Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 15:19:51 GMT, Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>David Lentz wrote:
>> 
>> Speedbyrd wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> > >> And that can be changed and that is what I'm doing my part to help to happen.
>> > >> You anti-government radicals make me tired.  You wouldn't be such a bigmouth 
>> > >> without the firearm.  It's go to
>> > >> go.
>> > >
>> > >I find it amusing that my simple assertion of a fundamental right
>> > >to keep and bear arms is labeled as as anti government tirade.  I
>> > >also note that the same hoplophobe finds the Constitution be to
>> > >an impediment, much like B.J. Clinton did and the United Nations
>> > >does.
>> > >
>> > >David
>> >
>> > I'm thrilled that you're amused.
>> > Bearing arms is NOT a right, whether you like it or not.
>> >
>> >     The Speedbyrd :>
>> 
>> It seems almost unfair to pick on the historically challenged.
>
>That's how I feel each time I hand you your head.
>
>> Such is life:
>> 
>>         When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
>> people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
>> with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the
>> separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
>> Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
>> mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
>> them to the separation.
>> 
>>         We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
>> created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
>> certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
>> and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights,
>> Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
>> from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of
>> Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
>> the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
>> Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
>> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
>> likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
>> will dictate that Governments long established should not be
>> changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
>> experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
>> while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
>> abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a
>> long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
>> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
>> Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
>> Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
>> security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these
>> Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to
>> alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the
>> present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries
>> and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
>> an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts
>> be submitted to a candid world.
>
>Irrelevant. Where is the term "bear arms" found above, or that
>it is a fundamental absolute right? You just make assertions and
>draw fantasy conclusions. The courts consistently kick your butt
>on this:
>


    I suppose that you'd also support "Jim Crow", "Seperate but
equal", poll taxes, literacy tests and other forms of segregation when
they were approved by the courts.

 Steve Krulick consistantly posts court cases that are based on faulty

assumptions of the courts and reliance on politically biased material.
It 
seems that he refuses to cross check the material in those cases with
the 
material those courts reference as used in their decisions.   He
accuses 
me of having "unsubstantiated opinion(s)" but I did a little research
and believe that my findings bear out and substantiate my assertions.

     Let him go back to those court cases and  validate the opinions
of 
the court by checking the validity of the quotes, the accuracy and the

logic that the courts used to make thier decisions.  At least I went
back 
to the preceding court cases to check the validity of their assertions
and 
the accuracy of their quotes.  I did a little reaserch on my own.

See U S v. WRIGHT Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9tukvn%24v1h%241%40slb5.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain

See U.S. v. Hale Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ev2vc%24rb7%241%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain

See  U.S. v. Warin Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ev32h%24rb7%242%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain

See Hickman v. Block Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9ev34d%24rb7%243%40slb2.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain

See Love v. Pepersack .01 Exposed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ap60d3%248qd%241%40slb4.atl.mindspring.net&output=gplain

For further reading, see:
http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/quinshy.html

http://www.2ndLawLib.org/journals/dencite.html