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

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:55:49 GMT, Steve Krulick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
>> 
>> Steve, you can try and warp the meaning of those twenty-seven words in any
>> manner you like,
>
>I'm not trying to warp anything. 

     Yes you are.

You are merely opining so, and,
>as it is just the blatant assertion of your unsubstantiated
>opinion, it is a worthless opinion.
>
     And your opinions based on faulty court cases and pseudo-scholars
and historians is less than worthless.

>I have presented authoritative support material, and presented a
>logical case; you just bloviate your fact-free claim.
>
   Just like ypou do when someone else presents their authoritive
support material and their logical caes?  

>When you are ready to refute the actual evidence I posted, and
>present comparable authoritative source material to support YOUR
>fantasy interpretation, then you might be on firmer ground. As
>it is, you have merely begged the question and made tautological
>"it means what it means" claims. No debate points, Sparky.
>

     How come your opponents refused to continue debating YOU when you
tried to win an election?  

     Steve seems to want the Second Amendment to be read as a
guarentee that the citizens of this country can join the state or
federal military organizations.
   
>
>Begging the question. You simply and blatantly go back to
>asserting the right is an individual one, but offer no proof or
>support. The courts simply disagree with your incorrect
>interpretation:
>
 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