| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
leonard78sp@gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
 |
|
On Jun 26, 3:26 pm, Nick...@Click.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400,
"leonard7...@primus.ca" <leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
So every minority gets to have guns to counter white
supremacy----
Wow, I'd be very, very afraid if I were you.
|
•• But I am not you ~~
Nor am I a personal coward like you
Nor a fascist fool like you.
Nor racist like you |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:23:05 -0500, "David Moffitt"
<dmoffitt@stomping-leftist-twits.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:l3ma64d4r60fnn371jjfsqpret8vljqdq8@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT), John Graeme
| <jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote:
|
| >> Not true
| >> Less cops mean more crime
|
|
| >Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence. I can cite several
| >studies by criminologists that found that the police have no
| >significant effect on crime.
|
| Hell, you can cite a hundred by the Nazi
Godwin's Law: prov.
|
MufftitfLoon's law
"Act like a nazi, then whine because you get called
one" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On 27 Jun 2008 22:08:01 GMT, Bert Hyman
<bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
The racist Nicklas@Click.com is only one of a few thousand dozen idiot
LIBERAL shits stains from elsewhere, that does NOT know that the
police are NOT obligated to protect, or even show up.
Bowers v. Devito
|
This is a CIVIL case, not a criminal one.
Judgements are monetary |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:09:58 -0400, Bobby Jacobs
<Focus@Bass.gov.> wrote:
| Quote: |
Still, Nicky will refuse to learn,listen,read, or be able to understand
that simple fact.
|
Learn the difference between "civil" and "Criminal"
law, stupid
Has nothing to do with the obligation "to protect and
serve". This is about liability AFTER a crime was
committed.
Police have a distinct duty to prevent crime (under
law) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
David Moffitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
<Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:p3nc64ho3u47ig0ao4oqif7iqjuae1acp3@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:23:05 -0500, "David Moffitt"
| <dmoffitt@stomping-leftist-twits.org> wrote:
|
| >
| ><Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
| >news:l3ma64d4r60fnn371jjfsqpret8vljqdq8@4ax.com...
| >| On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT), John Graeme
| >| <jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote:
| >|
| >| >> Not true
| >| >> Less cops mean more crime
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence. I can cite several
| >| >studies by criminologists that found that the police have no
| >| >significant effect on crime.
| >|
| >| Hell, you can cite a hundred by the Nazi
| >
| >Godwin's Law: prov.
|
| MufftitfLoon's law
|
| "Act like a nazi,
Godwin's Law: prov.
“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many
groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned
the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
then whine because you get called
| one"
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gray Ghost
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:46 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote in news:adnc649hr3fs5ji3lla29fatpttrk2gs7j@4ax.com:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:09:58 -0400, Bobby Jacobs
Focus@Bass.gov.> wrote:
Still, Nicky will refuse to learn,listen,read, or be able to understand
that simple fact.
Learn the difference between "civil" and "Criminal"
law, stupid
Has nothing to do with the obligation "to protect and
serve". This is about liability AFTER a crime was
committed.
Police have a distinct duty to prevent crime (under
law)
|
Please provide documentation supporting this. It will come in handy in the
thousands of lawsuits waiting to be filed for the police failing to prevent a
partiular crime.
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gray Ghost
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
Nicklas@Click.com wrote in news:l3ma64d4r60fnn371jjfsqpret8vljqdq8@4ax.com:
| Quote: |
Hell, you can cite a hundred by the Nazi Rifle
Association alone---all of which were paid to reflect
their views.
|
How open minded of you. Maybe we should just stick your stupid ass in a camp
and gas you.
You are so stupid as be beyond redemption.
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <3cr764tfgppkaqrovg25rcr9msakrej7rp@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:21:23 -0600, "Sheldon"
sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4863d914.27226046@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard78sp@primus.ca"
leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
While I'm happy about the decision,
All gunloons are.
Now we'll see who can kill the most people.
|
I'm sure the leftists will rack up the largest score as usual.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <b9d864djs66p5jg2qcd9a0lhc447imqftc@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:46:34 -0400, "Topp@Work"
topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
Funny though, crime in all those states went down....
No such thing
Crime went down in years where law enforcement was
funded properly.
Cops (generally) hate the idea of "more guns".
|
Police chiefs (political animals) hold that view.
I've not found the average beat cop to hold it.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <l3ma64d4r60fnn371jjfsqpret8vljqdq8@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT), John Graeme
jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote:
Not true
Less cops mean more crime
Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence. I can cite several
studies by criminologists that found that the police have no
significant effect on crime.
Hell, you can cite a hundred by the Nazi Rifle
Association alone---all of which were paid to reflect
their views.
|
So instead of actually impeaching his source you just toss petty
insults.
Typical.
| Quote: |
The "cops" program started under Clinton saw major
decline in crime in most areas a year or two after it
was initiated---government stats reflect
The Program was defunded--by the GOP and the states
didn't pick up the program
|
It was never intended to be an enternal program. And the cities and
states knew that.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <p3nc64ho3u47ig0ao4oqif7iqjuae1acp3@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:23:05 -0500, "David Moffitt"
dmoffitt@stomping-leftist-twits.org> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:l3ma64d4r60fnn371jjfsqpret8vljqdq8@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:39:05 -0700 (PDT), John Graeme
| <jdgraeme@my-deja.com> wrote:
|
| >> Not true
| >> Less cops mean more crime
|
|
| >Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence. I can cite several
| >studies by criminologists that found that the police have no
| >significant effect on crime.
|
| Hell, you can cite a hundred by the Nazi
Godwin's Law: prov.
MufftitfLoon's law
"Act like a nazi, then whine because you get called
one"
|
I know, your whining is getting tiresome.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <der764toucc0pbc6s5gng31qd1u6chlu8q@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT"
craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
But the folks in DC, Chicago and other restricted cities are not out of the
woods. I would expect DC to impose very strict requirements, and a lot of
red tape to be able to posses a gun.
So you're saying that some rationality still might
exist to counter gunloonery?
|
How is tyranny rational ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <hcd8645u2ode1e0l20miuk7lafbmovv777@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:47:02 -0400, "Topp@Work"
topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:der764toucc0pbc6s5gng31qd1u6chlu8q@4ax.com...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT"
craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
But the folks in DC, Chicago and other restricted cities are not out of
the
woods. I would expect DC to impose very strict requirements, and a lot of
red tape to be able to posses a gun.
So you're saying that some rationality still might
exist to counter gunloonery?
What do you find rational about disarming LAW ABIDING people to protect
themselves?
Because the stupidity of claiming that "more guns"
cause less crime is astoundingly juvenile
|
What is juvenile is the leftists continued belief that guns "cause"
anything.
| Quote: |
The idea of "individuals" enforcing laws or preventing
crimes, at best, is a puffed up anecdotal evidentiary
propaganda---and mostly the H ollyWood, John Wayne
version of society.
|
Better to deprive them of their civil rights then ?
Because of your illusions ?
| Quote: |
The law in a high crime district was, at least, in part
mitigated by the strict gun laws.
|
The criminals would never obey those laws, how did they help but to
enslave the innocent citizens ?
| Quote: |
Now everyone can have one.
|
Sorry but no, criminals and the mentally ill will not.
| Quote: |
Now we can experience "shoot first", mentality of
anyone with a "criminal" mentality.
|
I'm sorry you have such little faith in your own character that you must
wish to impose tyranny on the public.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <5id864p4mlcsqb3lnb1v8asls7l342jph7@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:11:44 -0500, "LT"
craves9057@mypacks.net> wrote:
SCOTUS has for once and for all affirmed that the 2nd Amendment implies the
right to keep and bare arms is directed at the individual, not a group
(militia) and the states have no authority to deny that right,
Holy shit
And for years and years the rightwing has claimed the
USSC cannot decide anything correctly (to their view).
Now that you've got 5 rightwing extremist idiots,
locked in some world of the 18th century, you figure
they're "right on"
It's true THEY interpreted it that way----but any
rational, non "federalist society" Justice would ruled
as the minority did
You won the battle, but lost the war.
Eventuall, Americans cannot survive with murderous
mentality promoted by the Nazi Rifle Association and
it's thugs.
|
Good thing the SC rulled the mentally ill can't have a gun...
Your writing indicts you
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <har764lpbeegeudn84v4b6o4th999fc98h@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:01:27 GMT, bw@barrk.net
(B1ackwater) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard78sp@primus.ca"
leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
'liberal' outta there before January .....
Yep, then we can start practicing stiff-arm salutes,
goose-steps while you march lockstep with neo-nazis.
|
I'm suprised you can type with that arm in the airall the time.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
