| 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: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:00:53 PM |
|
|
In article <68GdnWwfvKab8mTcRVn-3w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050705486677%spam@aol.com...
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to discuss the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting being
in 2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
So how much did you have to pay in settlement?
We do plaintiffs work - we don't pay, they do - but nice try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 05:38:17 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100533018%spam@aol.com...
In article <68GdnWwfvKab8mTcRVn-3w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050705486677%spam@aol.com...
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what
you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to discuss
the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting
being
in 2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
So how much did you have to pay in settlement?
We do plaintiffs work - we don't pay, they do - but nice try.
Ok, so how much did you charge your client in attorney fees and costs?
Was he happy when you lost his case?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 06:53:08 PM |
|
|
In article <yf2dnWxFVtZqUWfcRVn-qA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100533018%spam@aol.com...
In article <68GdnWwfvKab8mTcRVn-3w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050705486677%spam@aol.com...
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what
you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to discuss
the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting
being
in 2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
So how much did you have to pay in settlement?
We do plaintiffs work - we don't pay, they do - but nice try.
Ok, so how much did you charge your client in attorney fees and costs?
That is confidential.
Was he happy when you lost his case?
Reading comprehension problems again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 07:05:49 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051653082533%spam@aol.com...
In article <yf2dnWxFVtZqUWfcRVn-qA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100533018%spam@aol.com...
In article <68GdnWwfvKab8mTcRVn-3w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050705486677%spam@aol.com...
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what
you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to
discuss
the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting
being
in 2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in
Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I
knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
So how much did you have to pay in settlement?
We do plaintiffs work - we don't pay, they do - but nice try.
Ok, so how much did you charge your client in attorney fees and costs?
That is confidential.
Was he happy when you lost his case?
Reading comprehension problems again?
Well, I'm just wondering whether he was happy after you kicked the ***** out
of him in attorney fees and costs, and found out it's lawyer's case was
"does not".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 12:34:16 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to discuss the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting being in 2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
Quite a bit different than your earlier intimation which would leave one
to believe you meant physically.
--
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 |
27 Jan 2005 11:00:52 PM |
|
|
In article <ZoKdncXU0LC6qWTcRVn-3A@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to discuss the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting being in
2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
Quite a bit different than your earlier intimation which would leave one
to believe you meant physically.
LOL I see. You thought I meant physically. I should have known.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 11:05:16 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <ZoKdncXU0LC6qWTcRVn-3A@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to discuss the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting being in
2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
Quite a bit different than your earlier intimation which would leave one
to believe you meant physically.
LOL I see. You thought I meant physically. I should have known.
Read your own words, doofus...
--
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 |
28 Jan 2005 12:10:31 PM |
|
|
In article <gYidneQNSopW7WfcRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <ZoKdncXU0LC6qWTcRVn-3A@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to discuss the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting being
in
2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
Quite a bit different than your earlier intimation which would leave one
to believe you meant physically.
LOL I see. You thought I meant physically. I should have known.
Read your own words, doofus...
From the guy who said 5th district.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 10:56:11 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <gYidneQNSopW7WfcRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <ZoKdncXU0LC6qWTcRVn-3A@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <LIKdnUQRJfNLUGrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <sfOdnZud7tSq62jcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Probably, you have pretty well proven that you don't know what you're
talking about, can't support your assertions, are unable to discuss the
language of the courts, and don't know the law despite asserting being
in
2
professions that mandates such knowledge.
Sorry it took so long getting back to you. I spent the day in Los
Angeles beating the ***** out of someone else who didn't think I knew
what I was talking about on a Summary Judgment.
Eeeew, wow, what a tough *****. Did you hit him with your
keyboard?
No - I hit him with a lot of attorney fees and costs, though.
Quite a bit different than your earlier intimation which would leave one
to believe you meant physically.
LOL I see. You thought I meant physically. I should have known.
Read your own words, doofus...
From the guy who said 5th district.
Meaning district court in the Fifth Circuit. A simple brain fart. You,
however, seem to be taking a complete dump. Interesting that you who
are the one who cannot provide cites for most of his claims nor explain
the ones you do post, are reduced to pointing out a brain fart that
someone else, not you, caught. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 11:15:19 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <mqadneTJpciiiWjcRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
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&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.
Then you lied.
Let me see if I can again explain why you are spinning your wheels.
As you have been told by me and others, you don't understand what the
United States Supreme Court was saying in this opinion. That is fine
with me because I expect you to embrace ignorance. I suspect that you
are deliberately trying to pretend you have misread it, but perhaps you
really don't have the intelligence to understand it. Either way, I
can't help you. I have tried to explain it to you but all you do is
deny what it says. That is your problem, not mine.
Ohh, *****. Another cut and paste *****.
--
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: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 04:29:00 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PqOdnbeU4sa5sGjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <mqadneTJpciiiWjcRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
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&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.
Then you lied.
Let me see if I can again explain why you are spinning your wheels.
As you have been told by me and others, you don't understand what the
United States Supreme Court was saying in this opinion. That is fine
with me because I expect you to embrace ignorance. I suspect that you
are deliberately trying to pretend you have misread it, but perhaps you
really don't have the intelligence to understand it. Either way, I
can't help you. I have tried to explain it to you but all you do is
deny what it says. That is your problem, not mine.
Ohh, *****. Another cut and paste *****.
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of his legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the 2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not support.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:58:48 PM |
|
|
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PqOdnbeU4sa5sGjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <mqadneTJpciiiWjcRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
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=30
7&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.
Then you lied.
Let me see if I can again explain why you are spinning your wheels.
As you have been told by me and others, you don't understand what the
United States Supreme Court was saying in this opinion. That is fine
with me because I expect you to embrace ignorance. I suspect that you
are deliberately trying to pretend you have misread it, but perhaps you
really don't have the intelligence to understand it. Either way, I
can't help you. I have tried to explain it to you but all you do is
deny what it says. That is your problem, not mine.
Ohh, *****. Another cut and paste *****.
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of his legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the 2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 04:41:11 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of his legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the 2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 09:49:45 AM |
|
|
In article <l7CdnZM86ZLQv2vcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of his legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the 2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
Not? I get it - you are a kid.
With regard to the world being wrong, the world takes my position.
Every district in the country has reaffirmed Miller and cited to it for
the proposition I claim. But a gun nut in denial - he thinks he has
the REAL answer...
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 02:01:33 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <l7CdnZM86ZLQv2vcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of his legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the 2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
Not? I get it - you are a kid.
With regard to the world being wrong, the world takes my position.
Every district in the country has reaffirmed Miller and cited to it for
the proposition I claim.
Even the Fifth District? BTW, Even Steve Krulick does not claim the
same diagnosis you do.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Krulick" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 09:01:35 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <l7CdnZM86ZLQv2vcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of his legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the 2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
Not? I get it - you are a kid.
With regard to the world being wrong, the world takes my position.
Every district in the country has reaffirmed Miller and cited to it for
the proposition I claim.
Even the Fifth District? BTW, Even Steve Krulick does not claim the
same diagnosis you do.
Of course you mean the FIFTH CIRCUIT, silly person!
Sorry, but the Fifth Circuit, in RULINGS, has been 100%
consistent in finding no legislation regulating or restricting
gun possession or use violates the 2nd Amen, EVEN EMERSON! The
lone dissent from consistent 5th Circuit position is the DICTA
of two of three judges in Emerson, and the third judge was
mortified by the sheer mass of IRRELEVANT and injudicious
shovelware Garwood spewed. All other cases in the 5th have been
consistent with ALL Appellate cases nationwide since Miller.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 12:33:21 PM |
|
|
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <l7CdnZM86ZLQv2vcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of his legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the 2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
Not? I get it - you are a kid.
With regard to the world being wrong, the world takes my position.
Every district in the country has reaffirmed Miller and cited to it for
the proposition I claim.
Even the Fifth District? BTW, Even Steve Krulick does not claim the
same diagnosis you do.
Of course you mean the FIFTH CIRCUIT, silly person!
Yep
Sorry, but the Fifth Circuit, in RULINGS, has been 100%
consistent in finding no legislation regulating or restricting
gun possession or use violates the 2nd Amen, EVEN EMERSON!
No one, at least not me, is claiming that the Second Amendment is
absolute. Of course, laws can define things. I only have a problem
with those who feel I or any other honest citizen should not have any gun.
The second point still stands. You and Barney don't agree on what
Miller does say. You claim that there is no Second Amendment protection
on a firearm (or owner) that does not some efficacy toward use in a
militia. Barney seems to think that the Court ruled that individuals
have no right to own a firearm.
--
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 |
27 Jan 2005 11:00:52 PM |
|
|
In article <ZoKdncrU0LBsrmTcRVn-3A@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <l7CdnZM86ZLQv2vcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of his
legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the 2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
Not? I get it - you are a kid.
With regard to the world being wrong, the world takes my position.
Every district in the country has reaffirmed Miller and cited to it for
the proposition I claim.
Even the Fifth District? BTW, Even Steve Krulick does not claim the
same diagnosis you do.
Of course you mean the FIFTH CIRCUIT, silly person!
Yep
Sorry, but the Fifth Circuit, in RULINGS, has been 100%
consistent in finding no legislation regulating or restricting
gun possession or use violates the 2nd Amen, EVEN EMERSON!
No one, at least not me, is claiming that the Second Amendment is
absolute. Of course, laws can define things. I only have a problem
with those who feel I or any other honest citizen should not have any gun.
The second point still stands. You and Barney don't agree on what
Miller does say.
Look, kid, whether we agree or not, and I am not so certain we don't,
doesn't help your position.
You claim that there is no Second Amendment protection
on a firearm (or owner) that does not some efficacy toward use in a
militia. Barney seems to think that the Court ruled that individuals
have no right to own a firearm.
Not at all. I think that weapons and persons who have some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia are clearly protected. The second amendment says so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 11:02:22 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100522959%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoKdncrU0LBsrmTcRVn-3A@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <l7CdnZM86ZLQv2vcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of
his
legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the
2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of
assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not
support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
Not? I get it - you are a kid.
With regard to the world being wrong, the world takes my position.
Every district in the country has reaffirmed Miller and cited to it
for
the proposition I claim.
Even the Fifth District? BTW, Even Steve Krulick does not claim the
same diagnosis you do.
Of course you mean the FIFTH CIRCUIT, silly person!
Yep
Sorry, but the Fifth Circuit, in RULINGS, has been 100%
consistent in finding no legislation regulating or restricting
gun possession or use violates the 2nd Amen, EVEN EMERSON!
No one, at least not me, is claiming that the Second Amendment is
absolute. Of course, laws can define things. I only have a problem
with those who feel I or any other honest citizen should not have any
gun.
The second point still stands. You and Barney don't agree on what
Miller does say.
Look, kid, whether we agree or not, and I am not so certain we don't,
doesn't help your position.
You claim that there is no Second Amendment protection
on a firearm (or owner) that does not some efficacy toward use in a
militia. Barney seems to think that the Court ruled that individuals
have no right to own a firearm.
Not at all. I think that weapons and persons who have some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia are clearly protected. The second amendment says so.
No, it says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It does
NOT say "...the militia" has the right to keep and bear arms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 12:10:30 PM |
|
|
In article <10vkrn19ni6ns0e@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100522959%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoKdncrU0LBsrmTcRVn-3A@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <l7CdnZM86ZLQv2vcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure of
his
legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of the
2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of
assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not
support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
Not? I get it - you are a kid.
With regard to the world being wrong, the world takes my position.
Every district in the country has reaffirmed Miller and cited to it
for
the proposition I claim.
Even the Fifth District? BTW, Even Steve Krulick does not claim the
same diagnosis you do.
Of course you mean the FIFTH CIRCUIT, silly person!
Yep
Sorry, but the Fifth Circuit, in RULINGS, has been 100%
consistent in finding no legislation regulating or restricting
gun possession or use violates the 2nd Amen, EVEN EMERSON!
No one, at least not me, is claiming that the Second Amendment is
absolute. Of course, laws can define things. I only have a problem
with those who feel I or any other honest citizen should not have any
gun.
The second point still stands. You and Barney don't agree on what
Miller does say.
Look, kid, whether we agree or not, and I am not so certain we don't,
doesn't help your position.
You claim that there is no Second Amendment protection
on a firearm (or owner) that does not some efficacy toward use in a
militia. Barney seems to think that the Court ruled that individuals
have no right to own a firearm.
Not at all. I think that weapons and persons who have some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia are clearly protected. The second amendment says so.
No, it says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It does
NOT say "...the militia" has the right to keep and bear arms.
Where does it say that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 08:56:05 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051010308419%spam@aol.com...
In article <10vkrn19ni6ns0e@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100522959%spam@aol.com...
In article <ZoKdncrU0LBsrmTcRVn-3A@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Steve Krulick wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <l7CdnZM86ZLQv2vcRVn-rw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:240120051958488563%spam@aol.com...
In article <F96dnR3KLJ4i62jcRVn-3g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Yep, and you will note he did not refute or deny my exposure
of
his
legal
ignorance, my understanding of US v. Miller, the language of
the
2nd
Amendment, or any of the rest of it. He has made a number of
assertions
which were disproven and/or which he could not or would not
support.
I can't help it that you can't understand the decision.
Yep, the world is wrong and only David Barnes is right.....not
Not? I get it - you are a kid.
With regard to the world being wrong, the world takes my
position.
Every district in the country has reaffirmed Miller and cited to
it
for
the proposition I claim.
Even the Fifth District? BTW, Even Steve Krulick does not claim
the
same diagnosis you do.
Of course you mean the FIFTH CIRCUIT, silly person!
Yep
Sorry, but the Fifth Circuit, in RULINGS, has been 100%
consistent in finding no legislation regulating or restricting
gun possession or use violates the 2nd Amen, EVEN EMERSON!
No one, at least not me, is claiming that the Second Amendment is
absolute. Of course, laws can define things. I only have a problem
with those who feel I or any other honest citizen should not have
any
gun.
The second point still stands. You and Barney don't agree on what
Miller does say.
Look, kid, whether we agree or not, and I am not so certain we don't,
doesn't help your position.
You claim that there is no Second Amendment protection
on a firearm (or owner) that does not some efficacy toward use in a
militia. Barney seems to think that the Court ruled that
individuals
have no right to own a firearm.
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
