| 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: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 09:02:37 AM |
|
|
David Barnes admits he is ignorant and is a coward
Him along with keegan and Fischer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 09:25:16 AM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in news:41fa540d@x-privat.org:
Him along with keegan and Fischer.
who can believe anything a forger like you posts?
"A post edit is not a forgery. The entire post is
under my name. I can post whatever I want. I even
documented my correction to your post."
-Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> explaining why he forged
text and falsely attributed it to me.
<yOCdnRiVUdGQwUXcRVn-iQ@rcn.net>
news:yOCdnRiVUdGQwUXcRVn-iQ@rcn.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "You Know Who " |
|
| Title: Re: David Barnes admits he is ignorant and is a coward |
28 Jan 2005 08:17:29 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:14:49 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
David Barnes said in Message-ID: <250120050815024643%spam@aol.com>
I don't either - I find it kind of cowardly and ignorant. I can handle
these idiots just fine.
From: David Barnes <dbar...@barnsco.com>
Message-ID: <141120022050126465%dbar...@barnsco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 04:49:40 GMT
"Pat, excuse me for cutting in but I "kill filed" him long ago and I
rarely see his stuff."
Saying he's ignorant is kinda like saying Steve Krulick is "a little
wordy, and needs to comb his hair." :>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: David Barnes admits he is ignorant and is a coward |
28 Jan 2005 08:31:15 AM |
|
|
"You Know Who" <vous_savez_qui@i-hate-france.com > wrote in message
news:m8ikv05qvv7dr619impmfom56ck3o0s1f3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:14:49 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
David Barnes said in Message-ID: <250120050815024643%spam@aol.com>
I don't either - I find it kind of cowardly and ignorant. I can handle
these idiots just fine.
From: David Barnes <dbar...@barnsco.com>
Message-ID: <141120022050126465%dbar...@barnsco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 04:49:40 GMT
"Pat, excuse me for cutting in but I "kill filed" him long ago and I
rarely see his stuff."
Saying he's ignorant is kinda like saying Steve Krulick is "a little
wordy, and needs to comb his hair." :>
ROFL
Yet, but at least he did admit he is ignorant and a coward.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:00:54 PM |
|
|
In article <918jv0li3nm199g6o8vua7ad50630t6pa1@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:48 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <llegv01n19e1tm1c9m6mvkdchd6ftl1pes@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
The militia is us.
The United States Supreme Court disagrees.
And, of course, they cannot be wrong.
No - they can't be "wrong." They define what is legally "right" or
"wrong."
After all, lawyers appointed for
life by politicians truly care about our rights.
Far better than those who are elected. (That is why Republicans are
often so frustrated when United States Supreme Court Justices become
"liberal")
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 05:40:17 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100543078%spam@aol.com...
In article <918jv0li3nm199g6o8vua7ad50630t6pa1@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:48 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <llegv01n19e1tm1c9m6mvkdchd6ftl1pes@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
The militia is us.
The United States Supreme Court disagrees.
And, of course, they cannot be wrong.
No - they can't be "wrong." They define what is legally "right" or
"wrong."
Wrong, the law defines what it legally "right" or "wrong" and the Courts
have no authority to redefine the law to make it say whatever their current
whim is.
.
|
|
|
| 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 <HsadnUOVgLTtUGfcRVn-1w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100543078%spam@aol.com...
In article <918jv0li3nm199g6o8vua7ad50630t6pa1@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:48 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <llegv01n19e1tm1c9m6mvkdchd6ftl1pes@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
The militia is us.
The United States Supreme Court disagrees.
And, of course, they cannot be wrong.
No - they can't be "wrong." They define what is legally "right" or
"wrong."
Wrong, the law defines what it legally "right" or "wrong" and the Courts
have no authority to redefine the law to make it say whatever their current
whim is.
It is called case law. It is well established and even someone as
ignorant as you should understand why it exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 07:03:48 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051653082562%spam@aol.com...
In article <HsadnUOVgLTtUGfcRVn-1w@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120052100543078%spam@aol.com...
In article <918jv0li3nm199g6o8vua7ad50630t6pa1@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:48 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <llegv01n19e1tm1c9m6mvkdchd6ftl1pes@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
Of course, I bet you don't know who the militia are, do you?
The militia is us.
The United States Supreme Court disagrees.
And, of course, they cannot be wrong.
No - they can't be "wrong." They define what is legally "right" or
"wrong."
Wrong, the law defines what it legally "right" or "wrong" and the Courts
have no authority to redefine the law to make it say whatever their
current
whim is.
It is called case law. It is well established and even someone as
ignorant as you should understand why it exists.
Yes, it's a series of opinions about what the law actually says. Whether
those opinions are correct is another story.
However, you don't care if the opinions are wrong as long as you are in
favor of them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 11:10:47 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
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.
No, it didn't. Try rereading Miller or try it for, perhaps, the first
time. Here is the URL:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
--
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 |
23 Jan 2005 04:10:05 PM |
|
|
"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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:15:21 PM |
|
|
In article <tOOdnQBWLL5cvWncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> 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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
Yes they did. Deny all you like.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:55:27 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051415215543%spam@aol.com...
In article <tOOdnQBWLL5cvWncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> 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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
Yes they did. Deny all you like.
Then show me. Produce the specific and exact language where they stated
this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:56:32 PM |
|
|
In article <r5KdnVcGI__5tmncRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051415215543%spam@aol.com...
In article <tOOdnQBWLL5cvWncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> 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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
Yes they did. Deny all you like.
Then show me. Produce the specific and exact language where they stated
this.
<Yawn> I did.
What is it you think the United States Supreme Court was saying in
Miller?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 09:25:49 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051456323843%spam@aol.com...
In article <r5KdnVcGI__5tmncRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051415215543%spam@aol.com...
In article <tOOdnQBWLL5cvWncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> 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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
Yes they did. Deny all you like.
Then show me. Produce the specific and exact language where they stated
this.
<Yawn> I did.
No, you didn't and your assertions that you did won't alter than. What you
presented addressed a "short barreled shotgun" Period. Says NOTHING about
the people not having a right to own a weapon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 10:28:19 AM |
|
|
In article <a8WdnS9yhbQejmjcRVn-qw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051456323843%spam@aol.com...
In article <r5KdnVcGI__5tmncRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051415215543%spam@aol.com...
In article <tOOdnQBWLL5cvWncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> 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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
Yes they did. Deny all you like.
Then show me. Produce the specific and exact language where they stated
this.
<Yawn> I did.
No, you didn't and your assertions that you did won't alter than. What you
presented addressed a "short barreled shotgun" Period. Says NOTHING about
the people not having a right to own a weapon.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 11:09:38 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a8WdnS9yhbQejmjcRVn-qw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051456323843%spam@aol.com...
In article <r5KdnVcGI__5tmncRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051415215543%spam@aol.com...
In article <tOOdnQBWLL5cvWncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> 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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
Yes they did. Deny all you like.
Then show me. Produce the specific and exact language where they stated
this.
<Yawn> I did.
No, you didn't and your assertions that you did won't alter than. What you
presented addressed a "short barreled shotgun" Period. Says NOTHING about
the people not having a right to own a weapon.
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.
Yes, we do. Apparently you don't. Even the US government states that
it is an open issue.
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.
What a fucking maroon.....
--
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 |
24 Jan 2005 09:58:46 PM |
|
|
In article <PqOdnbuU4sZStmjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a8WdnS9yhbQejmjcRVn-qw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051456323843%spam@aol.com...
In article <r5KdnVcGI__5tmncRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051415215543%spam@aol.com...
In article <tOOdnQBWLL5cvWncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> 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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
Yes they did. Deny all you like.
Then show me. Produce the specific and exact language where they stated
this.
<Yawn> I did.
No, you didn't and your assertions that you did won't alter than. What you
presented addressed a "short barreled shotgun" Period. Says NOTHING about
the people not having a right to own a weapon.
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.
Yes, we do.
Obviously not.
Apparently you don't.
I guess that would be me and every district in the country.
Even the US government states that
it is an open issue.
Cite
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.
What a fucking maroon.....
Republicans
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 01:58:57 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <PqOdnbuU4sZStmjcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <a8WdnS9yhbQejmjcRVn-qw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051456323843%spam@aol.com...
In article <r5KdnVcGI__5tmncRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051415215543%spam@aol.com...
In article <tOOdnQBWLL5cvWncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> 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."
Yep, and they didn't say that.
Yes they did. Deny all you like.
Then show me. Produce the specific and exact language where they stated
this.
<Yawn> I did.
No, you didn't and your assertions that you did won't alter than. What you
presented addressed a "short barreled shotgun" Period. Says NOTHING about
the people not having a right to own a weapon.
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.
Yes, we do.
Obviously not.
Apparently you don't.
I guess that would be me and every district in the country.
Even the US government states that
it is an open issue.
Cite
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html
" In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative
action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and
transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially
curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the
courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing
theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ``individual rights'' thesis
whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and
transportation, and a ``states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the
purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to
maintain formal, organized militia units.\1\ Whatever the Amendment may
mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state\2\ or
private\3\ restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the
dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has
tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition,
seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the
maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
\1\A sampling of the diverse literature in which the same
historical, linguistic, and case law background is the basis for
strikingly different conclusions is: Staff of Subcom. on the
Constitution, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 2d
Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982); Don B. Kates,
Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment
(1984); Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on
the Second Amendment (Robert J. Cottrol, ed. 1993); Stephen P. Halbrook,
That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984);
Symposium, Gun Control, 49 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1 (1986); Sanford
Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989).
\2\Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). See also
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S.
275, 281-282 (1897). The non-application of the Second Amendment to the
States is good law today. Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d
261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).
\3\United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In United States v. Miller,\4\ the Court sustained a statute
requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off
[[Page 1194]]
shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution
dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ``[w]ith obvious
purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness
of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''\5\ The
significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service
.. . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.''\6\ Therefore, ``[i]n the absence
of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun
having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary
military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense.''\7\
\4\307 U.S. 174 (1939). The defendants had been released on the
basis of the trial court determination that prosecution would violate
the Second Amendment and no briefs or other appearances were filed on
their behalf; the Court acted on the basis of the Government's
representations.
\5\Id. at 178.
\6\Id. at 179.
\7\Id. at 178. In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922
(1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding
| | | | | | | | | |
