| 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 |
24 Jan 2005 04:53:03 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PqOdnbaU4sbbsGjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
Scout wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:3J6Jd.1792$PB.898@okepread01...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com:
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
Since when did the left start having a strict interpretation of the
Constitution?
Heck, I would be happier if they could be consistent. First it means one
thing, and only one thing....then it means something else....then it
means yet another thing....
For people that claim to know exactly what it says....they can't seem
able to maintain the same meaning for more than a couple of days, at
best.
Or amendments.
Well the Amendments are now part of the Constitution, but let's not pick
nits :-)
I know, I was only pointing how the term "the people" keeps changing as
one goes through them. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Krulick" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 12:18:01 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PqOdnbaU4sbbsGjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
Scout wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:3J6Jd.1792$PB.898@okepread01...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com:
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
Since when did the left start having a strict interpretation of the
Constitution?
Heck, I would be happier if they could be consistent. First it means one
thing, and only one thing....then it means something else....then it
means yet another thing....
For people that claim to know exactly what it says....they can't seem
able to maintain the same meaning for more than a couple of days, at
best.
Or amendments.
Well the Amendments are now part of the Constitution, but let's not pick
nits :-)
I know, I was only pointing how the term "the people" keeps changing as
one goes through them. ;)
So you blatantly assert, liar. Why don't you give an example of
this?
Then I'll show you me using the SAME definitions and
explanations over YEARS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 02:02:43 PM |
|
|
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PqOdnbaU4sbbsGjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
Scout wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:3J6Jd.1792$PB.898@okepread01...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com:
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
Since when did the left start having a strict interpretation of the
Constitution?
Heck, I would be happier if they could be consistent. First it means one
thing, and only one thing....then it means something else....then it
means yet another thing....
For people that claim to know exactly what it says....they can't seem
able to maintain the same meaning for more than a couple of days, at
best.
Or amendments.
Well the Amendments are now part of the Constitution, but let's not pick
nits :-)
I know, I was only pointing how the term "the people" keeps changing as
one goes through them. ;)
So you blatantly assert, liar. Why don't you give an example of
this?
Then I'll show you me using the SAME definitions and
explanations over YEARS!
Who pointed a finger at you, Steve? Feeling guilty?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Krulick" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 08:19:43 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PqOdnbaU4sbbsGjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
Scout wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:3J6Jd.1792$PB.898@okepread01...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com:
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
Since when did the left start having a strict interpretation of the
Constitution?
Heck, I would be happier if they could be consistent. First it means one
thing, and only one thing....then it means something else....then it
means yet another thing....
For people that claim to know exactly what it says....they can't seem
able to maintain the same meaning for more than a couple of days, at
best.
Or amendments.
Well the Amendments are now part of the Constitution, but let's not pick
nits :-)
I know, I was only pointing how the term "the people" keeps changing as
one goes through them. ;)
So you blatantly assert, liar. Why don't you give an example of
this?
Then I'll show you me using the SAME definitions and
explanations over YEARS!
Who pointed a finger at you, Steve? Feeling guilty?
Guilty? No! *I* have never done so, although I'm constantly
accused of it!
Referred to? Who else has been accused?
Care to name some names, and give examples?
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 11:20:07 AM |
|
|
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Scout wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PqOdnbaU4sbbsGjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
Scout wrote:
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:3J6Jd.1792$PB.898@okepread01...
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com:
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
Since when did the left start having a strict interpretation of the
Constitution?
Heck, I would be happier if they could be consistent. First it means one
thing, and only one thing....then it means something else....then it
means yet another thing....
For people that claim to know exactly what it says....they can't seem
able to maintain the same meaning for more than a couple of days, at
best.
Or amendments.
Well the Amendments are now part of the Constitution, but let's not pick
nits :-)
I know, I was only pointing how the term "the people" keeps changing as
one goes through them. ;)
So you blatantly assert, liar. Why don't you give an example of
this?
Then I'll show you me using the SAME definitions and
explanations over YEARS!
Who pointed a finger at you, Steve? Feeling guilty?
Guilty? No! *I* have never done so, although I'm constantly
accused of it!
Referred to? Who else has been accused?
Care to name some names, and give examples?
I do at the time it happens.
--
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: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:01:02 PM |
|
|
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article <vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled that citizen
have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion of Miller
whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether citizens had
the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even if it
is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 06:55:38 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051501020012%spam@aol.com:
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article <vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&inv
ol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled that
citizen have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion of
Miller whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether citizens
had the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
Nope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 07:11:09 AM |
|
|
In article <ef6Jd.1783$PB.678@okepread01>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051501020012%spam@aol.com:
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article <vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&inv
ol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled that
citizen have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion of
Miller whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether citizens
had the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
Nope.
Yep. Now beat it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:29:33 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050511098174%spam@aol.com...
In article <ef6Jd.1783$PB.678@okepread01>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051501020012%spam@aol.com:
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article <vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&inv
ol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled that
citizen have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion of
Miller whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States
Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether
citizens
had the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
Nope.
Yep. Now beat it.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
10USC311
Read it and weep liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 10:28:21 AM |
|
|
In article <TLydnYSuXYf-iWjcRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050511098174%spam@aol.com...
In article <ef6Jd.1783$PB.678@okepread01>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051501020012%spam@aol.com:
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article <vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&inv
ol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled that
citizen have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion of
Miller whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States
Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether
citizens
had the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist, even
if it is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
Nope.
Yep. Now beat it.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
10USC311
Read it and weep liar.
What are you suggest this proves? Is EVERYONE on the Right as ignorant
as you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 04:29:34 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050828212865%spam@aol.com...
In article <TLydnYSuXYf-iWjcRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050511098174%spam@aol.com...
In article <ef6Jd.1783$PB.678@okepread01>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051501020012%spam@aol.com:
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article <vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&inv
ol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled that
citizen have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion of
Miller whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States
Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether
citizens
had the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist,
even
if it is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
Nope.
Yep. Now beat it.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
10USC311
Read it and weep liar.
What are you suggest this proves?
It proves you don't know what you're talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:58:47 PM |
|
|
In article <aYWdnTU_SPxJ62jcRVn-1w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050828212865%spam@aol.com...
In article <TLydnYSuXYf-iWjcRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050511098174%spam@aol.com...
In article <ef6Jd.1783$PB.678@okepread01>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051501020012%spam@aol.com:
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article <vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&
inv
ol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled that
citizen have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion of
Miller whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States
Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether
citizens
had the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does exist,
even
if it is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
Nope.
Yep. Now beat it.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
10USC311
Read it and weep liar.
What are you suggest this proves?
It proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Nice work, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 05:48:06 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958478511%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
It proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Nice work, moron.
^^^^^^
Krulick, Jr. strikes again.
David
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 09:47:29 AM |
|
|
In article <WlqJd.168680$AL5.53008@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958478511%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
It proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Nice work, moron.
^^^^^^
Krulick, Jr. strikes again.
Whatever that means.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 04:40:17 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958478511%spam@aol.com...
In article <aYWdnTU_SPxJ62jcRVn-1w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050828212865%spam@aol.com...
In article <TLydnYSuXYf-iWjcRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050511098174%spam@aol.com...
In article <ef6Jd.1783$PB.678@okepread01>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051501020012%spam@aol.com:
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article
<vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&
inv
ol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled
that
citizen have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion
of
Miller whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States
Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether
citizens
had the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does
exist,
even
if it is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
Nope.
Yep. Now beat it.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
10USC311
Read it and weep liar.
What are you suggest this proves?
It proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Nice work, moron.
Thank you. Though I surprised to hear you complimenting me for showing that
you know nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 09:47:05 AM |
|
|
In article <AtidneeoBYyKv2vcRVn-1A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958478511%spam@aol.com...
In article <aYWdnTU_SPxJ62jcRVn-1w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050828212865%spam@aol.com...
In article <TLydnYSuXYf-iWjcRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120050511098174%spam@aol.com...
In article <ef6Jd.1783$PB.678@okepread01>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:230120051501020012%spam@aol.com:
In article <M_KdnXWjjNSjsWncRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051429215977%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoVId.159260$Uf.144123@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051241207102%spam@aol.com...
In article <1zTId.159224$Uf.145860@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051042120546%spam@aol.com...
In article
<vXRId.159199$Uf.71509@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> 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
Read the decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&
inv
ol=174
Better luck next time.
David
I've read it. Thanks. Mere denials mean nothing.
I think not. In Miller the Supreme Court never ruled
that
citizen have
right to arms. Feel perfectly free to quote to portion
of
Miller whch
would prove me wrong. You can not.
David
Now you are confused. What I said was, "The United States
Supreme
Court says you don't have the right to own a weapon."
Try reading Miller sometime. It never ruled as to whether
citizens
had the
right to arms or not.
Of course it did. It ruled no such right exists unless it is
associated with the militia.
Then you lied. Since you know admit that such a right does
exist,
even
if it is associated with the militia.
How did I lie? I said no right exists for you.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
National Guard.
Nope.
Yep. Now beat it.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
10USC311
Read it and weep liar.
What are you suggest this proves?
It proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Nice work, moron.
Thank you. Though I surprised to hear you complimenting me for showing that
you know nothing.
As I said, I and all the district courts in the country disagree with
you denial. Be ignorant - who cares?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 04:47:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 08:28:21 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:
In article <TLydnYSuXYf-iWjcRVn-tw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention
to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National Guard.
10USC311
Read it and weep liar.
What are you suggest this proves? Is EVERYONE on the Right as ignorant
as you?
I guess he ran out of gas at "and of female citizens of the United
States" and completely missed the qualifier, "who are members of the
National Guard".
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
