| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ms My Rights" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2006 01:45:16 PM |
| Object: |
The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
18 Dec 2006 10:25:20 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
19 Dec 2006 04:45:20 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458769B0.5C566DE4@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Punctuation does not link.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
Yes, and the context you assert isn't a feature in the language of the 2nd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
22 Dec 2006 10:21:40 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458769B0.5C566DE4@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Punctuation does not link.
It *orders* and *links*.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
Yes, and the context you assert isn't a feature in the language of the 2nd.
So, those words are just strung together at random? No meaning implied at all?
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
22 Dec 2006 11:04:14 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458CAED4.48368C63@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:458769B0.5C566DE4@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Punctuation does not link.
It *orders* and *links*.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
Yes, and the context you assert isn't a feature in the language of the
2nd.
So, those words are just strung together at random? No meaning implied at
all?
Your inability to comprehend is noted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
26 Dec 2006 11:21:00 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Punctuation does not link.
It *orders* and *links*.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
Yes, and the context you assert isn't a feature in the language of the
2nd.
So, those words are just strung together at random? No meaning implied at
all?
Your inability to comprehend is noted.
Your dodge is noted.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
27 Dec 2006 05:58:52 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:459202BC.65AB3E0C@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to
this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Punctuation does not link.
It *orders* and *links*.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
Yes, and the context you assert isn't a feature in the language of the
2nd.
So, those words are just strung together at random? No meaning implied
at
all?
Your inability to comprehend is noted.
Your dodge is noted.
No dodge at all. I asked you a question and you responded with a question
having nothing to do with the question asked. As such you were either unable
to comprehend the question put to you or unwilling to comprehend the
question put to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:30:25 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to
this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Punctuation does not link.
It *orders* and *links*.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
Yes, and the context you assert isn't a feature in the language of the
2nd.
So, those words are just strung together at random? No meaning implied
at
all?
Your inability to comprehend is noted.
Your dodge is noted.
No dodge at all. I asked you a question and you responded with a question
having nothing to do with the question asked. As such you were either unable
to comprehend the question put to you or unwilling to comprehend the
question put to you.
No, I came back to you claim that the context I assert in the 2nd isn't there by
asking if those "words are just strung together at random" with "no meaning implied
at all".
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
01 Jan 2007 06:54:16 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4599A7A1.1BD239F0@hotmMOVEail.com...
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to
this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Punctuation does not link.
It *orders* and *links*.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
Yes, and the context you assert isn't a feature in the language of
the
2nd.
So, those words are just strung together at random? No meaning
implied
at
all?
Your inability to comprehend is noted.
Your dodge is noted.
No dodge at all. I asked you a question and you responded with a question
having nothing to do with the question asked. As such you were either
unable
to comprehend the question put to you or unwilling to comprehend the
question put to you.
No, I came back to you claim that the context I assert in the 2nd isn't
there by
asking if those "words are just strung together at random" with "no
meaning implied
at all".
Complex question which is a logical fallacy. Since I never made any such
claim asking me that question is both irrelevant and insulting. It serves
only as a red herring in order to attempt to divert attention away from the
question I asked you and your inability to respond to it in a creditable
manner.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Jan 2007 09:28:03 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the
people,
and
we
still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to
this
clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a
free
state,
the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
Ok, so where is that linking word?
Punctuation.
Punctuation does not link.
It *orders* and *links*.
Context, context...
That word isn't in the 2nd Amendment.
You're getting desperate. Context is a feature of language.
Yes, and the context you assert isn't a feature in the language of
the
2nd.
So, those words are just strung together at random? No meaning
implied
at
all?
Your inability to comprehend is noted.
Your dodge is noted.
No dodge at all. I asked you a question and you responded with a question
having nothing to do with the question asked. As such you were either
unable
to comprehend the question put to you or unwilling to comprehend the
question put to you.
No, I came back to you claim that the context I assert in the 2nd isn't
there by
asking if those "words are just strung together at random" with "no
meaning implied
at all".
Complex question which is a logical fallacy. Since I never made any such
claim asking me that question is both irrelevant and insulting. It serves
only as a red herring in order to attempt to divert attention away from the
question I asked you and your inability to respond to it in a creditable
manner.
The question was answered. hint: punctuation
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 12:54:18 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
Scout wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Sorry, but where is the linking word that limits the right to this clause?
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Context, context...
Yes, context, context. The Context of the amendments is prohibitions
against government.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Dec 2006 12:22:35 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:457F7CFD.F5A45644@hotmMOVEail.com...
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Yes, a well regulated militia cannot be cannot be dismantled or
prohibited by the government.
Remember, the amendments are /PROHIBITIONS/ against the tendency of
overreaching governmental (assumed) power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Dec 2006 11:46:25 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Yes, a well regulated militia cannot be cannot be dismantled or
prohibited by the government.
Where does it say that?
Remember, the amendments are /PROHIBITIONS/ against the tendency of
overreaching governmental (assumed) power.
Then why does the federal government have so much power over the militia?
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 12:52:28 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Yes, a well regulated militia cannot be cannot be dismantled or
prohibited by the government.
Where does it say that?
Where does it say that it /can/?
Remember, if the power or authority hasn't been delegated, then the
government can't do it.
Remember, the amendments are /PROHIBITIONS/ against the tendency of
overreaching governmental (assumed) power.
Then why does the federal government have so much power over the militia?
I don't know, why does it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
18 Dec 2006 09:26:01 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Yes, a well regulated militia cannot be cannot be dismantled or
prohibited by the government.
Where does it say that?
Where does it say that it /can/?
Remember, if the power or authority hasn't been delegated, then the
government can't do it.
"well regulated" and R Sweeney said it well on the 13th
But the constitution had given the government the power to set the standards
for the militia... and this power could be abused to neuter the militia via
neglect or via more active means - say for instance a militia clause
requirement that the citizens' militia arms (as opposed to arms suitable for
self-protection and hunting) be stored under gov't lock and key or worse.
Remember, the amendments are /PROHIBITIONS/ against the tendency of
overreaching governmental (assumed) power.
Then why does the federal government have so much power over the militia?
I don't know, why does it?
Because the 2nd isn't as prohibitory against the government as you think it is...
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 09:49:05 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
Bob wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Actually we do. Further the right is that of the people, and we still
have a
lot of those.
What militia are you in ->
The Second Amendment contains no
such requirement.
"A well regulated militia" ...
Yes, a well regulated militia cannot be cannot be dismantled or
prohibited by the government.
Where does it say that?
Remember, the amendments are /PROHIBITIONS/ against the tendency of
overreaching governmental (assumed) power.
Then why does the federal government have so much power over the militia?
See the Constitution. Article I, Section 8:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
And USC Title 10, S 311.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geo" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 10:26:07 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
Bob uecker wrote:
"Geo" <taxpayer779@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165609066.371520.98630@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
The scary part is that the reality of this happening is very very
possible. Criminals will be loving that ruling.
Why? They already have easy access to guns.
Uhhhh, because law abiding citizens won't have access to any guns to
defend themselves. In other words, criminals' vicitms will be
unarmed. Get it now?
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
The heading states Milita AND the Right to bear arms....pretty simple to
understand. This game if semantics is simply anti-gun fanatics desperation.
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those anymore, do
we?
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes about the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
RT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
09 Dec 2006 12:20:55 AM |
|
|
Ms My Rights wrote:
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
First, I really doubt it ever would get to the Supreme Court. After
all, the Emerson case - which ruled that the Second Amendment protected
an INDIVIDUAL'S right to own a gun, not a state's - never got to the
Supreme Court. Second, D.C. is an extension of Congress - and Congress
could easily overrule any effort by municipal officials there to appeal
any case on any issue. Third, the Bush Administration has made clear -
under Ashcroft - that it views this as an INDIVIDUAL right, and isn't
likely at all to have the (in)Justice Dept. flipflop on that issue
within six years of when it said that, so you'd have the (in)Justice
Dept. arguing against D.C. municipal lawyers.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midex" |
|
| Title: A billion christians and a billion muslims are now at a war with each other and the only victors will be Israel!!!!! |
08 Jan 2007 11:12:17 PM |
|
|
Think about it. You have two enemies/competitors - You get them to
destory each other.
Its classic false-flag Sun Tsu operation. Old school!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8667011121551944391&q=eustace+mullins
At www.video.google.com what Americans must see are films such as
At www.video.google.com search for:
(1) 911 Press for Truth
(2) 911 Mysteries
(3) Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War
(4) Confronting the Evidence - Iraq War One - Spanish Subtitles
(5) Iraq War - Experts Come Forward
(6) Rare 1993 News report showing FBI involvement in WTC Bombing
(7) Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (The fairytale of Mohammed Atta)
.
|
|
|
| User: "¿mÿ§t뮦@n?" |
|
| Title: Re: A billion christians and a billion muslims are now at a war with each other and the only victors will be Israel!!!!! |
09 Jan 2007 08:02:41 AM |
|
|
In talk.politics.guns "Midex" <milliondollarexecutive@gmail.com>
wrote:
Think about it. You have two enemies/competitors - You get them to
destory each other.
Its classic false-flag Sun Tsu operation. Old school!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8667011121551944391&q=eustace+mullins
At www.video.google.com what Americans must see are films such as
At www.video.google.com search for:
(1) 911 Press for Truth
(2) 911 Mysteries
(3) Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War
(4) Confronting the Evidence - Iraq War One - Spanish Subtitles
(5) Iraq War - Experts Come Forward
(6) Rare 1993 News report showing FBI involvement in WTC Bombing
(7) Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (The fairytale of Mohammed Atta)
__________________
Hitler had escaped to a secret Nazi base at the South Pole
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/omegafile18.htm
The earth is flat:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Paul is dead:
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/
The moon landings were faked:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Everyone knows 9/11 was faked:
http://www.911hoax.com/
The "face" on Mars is artificial:
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
....and...
...most importantly.....
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midex" |
|
| Title: Re: A billion christians and a billion muslims are now at a war with each other and the only victors will be Israel!!!!! |
10 Jan 2007 06:17:15 PM |
|
|
According to your argument, any statement may be blind sided by the
following reply:
The earth is flat:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Paul is dead:
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/
The moon landings were faked:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Everyone knows 9/11 was faked:
http://www.911hoax.com/
The "face" on Mars is artificial:
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
And indeed that is the tactic being used by the disinformation agency.
What you have to tell us is: Are you working for the agency or are you
a simple parrot?
=BFm=FF=A7t=EB=AE=A6@n? wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Midex" <milliondollarexecutive@gmail.com>
wrote:
Think about it. You have two enemies/competitors - You get them to
destory each other.
Its classic false-flag Sun Tsu operation. Old school!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D8667011121551944391&q=3Deustac=
e+mullins
At www.video.google.com what Americans must see are films such as
At www.video.google.com search for:
(1) 911 Press for Truth
(2) 911 Mysteries
(3) Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War
(4) Confronting the Evidence - Iraq War One - Spanish Subtitles
(5) Iraq War - Experts Come Forward
(6) Rare 1993 News report showing FBI involvement in WTC Bombing
(7) Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (The fairytale of Mohammed Atta)
__________________
Hitler had escaped to a secret Nazi base at the South Pole
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/omegafile18.htm
The earth is flat:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Paul is dead:
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/
The moon landings were faked:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Everyone knows 9/11 was faked:
http://www.911hoax.com/
The "face" on Mars is artificial:
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
...and...
...most importantly.....
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
=20
--=20
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Felix D." |
|
| Title: Re: A billion christians and a billion muslims are now at a war with each other and the only victors will be Israel!!!!! |
10 Jan 2007 07:24:21 PM |
|
|
Chuckle Head "Midex" <milliondollarexecutive@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168474635.239532.15380@i39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
And indeed that is the tactic being used by the disinformation agency.
What you have to tell us is: Are you working for the agency or are you
a simple parrot?
LOL! 'mysterian' doesn't have to tell you *****! Rather, the question is:
who are you to ask such a lame question? You got Feds under the bed, or
something?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "¿mÿ§t뮦@n?" |
|
| Title: Re: A billion christians and a billion muslims are now at a war with each other and the only victors will be Israel!!!!! |
10 Jan 2007 07:17:57 PM |
|
|
In talk.politics.guns "Midex" <milliondollarexecutive@gmail.com>
wrote:
According to your argument, any statement may be blind sided by the
following reply:
It's pretty fucking effective, isn't it? You left off my favorite,
though...
Hitler had escaped to a secret Nazi base at the South Pole
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/omegafile18.htm
The earth is flat:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Paul is dead:
http://digilander.libero.it/p_truth/
The moon landings were faked:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Everyone knows 9/11 was faked:
http://www.911hoax.com/
The "face" on Mars is artificial:
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
And indeed that is the tactic being used by the disinformation agency.
Is that, like, an Official Agency now? Because if it is, I'm gonna ask
for my own office.
What you have to tell us is: Are you working for the agency or are you
a simple parrot?
Oh no, I'm one of you- a Believer. [snicker]
No, really.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guerite." |
|
| Title: Re: A billion christians and a billion muslims are now at a war with each other and the only victors will be Israel!!!!! |
09 Jan 2007 09:42:03 AM |
|
|
http://www.WhatTheWestNeedsToKnow.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "¿mÿ§t뮦@n?" |
|
| Title: Re: A billion christians and a billion muslims are now at a war with each other and the only victors will be Israel!!!!! |
09 Jan 2007 07:09:50 PM |
|
|
In talk.politics.guns "Guerite." <aim@their.heads> wrote:
http://www.WhatTheWestNeedsToKnow.com
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midex" |
|
| Title: A billion christians and a billion muslims are now at a war with each other and the only victors will be Israel!!!!! |
08 Jan 2007 11:12:37 PM |
|
|
Think about it. You have two enemies/competitors - You get them to
destroy each other.
Its classic false-flag Sun Tsu operation. Old school!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8667011121551944391&q=eustace+mullins
At www.video.google.com what Americans must see are films such as
At www.video.google.com search for:
(1) 911 Press for Truth
(2) 911 Mysteries
(3) Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War
(4) Confronting the Evidence - Iraq War One - Spanish Subtitles
(5) Iraq War - Experts Come Forward
(6) Rare 1993 News report showing FBI involvement in WTC Bombing
(7) Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (The fairytale of Mohammed Atta)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midex" |
|
| Title: Eustace Mullins: The Neo-Zionist Order -1 hr 38 min 40 sec - Oct 14, 2006 documentary on video.google |
08 Jan 2007 11:25:19 PM |
|
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D8667011121551944391&q=3Deustace...
Eustace Mullins has been accused of anti-Semitism by many people and
groups such as the Anti-Defamation League...
Here he argues that ... all =BB the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, drafted
by German banker Paul Warburg and others in a secret meeting, defies
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the US Constitution by creating a
"central bank of issue" for the United States.
Mullins goes on to claim that World War I, the Agricultural Depression
of 1920, the Great Depression of 1929, and Adolf Hitler's rise to power
were brought about by international banking interests in order to
profit from conflict and economic instability.
Michael
2 days ago Mark as Spam
Ah, a breath of sanity from perhaps the only living link with first
hand knowledge of how the great scam progressed throughout the 20th
Century. We owe Eustace our gratitude for his monumental works which
include "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" and "Murder by injection",
all of which are the benchmark for us today. For clarity I highly
reccomend "The French Connection" @
www.iamthewitness.com
WHY DO WE SUPPORT THE Israeli-WELFARE STATE????
3 days ago Mark as Spam
I LOVE EUSTACE MULLINS!
Jewish Supremacists and Zionists need to leave America!
alex EMERIC jones=3Dgerman jew
5 days ago Mark as Spam
cool
if only more ppl would talk about the zionists.
u see know how stupid the talk about illuminati,globalist luciferian
death cults etc etc sounds?
The truth
Dec 15, 2006 Mark as Spam
If Zionists think that 14ml of them can go on fighting 1.4 billion
Muslims of the
World, they are na=EFve and in denial. Learn from history. A small
nation cannot go
On oppressing a large group people for ever. Look what happened to
Britain, France
Spain and Portugal. They were great colonial power. You cannot keep
native people
Under your thumb for ever. Sooner or later you will be kicked out by
the native people. Palestinian may be weak now but time is on their
side ''s jafry, Monday, December 11th'
The truth
Dec 15, 2006 Mark as Spam
Kudos to President Carter, finally someone of his caliber has the
courage to come out and tell the truth about the Israeli Brutality
towards the Palestinian People. Israeli Lobby, especially AIPAC, is so
powerful in our country that no congress man or for that matter any
other Official dare to criticize Israel. Almost all our elected public
officials are either afraid of Israeli Lobby or they have been bought
of to support every action of Israel.
Who pushed us into the Iraq war? It was the neo-con Zionists
Xemu X. Xenu Jr. aka Vernon D. Cain Jr.
Dec 7, 2006 Mark as Spam
So Fluoride, at 33:37 and at 52:02 also 54:14 , is a key element in a
"Peaceful Democracy" used to silence the roar of the mass of the people
that will rise up and take back their Democracy lest the doseage be
maintained or increased as the Insatiable Pathological Greed of the
Elite 01:07:00 to steal every penny go unchecked. All designed to
perpetuate the universal use of Floridation in Food / Water / Medicines
so the Sleeping Giant never wakens to the scam.
Do your own research! www.fluorideaction.or
Khanverse
Dec 1, 2006 Mark as Spam
maaaaaan, mullins knows wassup....
haha, Allah is gonna destroy the zionists... and they'll have a long
stint in hell waiting too, i hear the coals are starting to flame up...
Black Mon
Dec 1, 2006 Mark as Spam
IamThewitness.com is Eric Hufsmidts site. He is suspect. I dont trust
him as I feel has now gone too far and, thus, has revealead his divide
and conquer tactics. He totally mis-characterizes Jones and Bermas and
Rowe.
from the real world
Nov 24, 2006 Mark as Spam
more than I ever learnd in all my years of public education
Steve-b
Nov 23, 2006 Mark as Spam
There's a plan in effect. We're going to try to beat them. Join us.
Restore The Republic!
http://FreedomToFascism.com
Dave
Nov 20, 2006 Mark as Spam
You can listen to him on Daryl Smiths site. While you are there listen
to Ben Freedman.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html
~BUMP
Nov 15, 2006 Mark as Spam
!
Dont buy books
Nov 15, 2006 Mark as Spam
It only gives them more ways to watch us
dont get tricked by jones
Nov 14, 2006 Mark as Spam
great info.u can hear then french connection mullins interviews at
iamthewitness.com
finally ppl relise that the zionist are the enemy and not all of the
nonsense about illuminati and the globalists and marsians and bigfoot.
great vid!!!!!!!!
Aambro, Slovenia
Nov 10, 2006 Mark as Spam
Great info, also see following video: MONEY MASTERS - HOW INTERNATIONAL
BANKERS GAINED CONTROL OF AMERICA
VHarley
Nov 7, 2006 Mark as Spam
Wow - I wouldn't call this guy an anti-Semite, but I would call him
anti-Zionist. Very smart guy - he seems to know his stuff. If true,
this sheds a bit more light on the U.S.'s support of Israel's attack on
Lebanon, for a start. Enjoy!
Laydee Liberty
Nov 4, 2006 Mark as Spam
WHO RULES YOUR RULERS ?
Most Americans Right and Left would agree that there is something
desperately wrong with the current political and judicial system in the
United States today, but as they point the fingers at each other they
don't have a clue that this suits the Rulers purpose.
This DVD is a fascinating look at the man who exposed the rulers who
dictate today's policies handed down to our so called leaders to
advance the One World Order.
Laydee Liberty
Nov 4, 2006 Mark as Spam
Eustace Mullins is America's foremost historian/researcher exposing
facts that all Americans should know, but these facts have been
suppressed over the past 50 years and the results have been devastating
for the world!
As the world slips into chaos, it is now time to prepare yourself for:
The Neo-Zionist Order
Cheesypoof
Oct 29, 2006 Mark as Spam
One reason he undoubtedly believes this is due to Jewish scripture, IE
Deuteronomy 20. Its written plainly and therefore this idea is not a
"conspiracy theory." Further reading on Jewish ethnic cleansing, look
also at Ezra 9 and 10.
Better Not Say
Oct 29, 2006 Mark as Spam
Answer to Anon:
The answer is simple: The Bush/Harriman clan became pawns of the
financial elite (aka Zionist mvmt leadership) over 100 yrs ago. When
these fine fellows decided to bring the NSDAP to power, of course Bush,
Harriman & Co. had to lend a helping hand.
Better Not Say
Oct 28, 2006 Mark as Spam
The truth is, there are fair grounds to claim that the folks who set up
communism in 1917 simply moved offices - they left Moscow for greener
pastures, and found their way to the Potomac. To understand this you
have to realize two things:
Better Not Say
Oct 28, 2006 Mark as Spam
(1) The primary objective of Communism (in its Leninist version) was
never collectivization - it was all-embracing control, sometimes
described as 'totalitarianism'. Collectivization was merely a tool -
never the objective. (2) 'Freedom of Speech' doesn't translate into
much political power when media is neutered, elections are faked and
political candidates pre-vetted for conformity.
Better Not Say
Oct 28, 2006 Mark as Spam
In fact, the institution of 'private free speech' is a dramatic
improvement over the last system release. It does wonders to help
sustain the illusions of 'freedom' and 'democracy', but handily very
little to limit the amount of control exercised by the rulers. While
Russians are today finally breathing the crisp air of freedom, the
'totalitarians' did not die out. On the contrary. They simply
redesigned their saddle and strapped it on a fresh horse.
how does he know all this
Oct 27, 2006 Mark as Spam
lol
how does he know all this
Oct 27, 2006 Mark as Spam
he knows too much he must be eliminated
anon
Oct 26, 2006 Mark as Spam
one question I have is about the Bush family. Most others say that
Prescott Bush was a Nazi founder/company own, but Mullins explianation
is somewhat differnet.
Socalrws
Oct 26, 2006 Mark as Spam
See:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_415.shtml
Mike Knapp
Oct 25, 2006 Mark as Spam
Eustace Mullins ROCKS!!!
He has been telling the whole truth for ever. And that will include 60%
of the problem the sabbatean jews and their minion groups like the ADL
/ SPLC / JDL / JDO / SWC .
Folks like Ape Foxman who acts like a 5th columnist agitator, HATES THE
TRUTH spreading, and calls anyone he sees as an anti-semite. He has got
to be the most semite sensitive F in the world, that would hate to work
a REAL job in the REAL world like the rest of us.
mk
John J. Ubele www.solpac.org
Oct 24, 2006 Mark as Spam
I was impressed immensely by Mr. Mullins' knowledge of economics and
the federal reserve system. I look forward to reading his books.
Reply =BB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Eustace Mullins: The Neo-Zionist Order -1 hr 38 min 40 sec - Oct 14, 2006 documentary on video.google |
08 Jan 2007 11:27:47 PM |
|
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D8667011121551944391&q=3Deustace...
Eustace Mullins has been accused of anti-Semitism by many people and
groups such as the Anti-Defamation League...
Here he argues that ... all =BB the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, drafted
by German banker Paul Warburg and others in a secret meeting, defies
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5 of the US Constitution by creating a
"central bank of issue" for the United States.
Mullins goes on to claim that World War I, the Agricultural Depression
of 1920, the Great Depression of 1929, and Adolf Hitler's rise to power
were brought about by international banking interests in order to
profit from conflict and economic instability.
Michael
2 days ago Mark as Spam
Ah, a breath of sanity from perhaps the only living link with first
hand knowledge of how the great scam progressed throughout the 20th
Century. We owe Eustace our gratitude for his monumental works which
include "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" and "Murder by injection",
all of which are the benchmark for us today. For clarity I highly
reccomend "The French Connection" @
www.iamthewitness.com
WHY DO WE SUPPORT THE Israeli-WELFARE STATE????
3 days ago Mark as Spam
I LOVE EUSTACE MULLINS!
Jewish Supremacists and Zionists need to leave America!
alex EMERIC jones=3Dgerman jew
5 days ago Mark as Spam
cool
if only more ppl would talk about the zionists.
u see know how stupid the talk about illuminati,globalist luciferian
death cults etc etc sounds?
The truth
Dec 15, 2006 Mark as Spam
If Zionists think that 14ml of them can go on fighting 1.4 billion
Muslims of the
World, they are na=EFve and in denial. Learn from history. A small
nation cannot go
On oppressing a large group people for ever. Look what happened to
Britain, France
Spain and Portugal. They were great colonial power. You cannot keep
native people
Under your thumb for ever. Sooner or later you will be kicked out by
the native people. Palestinian may be weak now but time is on their
side ''s jafry, Monday, December 11th'
The truth
Dec 15, 2006 Mark as Spam
Kudos to President Carter, finally someone of his caliber has the
courage to come out and tell the truth about the Israeli Brutality
towards the Palestinian People. Israeli Lobby, especially AIPAC, is so
powerful in our country that no congress man or for that matter any
other Official dare to criticize Israel. Almost all our elected public
officials are either afraid of Israeli Lobby or they have been bought
of to support every action of Israel.
Who pushed us into the Iraq war? It was the neo-con Zionists
Xemu X. Xenu Jr. aka Vernon D. Cain Jr.
Dec 7, 2006 Mark as Spam
So Fluoride, at 33:37 and at 52:02 also 54:14 , is a key element in a
"Peaceful Democracy" used to silence the roar of the mass of the people
that will rise up and take back their Democracy lest the doseage be
maintained or increased as the Insatiable Pathological Greed of the
Elite 01:07:00 to steal every penny go unchecked. All designed to
perpetuate the universal use of Floridation in Food / Water / Medicines
so the Sleeping Giant never wakens to the scam.
Do your own research! www.fluorideaction.or
Khanverse
Dec 1, 2006 Mark as Spam
maaaaaan, mullins knows wassup....
haha, Allah is gonna destroy the zionists... and they'll have a long
stint in hell waiting too, i hear the coals are starting to flame up...
Black Mon
Dec 1, 2006 Mark as Spam
IamThewitness.com is Eric Hufsmidts site. He is suspect. I dont trust
him as I feel has now gone too far and, thus, has revealead his divide
and conquer tactics. He totally mis-characterizes Jones and Bermas and
Rowe.
from the real world
Nov 24, 2006 Mark as Spam
more than I ever learnd in all my years of public education
Steve-b
Nov 23, 2006 Mark as Spam
There's a plan in effect. We're going to try to beat them. Join us.
Restore The Republic!
http://FreedomToFascism.com
Dave
Nov 20, 2006 Mark as Spam
You can listen to him on Daryl Smiths site. While you are there listen
to Ben Freedman.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html
~BUMP
Nov 15, 2006 Mark as Spam
!
Dont buy books
Nov 15, 2006 Mark as Spam
It only gives them more ways to watch us
dont get tricked by jones
Nov 14, 2006 Mark as Spam
great info.u can hear then french connection mullins interviews at
iamthewitness.com
finally ppl relise that the zionist are the enemy and not all of the
nonsense about illuminati and the globalists and marsians and bigfoot.
great vid!!!!!!!!
Aambro, Slovenia
Nov 10, 2006 Mark as Spam
Great info, also see following video: MONEY MASTERS - HOW INTERNATIONAL
BANKERS GAINED CONTROL OF AMERICA
VHarley
Nov 7, 2006 Mark as Spam
Wow - I wouldn't call this guy an anti-Semite, but I would call him
anti-Zionist. Very smart guy - he seems to know his stuff. If true,
this sheds a bit more light on the U.S.'s support of Israel's attack on
Lebanon, for a start. Enjoy!
Laydee Liberty
Nov 4, 2006 Mark as Spam
WHO RULES YOUR RULERS ?
Most Americans Right and Left would agree that there is something
desperately wrong with the current political and judicial system in the
United States today, but as they point the fingers at each other they
don't have a clue that this suits the Rulers purpose.
This DVD is a fascinating look at the man who exposed the rulers who
dictate today's policies handed down to our so called leaders to
advance the One World Order.
Laydee Liberty
Nov 4, 2006 Mark as Spam
Eustace Mullins is America's foremost historian/researcher exposing
facts that all Americans should know, but these facts have been
suppressed over the past 50 years and the results have been devastating
for the world!
As the world slips into chaos, it is now time to prepare yourself for:
The Neo-Zionist Order
Cheesypoof
Oct 29, 2006 Mark as Spam
One reason he undoubtedly believes this is due to Jewish scripture, IE
Deuteronomy 20. Its written plainly and therefore this idea is not a
"conspiracy theory." Further reading on Jewish ethnic cleansing, look
also at Ezra 9 and 10.
Better Not Say
Oct 29, 2006 Mark as Spam
Answer to Anon:
The answer is simple: The Bush/Harriman clan became pawns of the
financial elite (aka Zionist mvmt leadership) over 100 yrs ago. When
these fine fellows decided to bring the NSDAP to power, of course Bush,
Harriman & Co. had to lend a helping hand.
Better Not Say
Oct 28, 2006 Mark as Spam
The truth is, there are fair grounds to claim that the folks who set up
communism in 1917 simply moved offices - they left Moscow for greener
pastures, and found their way to the Potomac. To understand this you
have to realize two things:
Better Not Say
Oct 28, 2006 Mark as Spam
(1) The primary objective of Communism (in its Leninist version) was
never collectivization - it was all-embracing control, sometimes
described as 'totalitarianism'. Collectivization was merely a tool -
never the objective. (2) 'Freedom of Speech' doesn't translate into
much political power when media is neutered, elections are faked and
political candidates pre-vetted for conformity.
Better Not Say
Oct 28, 2006 Mark as Spam
In fact, the institution of 'private free speech' is a dramatic
improvement over the last system release. It does wonders to help
sustain the illusions of 'freedom' and 'democracy', but handily very
little to limit the amount of control exercised by the rulers. While
Russians are today finally breathing the crisp air of freedom, the
'totalitarians' did not die out. On the contrary. They simply
redesigned their saddle and strapped it on a fresh horse.
how does he know all this
Oct 27, 2006 Mark as Spam
lol
how does he know all this
Oct 27, 2006 Mark as Spam
he knows too much he must be eliminated
anon
Oct 26, 2006 Mark as Spam
one question I have is about the Bush family. Most others say that
Prescott Bush was a Nazi founder/company own, but Mullins explianation
is somewhat differnet.
Socalrws
Oct 26, 2006 Mark as Spam
See:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_415.shtml
Mike Knapp
Oct 25, 2006 Mark as Spam
Eustace Mullins ROCKS!!!
He has been telling the whole truth for ever. And that will include 60%
of the problem the sabbatean jews and their minion groups like the ADL
/ SPLC / JDL / JDO / SWC .
Folks like Ape Foxman who acts like a 5th columnist agitator, HATES THE
TRUTH spreading, and calls anyone he sees as an anti-semite. He has got
to be the most semite sensitive F in the world, that would hate to work
a REAL job in the REAL world like the rest of us.
mk
John J. Ubele www.solpac.org
Oct 24, 2006 Mark as Spam
I was impressed immensely by Mr. Mullins' knowledge of economics and
the federal reserve system. I look forward to reading his books.
Reply =BB
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
