Typical Kike on Gun Control

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
or phrase changes over time.

Time for a change.

Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

Additionally, in the U.S. the "militia" did (and still does) include
every able-bodied man.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd

Wrong. For example, see:

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
citizen's militia is now unnecessary.

Irrelevant.

**Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
for change.

I disagree.

**That old chestnut. I'll bite.

History shows us clearly that governmens are not to be trusted.

List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.

Look them up yourself.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Roger Blake]

Also see:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

You will be hard pressed to find anything from the U.S. founders that
supports your position.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

People misunderstand the second amendment. Think about this, the Constitution frames and limits the power of the federal government. The Bill Of Rights is a list of SPECIFIC limitations on federal government powers.

Note the placement of the comma. What it means is that since the government must have guns, the People must also have guns. Now when you want to define guns, as I said, let them. Any arms they use domestically against US Citizens, US Citizens have the right to keep and bear.

Think about that, the government will not usually use bazookas on the streets of US cities, they will not drop a bomb on the people who they want to vote for them. But they will have hi cap mags and scopes and all kinds of neat shit. I know some of what they are capable of and it is pretty awesome. They can see in the dark, through walls and aim weapons with those devices. They have ultrasonic devices for riot control that can blow your mind - literally. However those will usually be set to just make you nauseous or feel like you have to piss like a racehorse.

We should have the same. The whole idea is for us to control them, not the other way around.

If you don't like it fine, because we are not giving up our guns to anyone no matter what. And there are millions upon millions of us. What's more about two million are ready for a revolution, but are too smart to start. There is not enough public support to make it moral and therefor lawful, or successful. But just give it time. As the government takes more and more, coddles the rich and fucks the poor, and continually pisses more and more people aff the time will come. And I believe, since I have been corresponding internationally for some time now, the world will help.

No we get to the K word. Jews are not about taking guns away, not largely. They know better. In fact there is an organisation known as JPFO. I think it is JPFrg.

And just in case you all didn't know, Saturday was not only national weed day, it was Hitler's birthday.

 

[soup]

Mark Zacharias wrote:

I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject.

Or snip, apparently.

 

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:23:06 -0700, UCLAN <UCLAN@invalid.net> wrote:

On 4/20/2013 6:41 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.

So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?

I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
protected by the Second Amendment.

Define "assault weapon". (this ought to be good for a laugh)

If so, where do you draw the line?

The line is pretty bright, should you care to actually take a few
moments to educate yourself rather than spout the typical leftist
nonsense.

Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

Again, you show your complete ignorance of the subject which you rant
on about.

 

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:35:09 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
or phrase changes over time.

Correct, but the larger point here is that only one who is completely
ignorant of both logic and the English language can believe that a
subordinate clause in any way modifies the independent clause.

Time for a change.

Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

If the moron Aussie believes that it's time to change the US
Constitution, the instructions are self-contained. (Hint: he has no
clue and clearly impotent in the matter)

 

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:59:40 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

Additionally, in the U.S. the "militia" did (and still does) include
every able-bodied man.

There are exceptions (e.g. those holding federal elected positions,
though it could be argued that they're under the "able-bodied"
exemption above .

 

[§ńühwöŁf]

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:23:06 -0700, UCLAN <UCLAN@invalid.net> wrote:

On 4/20/2013 6:41 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?
I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
protected by the Second Amendment.

Define "assault weapon". (this ought to be good for a laugh)

If so, where do you draw the line?

The line is pretty bright, should you care to actually take a few
moments to educate yourself rather than spout the typical leftist
nonsense.

Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

Again, you show your complete ignorance of the subject which you rant
on about.

Fuck off, Net L00n.


--
http://signon.org/sign/protect-americas-wolves
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

 

[Ramsman]

On 20/04/2013 20:45, Ramsman wrote:

On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

I just told him the same thing.

I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
morals?).


Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.

If you're going to make statements like that with no evidence to back

them up, it doesn't do much for what little credibility you do have.

Ranting is no substitute for reasoned argument.

Once again, please tell use where these countries are that are ruled by
a royal family.

Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
whole world has a fucking opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][n]

Very few Americans know anything about anything outside the US.


--
Peter

 

[Michael Moroney]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> writes:

On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> writes:

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.

So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?


**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
atop a box at a street corner.

 

[Michael Moroney]

UCLAN <UCLAN@invalid.net> writes:

I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
protected by the Second Amendment. If so, where do you draw the line?
Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

Depends on your definition of "assault weapons". Do you mean what the
military and gun industry calls "assault weapons"? Or what the media and
anti-gun activists call "assault weapons"?

 

[UCLAN]

On 4/21/2013 7:42 AM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
protected by the Second Amendment.

Define "assault weapon". (this ought to be good for a laugh)

If so, where do you draw the line?

The line is pretty bright, should you care to actually take a few
moments to educate yourself rather than spout the typical leftist
nonsense.

Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

Again, you show your complete ignorance of the subject which you rant
on about.

Typical non-answer. Lots of rhetoric, but not even an attempt at an
answer to a simple question. Figures...

 

[UCLAN]

On 4/21/2013 8:36 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:

I'll assume from the above that you believe that assault weapons are
protected by the Second Amendment. If so, where do you draw the line?
Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank parked in my front yard?

Depends on your definition of "assault weapons". Do you mean what the
military and gun industry calls "assault weapons"? Or what the media and
anti-gun activists call "assault weapons"?

Nice evasion tactic. I'll repeat the pertinent part of the question.

"If so, where do you draw the line? Bazookas? Grenade launchers? A tank
parked in my front yard?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

Why is that it everyone who post from down under is insane? Of
course, 'rageaudio' tells everyone that you are just an opinionated ass.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"G. Morgan" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

I just told him the same thing.

I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
morals?).

Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
whole world has a fucking opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][n]

That's because they have very few rights, and would get locked up or
executed if they mouthed off about their queers, err, Queens.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

**Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.

You're just afraid that if they locked up everyone who was violent &
insane in the United States, it would spread to your worthless hellhole.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw@attt.bizz wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
comprehensively brainwashed.

You're completely clueless but we all knew that. If the facts
disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil. Typical
leftist moron.

he thinks the US government should confiscate all the guns and murder
anyone who resists, like their government did to the man that inspired
the 'Crocodile Dundee' character.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Mark Zacharias wrote:

By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
to dispatch Bambi.

Even if Bambi is an evil $ insane liberal who builds bombs? ;-)