If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
In article , §ñühwØ£f
says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal.. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald -- "Tis an ill wind that blows no minds" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com
: In article , §ñühwØ£f says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald blink I dont think a slug counts as a "vote". |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
§ñühw¤£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
@registered.motzarella.org: Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com : In article , §ñühwØ£f says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald blink I dont think a slug counts as a "vote". in a lot of the world it certainly does! Bertie |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
On Jun 9, 9:22*am, §ñühw¤£f wrote:
Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com : In article , §ñühwØ£f says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. *It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. *They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. * Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. *The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. *The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald blink I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".- Hide quoted text - I think he was killed by his doctors .... Cheers |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
In article , Bertie the
Bunyip says... §ñühw=3F£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7 @registered.motzarella.org: Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com : In article , §ñühwØ£f says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald blink I dont think a slug counts as a "vote". in a lot of the world it certainly does! I can't think of anywhere it doesn't! -- "Tis an ill wind that blows no minds" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:26:59 -0700, More_Flaps wrote:
On Jun 9, 9:22*am, §ñühw¤£f wrote: Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com : In article , §ñühwØ£f says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. *It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. *They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. * Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. *The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. *The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald blink I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".- Hide quoted text - I think he was killed by his doctors .... Cheers WAS IT DR.NO???? -- http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/...written-notes/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
§ñühw¤£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7 @registered.motzarella.org: Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com : In article , §ñühwØ£f says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald blink I dont think a slug counts as a "vote". in a lot of the world it certainly does! Bertie You've been spending too much time in Myanmar... -- http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/...written-notes/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
Maxwell luv2^fly99@live.^com wrote in
: In article , Bertie the Bunyip says... §ñühw=3F£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$ 7 @registered.motzarella.org: Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com : In article , §ñühw Ø£f says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald blink I dont think a slug counts as a "vote". in a lot of the world it certainly does! I can't think of anywhere it doesn't! Hmmm, you have a point. Bertie |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court
§ñühwØ£f wrote in
news On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote: §ñühw¤£f wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7 @registered.motzarella.org: Max Isn't Well luv2^fly99@live.^com : In article , §ñühwØ£f says... On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote: I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking, misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to ZeD: On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote: Aratzio says... On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks, "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing: Aratzio wrote: biggus snippus I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon. I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now, if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what are assault "weapons". Specific types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled. They are.....like since 1934. And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal. 'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify semi-automatic arms or even small arms. The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have. That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear from their government. I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after Way Too ****ing Late. Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution" that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like the idea that their vote actually counts The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald blink I dont think a slug counts as a "vote". in a lot of the world it certainly does! Bertie You've been spending too much time in Myanmar... Well, i have spent a lot of time in the third world, and election time in a lot of it means a coup, but the so-called first world is often about three weeks from martial law. I'm still astonished as to how few repercussions did arise form 9-11, in fact. Some other nations that look entirely stable are less so than one might imagine, IMO. I'm not gonna worry, though! Bertie Berte |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Forged post above - complements of Bertie the Butlipps
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court | Max Isn't Well | Piloting | 4 | June 9th 08 06:11 PM |
1st AMENDMENT PROTECTS TROLLS FROM BEING TOSed FROM ISP, SUPREME COURT RULES | Bertie the Bunyip[_24_] | Piloting | 8 | February 16th 08 04:32 PM |
Departure procedures notice | Jim Macklin | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | January 27th 07 02:57 PM |
China has taken notice it would seem | Mike Keown | Military Aviation | 8 | August 29th 03 07:09 PM |
China has taken notice it would seem | Mike Keown | Naval Aviation | 5 | August 29th 03 05:13 PM |