Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You

Religions > Atheism > Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 54 of 80

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 09:36:20 AM

In article <41F90606.B204861D@Krulick.com>, Steve Krulick
<SK@Krulick.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" wrote:

In article <10vg48chrmmbrcd@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of individual
freedom.

So Lint blatantly asserts. Actually, the record shows judges and
the courts to be the great protector of individual and
collective rights!

ROTFL! See Dred Scott.

When you have to go that far back to find an example, the Court is
doing well. (And the Dred Scott decision was just another bunch of
conservatives who wanted to keep their slaves.)

Well, ONE case doesn't make for the RULE! Sure there were
exceptions to the general trend of protection, but as I've
shown, Scott/Sanford, although sad and regrettable, WAS an
accurate take on the THEN current US and State constitutions AS
THEY WERE! To have said otherwise WOULD have been "legislating
from the bench"! It took a civil war and amendments to fix THAT
sad reality.

Agreed. Furthermore, as society changed, the Court changed. For those
who insist that one day Roe will be overturned, we need to realize that
the Court doesn't generally overturn cases in a manner that takes away
liberities, as they would in Roe. When Dred Scott was overturned, it
reinstated certain rights - it didn't take them away.
.

User: "Yardpilot"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	28 Jan 2005 11:00:14 AM

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050736206599%spam@aol.com...

In article <41F90606.B204861D@Krulick.com>, Steve Krulick
<SK@Krulick.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" wrote:

In article <10vg48chrmmbrcd@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of

individual

freedom.

So Lint blatantly asserts. Actually, the record shows judges and
the courts to be the great protector of individual and
collective rights!

ROTFL! See Dred Scott.

When you have to go that far back to find an example, the Court is
doing well. (And the Dred Scott decision was just another bunch of
conservatives who wanted to keep their slaves.)

Agreed. Furthermore, as society changed, the Court changed.

So, according to you, they can change the law by "interpreting" it as they
see fit.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	28 Jan 2005 12:10:29 PM

In article <10vkrj2kf7jpvd3@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050736206599%spam@aol.com...

In article <41F90606.B204861D@Krulick.com>, Steve Krulick
<SK@Krulick.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" wrote:

In article <10vg48chrmmbrcd@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of

individual

freedom.

So Lint blatantly asserts. Actually, the record shows judges and
the courts to be the great protector of individual and
collective rights!

ROTFL! See Dred Scott.

When you have to go that far back to find an example, the Court is
doing well. (And the Dred Scott decision was just another bunch of
conservatives who wanted to keep their slaves.)

Agreed. Furthermore, as society changed, the Court changed.

So, according to you, they can change the law by "interpreting" it as they
see fit.

As opposed to what?
.

User: "Yardpilot"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	28 Jan 2005 08:52:00 PM

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051010298377%spam@aol.com...

In article <10vkrj2kf7jpvd3@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050736206599%spam@aol.com...

In article <41F90606.B204861D@Krulick.com>, Steve Krulick
<SK@Krulick.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" wrote:

In article <10vg48chrmmbrcd@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of

individual

freedom.

So Lint blatantly asserts. Actually, the record shows judges

and

the courts to be the great protector of individual and
collective rights!

ROTFL! See Dred Scott.

When you have to go that far back to find an example, the Court is
doing well. (And the Dred Scott decision was just another bunch

conservatives who wanted to keep their slaves.)

Agreed. Furthermore, as society changed, the Court changed.

So, according to you, they can change the law by "interpreting" it as

they

see fit.

As opposed to what?

Try to focus on the subject at hand.
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	28 Jan 2005 06:09:39 PM

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051010298377%spam@aol.com...

In article <10vkrj2kf7jpvd3@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050736206599%spam@aol.com...

In article <41F90606.B204861D@Krulick.com>, Steve Krulick
<SK@Krulick.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" wrote:

In article <10vg48chrmmbrcd@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of

individual

freedom.

So Lint blatantly asserts. Actually, the record shows judges
and
the courts to be the great protector of individual and
collective rights!

ROTFL! See Dred Scott.

When you have to go that far back to find an example, the Court is
doing well. (And the Dred Scott decision was just another bunch
of
conservatives who wanted to keep their slaves.)

Agreed. Furthermore, as society changed, the Court changed.

So, according to you, they can change the law by "interpreting" it as
they
see fit.

As opposed to what?

What was that phrase you told me about.......Oh, that's right "RULE OF LAW".
Of course, you don't know what it means, and it doesn't mean the whim of the
court.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	28 Jan 2005 06:53:07 PM

In article <76idnY__j6XPSWfcRVn-vw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051010298377%spam@aol.com...

In article <10vkrj2kf7jpvd3@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050736206599%spam@aol.com...

In article <41F90606.B204861D@Krulick.com>, Steve Krulick
<SK@Krulick.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" wrote:

In article <10vg48chrmmbrcd@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of

individual

freedom.

So Lint blatantly asserts. Actually, the record shows judges
and
the courts to be the great protector of individual and
collective rights!

ROTFL! See Dred Scott.

When you have to go that far back to find an example, the Court is
doing well. (And the Dred Scott decision was just another bunch
of
conservatives who wanted to keep their slaves.)

Agreed. Furthermore, as society changed, the Court changed.

So, according to you, they can change the law by "interpreting" it as
they
see fit.

As opposed to what?

What was that phrase you told me about.......Oh, that's right "RULE OF LAW".

Of course, you don't know what it means, and it doesn't mean the whim of the
court.

What does it mean to you?
.

User: "Scout"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	28 Jan 2005 07:02:34 PM

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051653072446%spam@aol.com...

In article <76idnY__j6XPSWfcRVn-vw@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051010298377%spam@aol.com...

In article <10vkrj2kf7jpvd3@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120050736206599%spam@aol.com...

In article <41F90606.B204861D@Krulick.com>, Steve Krulick
<SK@Krulick.com> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" wrote:

In article <10vg48chrmmbrcd@corp.supernews.com>, Yardpilot
<yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in
message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of

individual

freedom.

So Lint blatantly asserts. Actually, the record shows judges
and
the courts to be the great protector of individual and
collective rights!

ROTFL! See Dred Scott.

When you have to go that far back to find an example, the Court
is
doing well. (And the Dred Scott decision was just another
bunch
of
conservatives who wanted to keep their slaves.)

Agreed. Furthermore, as society changed, the Court changed.

So, according to you, they can change the law by "interpreting" it as
they
see fit.

As opposed to what?

What was that phrase you told me about.......Oh, that's right "RULE OF
LAW".

Of course, you don't know what it means, and it doesn't mean the whim of
the
court.

What does it mean to you?

http://www.jurisdictionary.com/rule_of_law.htm
.

User: "David Lentz"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	26 Jan 2005 09:02:07 AM

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of individual
freedom.

So Lint blatantly asserts. Actually, the record shows judges and
the courts to be the great protector of individual and
collective rights! When the legislative and executive branches
often fail, the judiciary is often the last great hope for
recourse!

Oh I love that logic. When the legislatures and the executives failsto do
what the juriststhink right, they usurp the power of the legislature and
executives. Some may call this freedom. I call it tyranny. Funny I
find to constitutional provision which would allow a jurist act as a
legisature or an executive. Mr. Krulick must be reading a different
Constitution.
Recenty juristxhave been taking toordering tax increases and demanding law
be enacted. The bench has gotten out of control.
David
.

User: "Steve Krulick"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	26 Jan 2005 11:09:43 AM

David Lentz wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of individual
freedom.

So nobody said they are or did, strawslinger. In interpreting
the law they perform their constitutional duty. And judge-made
law, which is common law or case law, is as much LAW as
legislation or executive orders.

Mr. Krulick must be reading a different
Constitution.

False, strawslinger. We've already proven your lack of reading
comprehension. (Plan to show us where in the Miller mandate are
specific instructions to get more information about the militia
status or Miller or his gun, as you stated?) No, loon the Const
of the US is rather clear on this:
THAT Const gives the judiciary the POWER extending to ALL cases
AND controversies, and this ultimately involves INTERPRETATION
of what the Const means! It's not up to an asst AG, or the
pResident, or even a congressional committee, but to the
JUDICIARY to decide whether a law conflicts with the language of
the Const!
Article III Section 2, states "The judicial power [that's POWER,
not suggestion] shall extend to all [as in ALL] cases, in law
[as in LAW] and equity, arising under this Constitution [that's
THIS CONSTITUTION], the laws of the United States ... to
controversies to which the United States shall be a party; -- to
controversies between two or more states; -- between a State and
citizens of another State; -- between citizens of different
states... [the key concept being POWER>EXTEND>to CONTROVERSIES].
What do you do with judicial power over cases and controversies?
YOU JUDGE. And how do you judge cases involving the
Constitution? YOU INTERPRET. How else could you exercise the
power granted under this Article, whether the specific word
interpret is used or not? The exact word "interpret" does not
have to appear, any more than the phrase "a wall of separation
between church and state" (TJ's words, right?) need appear in
the 1st Amen to explain what is meant. Judges judge and
interpret. The words that ARE used MEAN exactly the same thing;
there is no other way to "interpret" it.
"ALL CASES... arising under this Constitution, the laws of the
United States" PLUS the controversies. Sounds like it covers an
awful lot of ground to me.
And how do you decide a case or controversy? Well, let's say Joe
says that his constitutional right to practice his religion was
infringed by a local law; the municipality disagrees and says
they have the right to make said law and it isn't a religious
matter (forget the specifics here; any case will do). The case
works it's way up to the SCotUS, since lower court rulings keep
getting appealed. What does the SCotUS do?
Well, assuming they take the case on its constitutional merits,
the first thing they have to do is INTERPRET what the 1st Amen
says that may or may not apply to the claims of the litigants.
How could they rule on this case WITHOUT interpreting? What else
is the basis on which they can make their decision? Either Joe's
claim is or isn't with merit; either the constitution protects
Joe or it doesn't. Who else finally decides this but the SCotUS?
If it were obvious, there'd be no need for trials. Since people
disagree, someone must interpret what the constitution means,
otherwise the case can't be resolved. If the courts aren't
empowered to resolve cases, what function do they serve? IF the
SCotUS ISN'T the final arbiter on the constitutionality of laws,
who is?
SOMEBODY has to make the final decision on various issues, and
we have designated the SCotUS. If you disagree with their
decisions (and since they are only opinions, it is inevitable
that that will happen - a LOT), that's a "bad judgment" in YOUR
opinion, but in this regard YOUR opinion doesn't count, unless
YOU are a SCotUS justice. Anyone can "interpret" the Bible to
mean anything one wants, but when the Pope "interprets"
scripture, it becomes canon law. Likewise, the courts interpret
what the constitution means in deciding cases; the decisions
determine whether a law has force or not.
In Marbury v. Madison, SCotUS Chief Justice John Marshall said:
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to
particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that
rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must
decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the
law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the
court must either decide that case conformably to the law,
disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the
constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine
which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of
the very essence of judicial duty.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases
arising under the constitution.
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say
that in using it the constitution should not be looked into?
That a case arising under the constitution should be decided
without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases, then, the constitution must be looked into by the
judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they
forbidden to read or to obey?"
Speaking of Madison: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/marbury/background.htm
According to the US Information Agency:
"The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several
powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare
acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president,
unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the
Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the
arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the
document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as
well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has
played that role ever since.
The Court would not declare another act of Congress
unconstitutional until 1857, and it has used that power
sparingly. But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution,
it has, especially in the twentieth century, been the chief
agency for the expansion of individual rights."
As for the courts, how about what Hamilton said:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar
province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be
regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore
belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning
of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
Federalist No. 78.
And now you may reply with proof that Marshall and Hamilton were
deluded morons.

Recenty juristxhave been taking toordering tax increases and demanding law
be enacted. The bench has gotten out of control.

So Lint blatant asserts with an unsubstantiated sweeping
generalization.

David

Deluded fool.
.

User: "David Lentz"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	26 Jan 2005 11:19:06 AM

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7CED0.4EBA8379@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

the

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of individual
freedom.

Oh I love that logic. When the legislatures and the executives failsto

what the juriststhink right, they usurp the power of the legislature and
executives. Some may call this freedom. I call it tyranny. Funny

find to constitutional provision which would allow a jurist act as a
legisature or an executive.

How is ordering the legislature to pass a law permitting homosexual
marriages "interpreting the law?" It is not. How is ordering the
legislature to raise taxes "interpreting the law?" It is not.
Judge routinely exceed their constitutional powers and usurp the rights of
citizens in the process.
David
.

User: "RD The Sandman"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	27 Jan 2005 10:31:09 AM

David Lentz wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7CED0.4EBA8379@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"Steve Krulick" <SK@Krulick.com> wrote in message
news:41F7AA0E.57B0E7CF@Krulick.com...

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com...

<snip>

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

the

Jurists have not shown themselves to a great protector of individual
freedom.

Oh I love that logic. When the legislatures and the executives failsto

what the juriststhink right, they usurp the power of the legislature and
executives. Some may call this freedom. I call it tyranny. Funny

find to constitutional provision which would allow a jurist act as a
legisature or an executive.

How is ordering the legislature to pass a law permitting homosexual
marriages "interpreting the law?" It is not. How is ordering the
legislature to raise taxes "interpreting the law?" It is not.

Just when and where did they do that, David?
--
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 Lentz"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	27 Jan 2005 01:14:42 PM

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NYSdnX0eaO3QimTcRVn-jg@comcast.com...
<snip>

How is ordering the legislature to pass a law permitting homosexual
marriages "interpreting the law?" It is not. How is ordering the
legislature to raise taxes "interpreting the law?" It is not.

Just when and where did they do that, David?

The Massachusette Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to legalize
homosexual marriage. Several state courts, including one in New York, have
ordered tax increases for school funding.
David
.

User: "RD The Sandman"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	28 Jan 2005 10:30:55 AM

David Lentz wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NYSdnX0eaO3QimTcRVn-jg@comcast.com...

<snip>

How is ordering the legislature to pass a law permitting homosexual
marriages "interpreting the law?" It is not. How is ordering the
legislature to raise taxes "interpreting the law?" It is not.

Just when and where did they do that, David?

The Massachusette Supreme Court ordered the state legislature to legalize
homosexual marriage. Several state courts, including one in New York, have
ordered tax increases for school funding.

Nothing personal, but let's have a verifiable cite other than just your
word.
--
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	26 Jan 2005 12:39:36 AM

In article <xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:

What a fucking maroon.....

Republicans

I am a liberal.

LOL!!!!! At least you have a sense of humor.
.

User: "RD The Sandman"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	26 Jan 2005 11:17:05 AM

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:

What a fucking maroon.....

Republicans

I am a liberal.

LOL!!!!! At least you have a sense of humor.

Apparently, you are so stupid as to judge someone from one issue.
--
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 09:05:48 AM

In article <LIKdnUERJfMMTWrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:

What a fucking maroon.....

Republicans

I am a liberal.

LOL!!!!! At least you have a sense of humor.

Apparently, you are so stupid as to judge someone from one issue.

I know - deep down, you are really a Democrat.
.

User: "RD The Sandman"
Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You	27 Jan 2005 10:28:30 AM

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <LIKdnUERJfMMTWrcRVn-2w@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <xYydnfB45bWcOGvcRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:

What a fucking maroon.....

Republicans

I am a liberal.

LOL!!!!! At least you have a sense of humor.

Apparently, you are so stupid as to judge someone from one issue.

I know - deep down, you are really a Democrat.

Nope, I am a liberal. Not the same thing.
--
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 11:08:20 AM

David W. Barnes wrote:

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?

That a sawed off shotgun had not been shown to have Second Amendment
protections from the NFA Section II. It did not address the issue of
individual ownership of a firearm except in dicta where it stated:
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body
of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that
ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear
bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the
time."
Now, please show us exactly where the USSC stated that individuals don't
have the right to own a weapon. Please be specific and take all the
screens you need.
--
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 11:04:56 AM