitution."!!!
To that, they decisively concluded, based on a host of
precedents: "the objection that the Act usurps police power
reserved to the States is plainly untenable." So the argument
that the 10th Amen was violated was immediately rejected. THEN
they looked at the 2nd Amen and said: "With obvious purpose to
assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of
such forces [the well regulated militia referred to in the
previous sentences] the declaration and guarantee of the Second
Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with
that end in view."
After going through a LONG history of the militia, where they
described the nature OF the militia: "A body of citizens
enrolled for military discipline... acting in concert
for the common defense,"
they pointed out that there was no evidence that Miller's
possession or use of HIS weapon had "some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia" and thus had NOTHING to do with the purpose,
and thus the guarantee, of the 2nd Amen.
So, after then dispatching the irrelevance of state laws: "Most
if not all the States have adopted provisions touching the right
to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in
these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions
concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them
seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of
the court below." they concluded, "We are unable to accept the
conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must
be reversed." And since the lower court said the NFA34 violated
the 2nd and 10th Amen, to NOT accept that conclusion and REVERSE
the judgment means the SCotUS RULED that the NFA34 WAS not in
violation of the Const! End of lower court's conclusion that the
NFA34 was unconstitutional!
"The District Court HELD that section eleven of the Act VIOLATED
the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and
quashed the indictment... We are unable to accept the CONCLUSION
[what they HELD] of the court... and the challenged JUDGMENT
must be REVERSED."
Miller was small potatoes, a mere blip to the point of the case.
The govt's concern was the constitutionality of NFA34. The
SCotUS upheld the constitutionality of the law, and in passing,
reminded everyone what the courts had been routinely saying for
decades about the purpose and meaning of "the right to bear
arms," that it was all about the militia and the maintenance of
the militia.
Once the NFA34 was found constitutional, all weapons classes
described in it were confirmed as NOT having 2nd Amen
protection, whether they had military utility or not! Machine
guns have military utility, right? Anyone deny that? So, does
that mean that proof of their use in the military would have
made the NFA34 unconstitutional? Why didn't THAT come up?
Because CLASS of weapons wasn't the issue! What WAS the issue
was whether the NFA34 violated the 10th and 2nd Amens, and it
didn't violate the 2nd because "With obvious purpose to assure
the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such
forces [the well regulated militia referred to in the previous
sentences] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in
view." Any possession or use that DIDN't "assure the
continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such
forces" was NOT protected. A bootlegger's shotgun (or pistol, or
knife, or truck --also "ordinary military equipment!) simply
didn't "contribute to the common defense" and thus didn't have
2nd Amen protection!
I ask you to consider the summary argument presented by the
solicitor general:
summary of argument
"The Second Amendment does not grant to the people the right to
keep and bear arms, but merely recognizes the prior existence of
that right and prohibits its infringement by Congress. It cannot
be doubted that the carrying of weapons without lawful occasion
or excuse was always a crime under the common law of England and
of this country. In both countries the right to keep and bear
arms has been generally restricted to the keeping and bearing of
arms by the people collectively for their common defense and
security. Indeed, the very language of the Second Amendment
discloses that this right has reference only to the keeping and
bearing of arms by the people as members of the state militia or
other similar military organization provided for by law. The
"arms" referred to in the Second Amendment are, moreover, those
which ordinarily are used for military or public defense
purposes, and the cases unanimously hold that weapons peculiarly
adaptable to use by criminals are not within the protection of
the Amendment. The firearms referred to in the National Firearms
Act, i.e., sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles, and machine
guns, clearly have no legitimate use in the hands of private
individuals, but, on the contrary, frequently constitute the
arsenal of the gangster and the desperado. Section 11, upon
which the indictment was based, places restrictions upon the
transportation in interstate commerce of weapons of this
character only, and clearly, therefore, constitutes no
infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms,"
as that term is used in the Second Amendment."
The SCotUS apparently agreed and reversed the lower court's
conclusion. Miller himself is not the issue.
Pretty simple and straightforward to anyone but a hoplophile in
denial. NOTHING about individuals "owning guns" for any purpose
independent of actual militia service.
David
Ignorant crank.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 02:15:36 PM |
|
|
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F3F440.66524DFD@Krulick.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050937582590%spam@aol.com...
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's
there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is
incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an
automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to
"not be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to
own a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
That's not refutation, Lint; it's gainsaying.
Read the decision:
Alas, you can "read" it all you want, but your past comments
prove you simply don't COMPREHEND what you read!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
Why? What have you proven? You've pointed him to a ruling that
doesn't say what YOU claim!
Where did they say that Miller's POSSESSION OR USE of HIS weapon
WAS protected? NOWHERE!
Mr. Barnes' claim was the Supreme Court ruled that right to own a weapon
existed. I provided Mr. Barnes with a cite for Miller and he has yet
provide evidence for t his claim. As for Mr. Krulick, I don't think he has
ever read Miller.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:50:05 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IBTId.159225$Uf.139250@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F3F440.66524DFD@Krulick.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050937582590%spam@aol.com...
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's
there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is
incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an
automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to
"not be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to
own a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
That's not refutation, Lint; it's gainsaying.
Read the decision:
Alas, you can "read" it all you want, but your past comments
prove you simply don't COMPREHEND what you read!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
Why? What have you proven? You've pointed him to a ruling that
doesn't say what YOU claim!
Where did they say that Miller's POSSESSION OR USE of HIS weapon
WAS protected? NOWHERE!
Mr. Barnes' claim was the Supreme Court ruled that right to own a weapon
existed. I provided Mr. Barnes with a cite for Miller and he has yet
provide evidence for t his claim. As for Mr. Krulick, I don't think he
has
ever read Miller.
I wouldn't worry about Barnes, he makes tons of claims and never backs them
up.
He isn't worth the time.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:51:12 PM |
|
|
In article <2-mdnZot8u0VhmncRVn-oQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IBTId.159225$Uf.139250@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F3F440.66524DFD@Krulick.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050937582590%spam@aol.com...
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in
alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's
there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is
incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an
automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to
"not be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to
own a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
That's not refutation, Lint; it's gainsaying.
Read the decision:
Alas, you can "read" it all you want, but your past comments
prove you simply don't COMPREHEND what you read!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
Why? What have you proven? You've pointed him to a ruling that
doesn't say what YOU claim!
Where did they say that Miller's POSSESSION OR USE of HIS weapon
WAS protected? NOWHERE!
Mr. Barnes' claim was the Supreme Court ruled that right to own a weapon
existed.
I never said that.
I provided Mr. Barnes with a cite for Miller and he has yet
provide evidence for t his claim. As for Mr. Krulick, I don't think he
has
ever read Miller.
I wouldn't worry about Barnes, he makes tons of claims and never backs them
up.
I proved that you were disciplined for dereliction of duty.
He isn't worth the time.
But still you follow me around.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Krulick" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 06:55:00 PM |
|
|
David Lentz wrote:
"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F3F440.66524DFD@Krulick.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050937582590%spam@aol.com...
In article <kL2dnRavUr7eQm7cRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050921363696%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7mqqtm7ndn74@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
--
Well until a bullet is fired in your direction, your right to "not be
shot"
is not even in question.
The United States Supreme Court says you don't have the right to own a
weapon.
CITE!
United States v. Miller 307 u.s. 174 (1939)
Bull
That's not refutation, Lint; it's gainsaying.
Read the decision:
Alas, you can "read" it all you want, but your past comments
prove you simply don't COMPREHEND what you read!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
Why? What have you proven? You've pointed him to a ruling that
doesn't say what YOU claim!
Where did they say that Miller's POSSESSION OR USE of HIS weapon
WAS protected? NOWHERE!
Notice that Lying Lint side-steps this. And then snips away the
proof of his further ignorance:
The SCotUS clearly said that since Miller and Layton's
possession or use of the weapon in question (NOT the TYPE of
weapon in the abstract!) had no "reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," which
would be hard to have, as they were NOT in the NG at the time,
being professional bootleggers and all, THEY had no 2nd Amen
protection against being prosecuted under NFA34.
The only issue before the court was to address the direct appeal
of the US govt to the lower court's "duly interposed demurrer
[which] alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue
measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved for the
States [10th Amen], and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it
offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the
Constitution."!!!
To that, they decisively concluded, based on a host of
precedents: "the objection that the Act usurps police power
reserved to the States is plainly untenable." So the argument
that the 10th Amen was violated was immediately rejected. THEN
they looked at the 2nd Amen and said: "With obvious purpose to
assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of
such forces [the well regulated militia referred to in the
previous sentences] the declaration and guarantee of the Second
Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with
that end in view."
After going through a LONG history of the militia, where they
described the nature OF the militia: "A body of citizens
enrolled for military discipline... acting in concert
for the common defense,"
they pointed out that there was no evidence that Miller's
possession or use of HIS weapon had "some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia" and thus had NOTHING to do with the purpose,
and thus the guarantee, of the 2nd Amen.
So, after then dispatching the irrelevance of state laws: "Most
if not all the States have adopted provisions touching the right
to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in
these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions
concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them
seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of
the court below." they concluded, "We are unable to accept the
conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must
be reversed." And since the lower court said the NFA34 violated
the 2nd and 10th Amen, to NOT accept that conclusion and REVERSE
the judgment means the SCotUS RULED that the NFA34 WAS not in
violation of the Const! End of lower court's conclusion that the
NFA34 was unconstitutional!
"The District Court HELD that section eleven of the Act VIOLATED
the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and
quashed the indictment... We are unable to accept the CONCLUSION
[what they HELD] of the court... and the challenged JUDGMENT
must be REVERSED."
Miller was small potatoes, a mere blip to the point of the case.
The govt's concern was the constitutionality of NFA34. The
SCotUS upheld the constitutionality of the law, and in passing,
reminded everyone what the courts had been routinely saying for
decades about the purpose and meaning of "the right to bear
arms," that it was all about the militia and the maintenance of
the mil | | | | | | | | | | | |
