Giving photogs a bad name?

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 10:48:18 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:
:
: On 6/6/14 8:28 PM, in article ,
: "Robert Coe" wrote:
:
: Every single thing we've heard so far is consistent with the possibility
: that Bergdahl was an American spy sent, under the cover of pretending
: to be a deserter, to infiltrate the Taliban. Even if he weren't, the
: Government might choose to behave as though he were, just to keep the
: Taliban guessing. In cases like this it's a mistake to jump to
: conclusions about the actions or motivations of any of the participants.
:
: Bob
:
: And pigs fly.

George, I know you're distressed that you haven't sprouted wings, but just
give it time …

Bob

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 10:56:36 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 6/7/14 9:37 PM, in article ,
"Eric Stevens" wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 09:51:41 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 5/28/14 5:38 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 May 2014 05:49:59 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-05-28 04:23:14 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:


That said, no way am I giving up my guns!!

I'm curious as to why this is or why you feel that way.

I do understand that in general americans do see guns in a differnt way to
those of us in the UK and perhaps other countries too.
I don't see this as a being right or wrong but a reflection on the society
you
would like to live in and that goes for most things.


An armed society is a free society.

Having said that, I strongly disagree with these idiots here in Texas who
march into restaurants with their long-guns. They are Drama Queens.

Entirely coincidentally, my sister has just sent me this link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wPhjbqbWs

Another Leftard tool who was successful as a comic either...

The thing that caught my attention is that the behaviour of these gun
nuts is causing chains like Wendy's (and several others I can't
recall) to ban people from bringing guns into their premises. I don't
know how the law stands on this or how their ability to ban applies to
hand guns and concealed carry.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/8/14 12:55 PM, in article ,
"Robert Coe" wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 10:48:18 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:
:
: On 6/6/14 8:28 PM, in article ,
: "Robert Coe" wrote:
:
: Every single thing we've heard so far is consistent with the possibility
: that Bergdahl was an American spy sent, under the cover of pretending
: to be a deserter, to infiltrate the Taliban. Even if he weren't, the
: Government might choose to behave as though he were, just to keep the
: Taliban guessing. In cases like this it's a mistake to jump to
: conclusions about the actions or motivations of any of the participants.
:
: Bob
:
: And pigs fly.

George, I know you're distressed that you haven't sprouted wings, but just
give it time …

Bob

Your prognostication is more likey to happen in a parallel universe I am
afraid...

On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...


Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
I await it with bated breath.

--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...


Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
I await it with bated breath.

What is working very well though, is how you've cornered him.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 6/9/2014 10:29 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone. Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed, and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...


Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
I await it with bated breath.

What is working very well though, is how you've cornered him.


I just let him corner himself.


--
PeterN

On 6/9/14 7:37 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the
writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The
predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone.
Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are
living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual
right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed,
and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a
new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more
than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply
in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti
guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been
referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want
to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...


Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
I await it with bated breath.

I would say "BAITed" breath is more your style.

Go make another strawman...

On 6/10/2014 3:46 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/9/14 7:37 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the
writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The
predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone.
Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are
living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual
right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed,
and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a
new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more
than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply
in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down. Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti
guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been
referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want
to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...


Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
I await it with bated breath.

I would say "BAITed" breath is more your style.

Go make another strawman...


Just answer the question, please.


--
PeterN

On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L. Davidson"
wrote:

PeterN wrote:
On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the
writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The
predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone.
Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are
living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual
right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed,
and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a
new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more
than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply
in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down.
Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle
is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti
guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been
referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe
no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want
to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...


Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
I await it with bated breath.

What is working very well though, is how you've cornered him.

Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT "cornering",
please.

For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by
the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners
by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works...

So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun Control
Proles?!?

IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

George Kerby wrote:
On 6/9/14 9:29 PM, in article , "Floyd L. Davidson"
wrote:

PeterN wrote:
On 6/8/2014 11:46 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 6:11 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 6:31 PM, George Kerby wrote:



On 6/6/14 2:39 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 6/6/2014 1:33 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:33:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"PeterN"
On 6/4/2014 3:40 PM, PAS wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message

True. But there is more than just the Constitution that the
writers
left
behind, their other writing and records of speeches. The
predominant
writer
of the 2nd Amendment considered the "militia" to be everyone.
Other
founders were very clear about who has the right to have firearms.

People arguing against the individual rights interpretation are
living
in the past. The Supreme Court has ruled, it is an individual
right,
it
is not tied to participatiion in a militia, that ship has sailed,
and
arguing to the contrary is a waste of time and effort.

The gun control advocates need to abandon that rhetoric and find a
new
argument. With DC v Heller they shot themselves in the foot. The
Supreme Court had managed to avoid ruling on that point for more
than
200 years but the district attorney in DC presented such a crazy
theory
of law (specifically the notion that the Constitution did not apply
in
DC) that the Supreme Court pretty much _had_ to knock it down.
Then
Chicago stuck their foot in it and got the question of whether it
restricted the states settled (it does). So now the legal battle
is
no
longer over whether there is such a right but what if any the
limitations on it might be.

The anti-gun nuts will never consider it settled because they don't
agree
with it.

There is a big difference between against gun nuts, and being anti
guns.
If you wish to own a gun, fine provided gun ownership is subject to
reasonable regulations. Gun nuts, think everyone should have the
unrestricted right to own and carry arms, any place, at any time.
Using that definition, there are millions of people who are anti gun
nuts.
Yes there are nuts on both sides of the fence.

Yes, there are nuts on both sides, as there usually is. I like to use
the
term "anti-gun nut" whenever someone introduces "gun-nut" into the
discussion. Being in favor of he right to own a gun, I've been
referred
to
as a gun-nut from time-to-time, usually by people who simply believe
no
one
should ever own a gun for any reason, but also b some others who want
to
see
more and more restrictions on our freedom.

However anyone who persists in the "militia" rhetoric post-Heller is
ignorant, in denial, or nuts.

It would seem to me that any reference to the Second Amendment, by a
nut on either side, without a mention of "militia" is in denial.

Those on the pro-gun-control side bring it up as a condition that is
no longer is a threat. Those on the pro-gun side bring it up
obliquely as a need for the citizenry to arm themselves to defend
against the only invading force that is feared: our federal
government. If the citizenry is prepared to form and defend, that's a
militia.


There are those of us who are in favor of gun control, but not against
the private ownership of guns. The notion of one side or another is just
more NRA gunk.

Bull****.

those who claim there is such a need, forget that small arms would be of
little use against the Federal guvernment.


The mind-numbed are SO friggin' helpless are they not, folks?


Do you think all US citizens should have an unrestricted right to own
fully operational, in all respects, including armaments:
(please answer the question for each item)
For purposes of your answer assume that neither money, nor national
security is a consideration.


You are being either a fool or trying to be cute. Neither are working...


Well, when are you giving a reasoned and rational response?
I await it with bated breath.

What is working very well though, is how you've cornered him.

Floyd. Learn that throwing down ridiculous propositions is NOT "cornering",
please.

You didn't answer the questions, because they show just
what it is that is ridiculous.

For one, the idea that "gun control" means "against
private ownership" is ridiculous. I own guns, I am very
much in favor of significantly increased control of
guns. But I am clearly very much in favor of private
gun ownership.

But why are gun magazines all about assault weapons, not
about hunting?

Why does everyone need a handgun that is too big to
shoot and has no purpose other than ego inflation or
killing people?

For instance, liberals state that We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by
the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners
by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works...

Funny that you make up things which are false in order
to argue something. Why not stick with facts?

So you do not see what totally insane hyperboles he suggested is not
relevant to a normal conversation without the hysteria of the Gun Control
Proles?!?

The insanity comes from your side, as seen in what you
just said.

IN ALASKA?!? My-my...

Yes, exactly. A place where guns are clearly necessary
and useful. We actually use them for something
reasonable. Note that I don't own an AR-15 or an M16.
I have no high capacity clips, nor even a gun that can
use them.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)