An Open Letter to President Bush

Stop already. Go find yourselves a reg.politics for nasty trolls
site. Leave this one alone. Please!!!

Maryann

"Anything can be anywhere!"

"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote
I'm trying to figure out what part of "well-regulated" means "no
regulations
whatsoever", which seems to be what most gun-rights advocates want.

It means 'well-fitted', well-equipped. You'll remember the old 'Regulator'
clocks, or vigilantes being called 'Regulators'; it means 'well suited to
the task'.
It doesn't imply being constrained by authority- in fact, it removes any
authority from the government to set laws about being armed. The laws as are
on the books are mostly about interState commerce, and regulating weapons
that have none other than 'criminal' purpose- useful mostly for robbery and
such. The Courts have generally stayed away from delineating the power of
the government because a strict interpretation would tend to dilute what
they've already arrogated to themselves.

Chas

"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote
I'm trying to figure out what part of "well-regulated" means "no
regulations
whatsoever", which seems to be what most gun-rights advocates want.

It means 'well-fitted', well-equipped. You'll remember the old 'Regulator'
clocks, or vigilantes being called 'Regulators'; it means 'well suited to
the task'.
It doesn't imply being constrained by authority- in fact, it removes any
authority from the government to set laws about being armed. The laws as are
on the books are mostly about interState commerce, and regulating weapons
that have none other than 'criminal' purpose- useful mostly for robbery and
such. The Courts have generally stayed away from delineating the power of
the government because a strict interpretation would tend to dilute what
they've already arrogated to themselves.

Chas

From "Tom Kunich":

Let me see if I understand you correctly - if the ACLU defends one right
winger it nullifies their actions in 98% of their other cases which are
strictly left wing issues.

You're projecting again, Tom.

Think of Justice with her eyes (not the boobs) covered. --TP

From "Tom Kunich":

Let me see if I understand you correctly - if the ACLU defends one right
winger it nullifies their actions in 98% of their other cases which are
strictly left wing issues.

You're projecting again, Tom.

Think of Justice with her eyes (not the boobs) covered. --TP

"Chas" wrote in message ...
"Andy Gale" wrote
The real problem is the ACLU. Because every
illegal-midnight-border-crosser knows that he has a lawyer in the US
ready and willing to fight for him. Of course the ACLU does a lot of
other heinous stuff to undermine American freedom,
This might be the stupidest thing I've ever read on usenet.

Without all the unfortunate hyperbole, it's pretty much true.
Illegals come here with the knowledge that the burden of proving they're
illegal rests on us; that they can declare 'refugee status', that a criminal
charge gets a freebie lawyer, and the process is glacial at best.
The ACLU has a very limited agenda, and their intentions can be very
questionable- ....


Especially when they stand up for criminals like Oliver North.
(annoying emoticon here)


J. Del Col

"Chas" wrote in message ...
"Andy Gale" wrote
The real problem is the ACLU. Because every
illegal-midnight-border-crosser knows that he has a lawyer in the US
ready and willing to fight for him. Of course the ACLU does a lot of
other heinous stuff to undermine American freedom,
This might be the stupidest thing I've ever read on usenet.

Without all the unfortunate hyperbole, it's pretty much true.
Illegals come here with the knowledge that the burden of proving they're
illegal rests on us; that they can declare 'refugee status', that a criminal
charge gets a freebie lawyer, and the process is glacial at best.
The ACLU has a very limited agenda, and their intentions can be very
questionable- ....


Especially when they stand up for criminals like Oliver North.
(annoying emoticon here)


J. Del Col

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message nk.net...
"Tom Paterson" wrote in message
...
From: "Chas"

Without all the unfortunate hyperbole, it's pretty much true.
Illegals come here with the knowledge that the burden of proving they're
illegal rests on us; that they can declare 'refugee status', that a
criminal
charge gets a freebie lawyer, and the process is glacial at best.
The ACLU has a very limited agenda, and their intentions can be very
questionable- depending on what you think they're about.

The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh.

Getting that asshole off was very questionable IMHO, I'll agree with you
there.

Let me see if I understand you correctly - if the ACLU defends one right
winger it nullifies their actions in 98% of their other cases which are
strictly left wing issues.

Tom,

So you consider the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 'left wing
issues' ? I'm not surprised.

"Tom Kunich" wrote in message nk.net...
"Tom Paterson" wrote in message
...
From: "Chas"

Without all the unfortunate hyperbole, it's pretty much true.
Illegals come here with the knowledge that the burden of proving they're
illegal rests on us; that they can declare 'refugee status', that a
criminal
charge gets a freebie lawyer, and the process is glacial at best.
The ACLU has a very limited agenda, and their intentions can be very
questionable- depending on what you think they're about.

The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh.

Getting that asshole off was very questionable IMHO, I'll agree with you
there.

Let me see if I understand you correctly - if the ACLU defends one right
winger it nullifies their actions in 98% of their other cases which are
strictly left wing issues.

Tom,

So you consider the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 'left wing
issues' ? I'm not surprised.

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:

The NRA believes in only the following words, "the right to keep and bear
arms" ...

The UCI disagrees about the right to bare arms.