1
   

Blessings from OmSigDAVID

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 06:14 pm
Thank u, Dlowan; most kind of u to post the definition.
OK, then, NeoGun believes that I am indecisive ?
on matters of controversy ?

Well, admittedly, I don't support W on some of
his positions (e.g., limiting funding for stem cell research,
his anti-cloning stance, nor his opposition to abortion),

but there are very few such issues
concerning which I am on the fence.
Offhand, parental freedom to spank a child
is the only one I can think of.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 08:17 pm
I believe I am using the wrong term (unless someone can tell me WHY they refused to support Blaine)

But I swear they were basically "Social Darwinists", which IMHO, have morphed into the "Free-Market Fundamentalists" of today.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 09:32 pm
OK

As long as my Neo Gun functions properly
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 09:36 pm
What r "muggles" ??
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 09:37 pm
It appears that my vocabulary is grossly deficient.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2003 09:45 pm
muggles: in Harry Potter books it refers to any person who is not a sorcerer.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 01:32 am
O
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 06:16 am
Actually I don't think OmSig is uncertian as he is gullible, as he seems to have fallen for Heston's 2nd Ammendmnt absolutism hok and sinker.

I need to remember to rent "Bowling For Columbine".

(And could there be another web page here; to go with The Next War, the soon to be relaunched Bush Infomation Network, a possible re-launch of the Religious Liberty Network and even a bona fide personal site). Actually since the Gun Lobby may be second only to the fundys in running the GOP it may just be easier to link it off Bush-Info, along with a Howard Dean page:)
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 07:00 am
I have argued with omsigdavid over guns in the past. I have nothing new to add now.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 07:04 am
I'll argue about guns if omsigdavid learns to spell.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 08:27 am
I remember the Mugwumps. They sang with Linda Ronstadt.

Very hairy.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 08:30 pm
NeoGun:

It is a historical fact that the Founders
of the USA intended n expected each citizen
to be well armed. Remember, there were NO
police around until the 18OOs, neither in America,
nor in England.

In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms' ".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the National Guard
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined
"the people" to mean those people who have a right peaceably to
assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment] in their persons
houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are
protected by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e.THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.

It is most noteworthy that the Court RELIED upon its definition of "the people".
Its conclusion in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition,
so that stare decisis attaches, thus creating binding judicial precedent,
explaining WHO THE PEOPLE ARE who have the said rights.
That law SHOULD control the courts,
thus disabling all governments in America from violating our personal rights to weaponry and self-defense.




I don't need Heston for a teacher.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 08:38 pm
You still seem to be buying the NRA line.

I still wonder what part of "Well-Regulated" they don't understand, and how much more blood needs to be shed.

It doesn't help that advocates of reasonble restrictions seem to suffer from a malady that so many "progressive" groups suffer from. An inability to assemble into a political body.

I don't argue with robots.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 09:15 pm
"Well regulated" did not mean by any GOVERNMENT.
When George Mason n Geoge Washington
organized the Fairfax County Militia Organization,
they had NO permission from the King of England
to do it. There already WAS a colonial militia.
Thus, their unit was a "well regulated" militia.

In the parlance of previous centuries,
a government sponsored, publicly funded militia
was called a "selected militia" meaning selected
by a government. In contrast, a "well regulated"
militia was a private group, the guys in the neighborhood,
like a volunteer fire dept, or a volunteer library.


DISPASSIONATE ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENT'S
SYNTACTICAL ARCHITECTURE
MAY BE FACILITATED BY THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY:

"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" US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

ANALOGY: A well educated electorate being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE
to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

1. Does this say that only voters have the right to read books?

2. Does this say "well educated" only by STATE GOVERNMENT colleges?

3. Does this say that only voters who are professors of state run colleges
have the right to read books?

4. Does this say that if you miss an election, it's ok for the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Books to knock down your door and steal your books?

If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY new "gun control" laws? (or old ones?)


In deciding what to believe, I take no particular
notice of the NRA. They have not taught me anything.
My findings r from historical analysis.

I might observe that law review articles
concerning the 2nd Amendment, by leading
liberal intellectuals like Larry Tribe, Sanford Levinson, n
Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School
agree with MY position; almost unanimously.


I guess u brush off the USSC too, NeoGun ?

in that case I quoted ?
I have MORE cases from the USSC
favoring freedom to bear arms freely available.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 09:21 pm
Examples of "well regulated" militia:
the Free French in WWII, under the control
of no government; or,

the merchants in American cities who
took up arms to defend their stores
in NY n in California, in time of race riots; or

the heros who took back the airliner
on 9/11 n crashed it, rather than let
the Moslems crash it into the White House.

All of these militia had no taint of any government control.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 07:11 am
Regulate: 1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.

A militia regulating themselves? Perhaps not as absurd then as it is now.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 07:21 am
As OmBot is basically on ignore as all he seems to be able to do is spew the NRA line.

Light:
It seems to me that the Gun Lobby (and thier allies) are closer to anarchist than they or thier minions realize.

PS. Found a link to VPC, basically the NRA's chief thorn and I hope to find more sites dedicated to the idea that the RKBA can be reconciled to a modern, and alas, more violent society.

Suggestions are welcome and feel free to PM me.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 07:50 am
The NRA mantra isn't just about guns it's "And just what did you shoot today?" A tin can, a deer or a human being?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 11:26 am
Spend a weekend in the adult ED at Hopkins ( I spent three and a half years wotrh of them) and tell me that private ownership of guns is a good thing, Rolling Eyes


As far as OSD's spelling, I usually get at least one first paper per section of Western Civ I teach each term in that form. They quickly acquire dictionaries when they see the big red ZERO on their papers. The thing that boggles the mind is that their highschools apparently let them get away with such nonsense.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 12:23 pm
Hobitbob:

U r comitting educational malpractice,
professional negligence, dereliction of duty,
n abuse of your students by perpetuating an
anti-efficient orthografic paradime.
EITHER U R FOR LOGIC n SOUND REASONING,
or u r against it.

Sir, inefficient spelling is doomed to extinction,
like Chaucerian English. Neither u, nor Humpty Dumpty can save it.

I hope to expedite its demise.

The professor gets a BIG, FAT ZERO !
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 12:25:00