OT Are you on the list ?

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
Tim Carter wrote:
... Unfortunately, the laws you
condone would hamstring my efforts to protect my family, my way of life
and
this country. ...

Yeah, I can sympathize with your need to have military grade weapons to
protect your way of life. I mean you'd hate to be caught without your
missile launcher when the black helicopters come.

Nice try, Kenny, but there's no value in that argument. I have no reason to
believe I'll ever see any need. I do think you'd be a bit shortsighted to
not see the potential need sometime in the future. If you can tell me when
that would be, I'd gladly listen to your stock market advice.


--
Ken Fortenberry

"Tom Gibson" wrote in message
om...
Ken Fortenberry wrote in message
y.com...
Tom Gibson wrote:

I could have guessed that you would be an anti-gun kind of guy. ...

Yeah, you could have, but you'd be wrong. I own several guns myself,
and I'm a card-carrying member of Pheasants Unlimited, but I've never
needed an Uzi to kill a pheasant and neither do you.

Sorry for the faulty perception. After reading various posts in this
thread, perhaps you have a point. The NRA can be a tad extreme at
times, OTOH, so can their opponents. Hangun Control Inc. is *at
least* as bad as the NRA.

OTOH, I'll agree with Mr. Carter, too. The 2nd Amendment has little
to do with pheasants. You may choose to pooh-pooh the concept of an
armed citizenry as the best defense against tyranny, but I do not.
IMO, anyone who thinks that the gov't is their friend has bought The
Big Lie.

As for your 'if you want to shoot at people you have to join a well
regulated militia' comment, I believe that the various governments of
these United States have more or less outlawed (or at least given up
on) the concept of a well-regulated militia other than the National
Guard--which is a far cry from what the 2nd Amendment refers to.
Frankly, I doubt that any of us actually *want* to shoot at
people--but I wonder which of us *would* if the situation called for
it?

I'll also agree with Wolfgang that the list of organizations whose
blacklist I'd like to be on is long indeed, and the groups he mentions
specifically are a good start.

I think everyone can find something to agree with you on too! In fact,
I am not an NRA member and interestingly enough, received a call from them
less than two weeks ago to 'join them and their leader'. Seemed a little
South Park cult-like if you ask me, and, I believe many of their views are
extreme - such as their stance against 'ballistic fingerprinting' and
against firearm locks.


Tom G
hunting rabbits in the AM

Tim Carter wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:

Yeah, I can sympathize with your need to have military grade weapons to
protect your way of life. I mean you'd hate to be caught without your
missile launcher when the black helicopters come.

Nice try, Kenny, but there's no value in that argument. I have no reason to
believe I'll ever see any need. I do think you'd be a bit shortsighted to
not see the potential need sometime in the future. ...

One good thing about being one of the shortsighted folk is that I don't
have to continuously readjust my aluminum foil hat.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
Tim Carter wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:

Yeah, I can sympathize with your need to have military grade weapons to
protect your way of life. I mean you'd hate to be caught without your
missile launcher when the black helicopters come.

Nice try, Kenny, but there's no value in that argument. I have no
reason to
believe I'll ever see any need. I do think you'd be a bit shortsighted
to
not see the potential need sometime in the future. ...

One good thing about being one of the shortsighted folk is that I don't
have to continuously readjust my aluminum foil hat.


Whoa, really? How do you do that and still keep the Orgonen coming in
straight? I find that paperclips work pretty well, but they interfere with
the cloud-busting.

--riverman

"Tim Carter" wrote:
"rw" wrote...
riverman wrote:
I wasn't aware that any legal body, at any level, has managed to
determine precisely what the 2nd amendment intended.

Good point. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is obscure, at best.

My fault, it doesn't say 'well-armed'. But I also suspect the Founding
Fathers meant 'inadequately armed'
Amendment II

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.

Did you intend to say *not* inadequately or maybe *adequately*? The
above doesn't really add up with everything else you've posted on this
topic.

FWIW, most state constitutions are much more specific:
PA: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned.

IL: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual
citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

MA: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common
defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature;
and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination
to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

WI: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,
defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. (1998?)

Here's a site with links to state constitutions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html

So far, I like the PA version best.

Tom G

Thomas Gibson wrote:

PA: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned.

So far, I like the PA version best.

I don't. Its language is bizarre and its logic nonsensical. How can a
state constitution forbid something from being questioned? Even
proposing a constitutional amendment would be unconstitutional!

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"Guyz-N-Flyz" wrote in message
...

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"slenon" wrote in news:x8bob.56689
:

I'm reminded of a line from "Blues Brothers."


How much for de wimmen??

Scott

I think it was " I hate Illinios Nazis." I could be wrong though.

Op --I don't know any Nazis, but I know Ken ain't no Nazi! Gutterscum,
maybe? Nazi, not a chance.--

I always figured him to be one of them left wing pinko types.G

Mark


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003

"Thomas Gibson" wrote in message
...
"Tim Carter" wrote:
"rw" wrote...
riverman wrote:
I wasn't aware that any legal body, at any level, has managed to
determine precisely what the 2nd amendment intended.

Good point. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is obscure, at best.

My fault, it doesn't say 'well-armed'. But I also suspect the Founding
Fathers meant 'inadequately armed'
Amendment II

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.

Did you intend to say *not* inadequately or maybe *adequately*? The
above doesn't really add up with everything else you've posted on this
topic.

It was a typo...I meant to say the Founding Fathers didn't mean
"inadequately armed", though I thought the implied sarcasm in the mistake
worked.

And I like PA's too....


FWIW, most state constitutions are much more specific:
PA: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned.

IL: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual
citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

MA: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common
defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature;
and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination
to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

WI: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,
defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. (1998?)

Here's a site with links to state constitutions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html

So far, I like the PA version best.

Tom G