| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tankfixer
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
 |
|
In article <EcSdnbox8L05bf7VnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@giganews.com>,
topprolmc@comcast.net says...
| Quote: |
Nicklas@Click.com> wrote in message
news:har764lpbeegeudn84v4b6o4th999fc98h@4ax.com...
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.
Bwaaahaaa....You are obviously about 15 years old, or just a moron...
|
Or both
--
"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 11:00 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <v8r764lt6s9gjkr0jegdoorvaajd70fua8@4ax.com>,
Nicklas@Click.com says...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400,
"leonard78sp@primus.ca" <leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
So every minority gets to have guns to counter white
supremacy----
|
Does that bother you ?
| Quote: |
Wow, I'd be very, very afraid if I were you.
|
I'm not worried but you seem to be.
Have you been trying to tell us something about yourself ?
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
B1ackwater
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:30:53 -0400, "Topp@Work"
<topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4864063a.38784390@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net
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 ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not
difference
as far as the law goes.
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ...
It would never come back up in the same route...
Banning something you have a right to own has been deemed unconstitutional,
along with making it inoperable for your defense...
So what will come up is regulation issues....
Such as, waiting periods...Purchase of one a month....etc, etc...
|
Agreed ... they'll try back-door routes. The decision
does NOT affect 'restrictions' that come short of an
outright ban. That means the possibility of a red-tape
jungle, intrusive & hostile 'qualification' requirements
and procedures too. Jaywalkers ??? Can't have dangerous
criminals like THOSE owning guns !!!
It's unclear whether attempts to ban AMMO are thwarted
by the latest decision. Very strictly interpreted, it
applies JUST to the "arms" ... not anything that goes
IN them. One could argue that an 'arm' is not an 'arm'
without free access to vital mechanical accessories - be
they cartridges, bullets, powder ... arrows, speartips
or a sword-sharpener for that matter. Still, I can just
see SOME city trying to get around the decision by
declaring the gunpowder in cartridges as "terrorist
bomb-making material".
It may also be possible to make USING a gun, even in
self-defense, a crime of some sort - even if it's just
in violation of a "discharging a firearm inside the
city limits' sort of crime - to harass and intimidate
the common Joe. Until lately, 'criminals rights' nutters
had made it SO easy for killers, rapists and robbers to
SUE anyone who shot them that the situation had become
quite grim. Fortunately a number of states finally
passed laws that exempted the innocent from such legal
abuses. Not ALL states however ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jun 26, 2:01 pm, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
leonard7...@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 .....
|
I half agree with you here. The founding fathers were liberals-
everyone ought to liberally have guns.
The conservatives were in dissent, Souter Stevens Ginsberg and Breyer.
Left is not right if you are spinning around.
The right to bear arms is against unreasonable search and seizure.
Like George Bush senior told George Bush Junior after he kidnapped me,
" If he had a gun you would be dead".
Exterminate the Department of Education
i had to type six secret passwords to post this message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:29 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.
|
bring it on maggot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:31 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 18:01:27 GMT, b...@barrk.net
(B1ackwater) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
leonard7...@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.
|
the halocaust was a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Topp@Work
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4868e3af.10806453@news.east.earthlink.net...
| Quote: |
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:30:53 -0400, "Topp@Work"
topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4864063a.38784390@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net
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 ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not
difference
as far as the law goes.
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ...
It would never come back up in the same route...
Banning something you have a right to own has been deemed
unconstitutional,
along with making it inoperable for your defense...
So what will come up is regulation issues....
Such as, waiting periods...Purchase of one a month....etc, etc...
Agreed ... they'll try back-door routes. The decision
does NOT affect 'restrictions' that come short of an
outright ban. That means the possibility of a red-tape
jungle, intrusive & hostile 'qualification' requirements
and procedures too. Jaywalkers ??? Can't have dangerous
criminals like THOSE owning guns !!!
|
They will try, but it got 1000000 times more difficult now....
| Quote: |
It's unclear whether attempts to ban AMMO are thwarted
by the latest decision. Very strictly interpreted, it
applies JUST to the "arms" ... not anything that goes
IN them. One could argue that an 'arm' is not an 'arm'
without free access to vital mechanical accessories - be
they cartridges, bullets, powder ... arrows, speartips
or a sword-sharpener for that matter. Still, I can just
see SOME city trying to get around the decision by
declaring the gunpowder in cartridges as "terrorist
bomb-making material".
|
They can't use that since it would be like making ink prohibitivly
expensive....
Which is a limit on the right of free speech.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
B1ackwater
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:46:39 -0400, "Topp@Work"
<topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4868e3af.10806453@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:30:53 -0400, "Topp@Work"
topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote:
"B1ackwater" <bw@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:4864063a.38784390@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:48:36 -0500, "LT" <craves9057@mypacks.net
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 ....
9-0 would have been a nice morel victory but it really makes not
difference
as far as the law goes.
Yea, it does. It means Obama only has to get ONE
lefty judge on the court and encourage someone to
bring up the issue again ...
It would never come back up in the same route...
Banning something you have a right to own has been deemed
unconstitutional,
along with making it inoperable for your defense...
So what will come up is regulation issues....
Such as, waiting periods...Purchase of one a month....etc, etc...
Agreed ... they'll try back-door routes. The decision
does NOT affect 'restrictions' that come short of an
outright ban. That means the possibility of a red-tape
jungle, intrusive & hostile 'qualification' requirements
and procedures too. Jaywalkers ??? Can't have dangerous
criminals like THOSE owning guns !!!
They will try, but it got 1000000 times more difficult now....
|
Um ... not 1,000,000 times ....
The grabbers WILL persist. No twist or turn or distortion
of law or fact is too much if it helps them achieve their
holy mission to disempower the proles. Like the anti-evolution
people, they'll be back every year with a NEW angle to beat
the letter of the law. Since Americans worship the letter
more than the spirit, *eventually* the grabbers might get
lucky.
| Quote: |
It's unclear whether attempts to ban AMMO are thwarted
by the latest decision. Very strictly interpreted, it
applies JUST to the "arms" ... not anything that goes
IN them. One could argue that an 'arm' is not an 'arm'
without free access to vital mechanical accessories - be
they cartridges, bullets, powder ... arrows, speartips
or a sword-sharpener for that matter. Still, I can just
see SOME city trying to get around the decision by
declaring the gunpowder in cartridges as "terrorist
bomb-making material".
They can't use that since it would be like making ink prohibitivly
expensive....
Which is a limit on the right of free speech....
|
Not in the internet age where all info is 'paperless' ... and,
just coincidentally, tracable  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
RM v2.0
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
| Quote: |
Not in the internet age where all info is 'paperless' ... and,
just coincidentally, tracable :-)
Not necessarily. Free WIFI, public libraries, lots of ways to stay anonymous |
on the Net. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
B1ackwater
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:18:10 GMT, "RM v2.0" <Blah@spam.sucks> wrote:
| Quote: |
Not in the internet age where all info is 'paperless' ... and,
just coincidentally, tracable :-)
Not necessarily. Free WIFI, public libraries, lots of ways to stay anonymous
on the Net.
|
But the library probably has time:date stamped security cameras.
If the spooks really want to find you, they'll get the local
authorities to rush to the site and demand the tapes. Being a
public institution, I doubt they'd have a choice but to hand
them over.
As for net-based 'anonymizers' ... whatta you bet the spooks
already have 'em wired to siphon-off original IP and MAC
addresses and such at the push of a remote button ? Even if
it's a chain of onion anonymizers they'd be able to put the
chain back together. Or maybe the spooks secretly OWN the
things ... knowing that the kind of people they'd be looking
for will use 'em .....
Internet cafes and such ? Again, beware the ubiquitous security
cameras. Oh yea, every internet interface has a unique hardware
MAC address ... a real bitch to fabricate and send phony numbers.
The people who sold you the laptop can tell 'em what numbers go
with what machine - and who it was sold to. Even if you stole
it or bought it at a garage sale, they'll have a place to start
their search.
I suppose you can break into the neighbors house ... but they
may have their own cameras, or there may be govt one hidden in
the streetlight outside ... 'traffic control' or 'security'.
Oh, I hope the car you drove doesn't have 'OnStar' to track
your every turn
Finally there's the ultimate hard truth - even if it's POSSIBLE
to get away with it ... 99.99(999?) percent of the people won't
know HOW or will be AFRAID to try. Security States don't have
to be PERFECT in order to achieve their aims. Just keep almost
all of the people from reading/writing/disseminating and the rest
terrified of being caught ... that's good enough for Big Bro.
Control is maintained.
States have VAST resources - financial, authoritarian, human-
resource. If they WANT to silence/identify/nail someone they
almost certainly CAN. All they need are a few excuses to USE
those resources. Tomorrow, maybe they won't even need any
excuses ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
tankfixer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
In article <4868e3af.10806453@news.east.earthlink.net>, bw@barrk.net
says...
| Quote: |
It may also be possible to make USING a gun, even in
self-defense, a crime of some sort - even if it's just
in violation of a "discharging a firearm inside the
city limits' sort of crime - to harass and intimidate
the common Joe.
|
Unlikely since the descion found that self defense is protected.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
B1ackwater
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:28:01 -0700 (PDT), Hiccum Blurpaedius
<hiccum@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 26, 2:01=A0pm, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:55:44 -0400, "leonard7...@primus.ca"
leonard7...@primus.ca> wrote:
Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights
=A0 =A0Yea, a lousy 5-4 decision from people who are supposed
=A0 =A0to be experts on "original intent". Shoulda been 9-0.
=A0 =A0Maybe "W" will have the opportunity to get one more
=A0 =A0'liberal' outta there before January .....
I half agree with you here. The founding fathers were liberals-
everyone ought to liberally have guns.
|
But todays "liberals" are anything BUT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
B1ackwater
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:54:34 -0700, tankfixer
<paul.carrier@gmail.comm> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <4868e3af.10806453@news.east.earthlink.net>, bw@barrk.net
says...
It may also be possible to make USING a gun, even in
self-defense, a crime of some sort - even if it's just
in violation of a "discharging a firearm inside the
city limits' sort of crime - to harass and intimidate
the common Joe.
Unlikely since the descion found that self defense is protected.
|
They wouldn't charge you with the "defense" per-se ... just
the nuts and bolts of how you *accomplished* it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gray Ghost
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius <hiccum@gmail.com> wrote in news:65c1bc74-915e-4e96-b0e3-
d6b5645cf5ec@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: |
Like George Bush senior told George Bush Junior after he kidnapped me,
" If he had a gun you would be dead".
|
This ought to be good. Were you a suspected terrorist? Grabbed under the
Patriot Act?
Or was this more personal?
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:54 am Post subject: Re: Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights |
|
|
On Jul 3, 2:01 am, tankfixer <paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <486a18de.4364...@news.east.earthlink.net>, b...@barrk.net
says...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:54:34 -0700, tankfixer
paul.carr...@gmail.comm> wrote:
In article <4868e3af.10806...@news.east.earthlink.net>, b...@barrk.net
says...
It may also be possible to make USING a gun, even in
self-defense, a crime of some sort - even if it's just
in violation of a "discharging a firearm inside the
city limits' sort of crime - to harass and intimidate
the common Joe.
Unlikely since the descion found that self defense is protected.
They wouldn't charge you with the "defense" per-se ... just
the nuts and bolts of how you *accomplished* it. :-)
I think such a law could be easily challanged and overturned.
--
"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"
- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
"F>>> the law, I want justice"
HOFFA |
|
| 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
