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

Morton Davis wrote:
> 
> "Diogenes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Pat Hines wrote:
> > > Steve Krulick wrote:
> > >
> > >> Morton Davis wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> "David Lentz" <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A citizen of the United States is assumed to have the God given
> > >>>> right to dissolve his political bonds.  So said Thomas
> > >>>> Jefferson.  So we did absolve are bonds to King George.  For a
> > >>>> free citizenry to retain her inherent power to absolve her
> > >>>> government,  she must remain armed.  The militia was armed on
> > >>>> April 19, 1775 and free citizens must retains that same right
> > >>>> today.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Question: If you sent a copy of the Declaration of Independence,
> > >>> without its
> > >>> title, to Teddy Kennedy, would he recognize it? Or would he carry it
> > >>> into
> > >>> the Congress with him and denounce it the way he did a direct quote
> from
> > >>> Thomas Jefferson?
> > >>>
> > >>> -*MORT*-
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> That's funny BrainDead! As YOU "recognized" 'direct quotes' from
> > >> Jefferson and Washington that NEITHER ever said, and posted them
> > >> as if they were real! Remember? May 2001:
> > >>
> 
> Clueless Steve Krulick

Empty ad homs prove nothing. You haven't demonstrated any
evidence for that claim, other than your blatant assertion.

> continues to crow about an error I made over a year
> ago,

No, when called on it and proven that it was bogus, you didn't
admit it but proudly kept on repeating it over and over, and
simply ad hommed me as reason enough to ignore the evidence
presented, even though by "pro-gun" sites. When have you EVER
admitted to those multiple errors?

> in which I am not alone.

And that is an excuse? THAT justifies YOUR error?

> If one highlights the quote and pastes it in
> as a search phrase ino any search engine, one will find multiple places
> where that quote is used as being correct.

As I've said, the hoplophile record of research is poor all
around, and as they like to cite each other rather than do
actual research, it keeps coming back, usually as if the holy
grail has been refound. 

> This is NOTHING when one considers that Steve Krulick deliberately lies
> about the Constitution in his every post.

Prove it, BrainDead! Cite one example of me actually LYING about
the Const ONCE (much less in EVERY post!), then demonstrate why
it's a lie, prove it's a lie, and then prove I am consciously
putting forth a falsehood I know to be false and am trying to
pass off as true!

If you can't, then you are simply lying! And since YOU aren't a
mind-reader, and can't know what *I* would have to know to be
false but claim as true for your claim to be so, it is prima
facie an unprovable blatant assertion on your part, an ad hom
bloviation that is your substitute for actually addressing and
refuting what *I've* actually posted.

> When he is called upon it by noted
> scholars,

None such have appeared to to that in this NG, silly!

> such as David Young,

Guffaw! Young, who sets narrow goal posts and then moves them
around when it suits him or inconvenient material is presented,
couldn't hold a candle to any real scholars! His vanity
productions, which he shamelessly promotes online here, is
selective, biased, and serves only to put forth one very narrow
side of things.

I've called HIM on dozens of things and he usually fades away,
or snips out 90% of my post to focus on minor trivia, and posts
irrelevant and straw cites as if THEY are total refutation,
when, at best, they are simply alternate opinions, and NOT
refutations. I've answered HIS posts, I'm sure, way more than
he's addressed MINE!

> Krulick's response is to cut and paste

authoritative evidence, something you'll NEVER find BrainDead
attempting!

> hundreds of lines of the same tired lies

Again, you merely CLAIM them to be "lies"! But where's the
proof? When have YOU or anyone proven them to be lies,
particularly as those HUNDREDS of lines are of the following
nature, which you earlier dismissed as "ravings":

Let's see... the following primary source materials, cited
accurately and in context, which made up nearly ALL my post, are
RAVINGS to BrainDead!!!!!:

- The Articles of Confederation
- The Constitutional Convention
- DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON
THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
- Jefferson's seventh letter regarding his contribution to the
BoR process was written to Dr. Joseph Priestley, June 19, 1802,
- The Genuine Information, delivered to the Legislature of the
State of Maryland, relative to the Proceedings of the General
Convention, held at Philadelphia, in 1787, by Luther Martin,
Esq., Attorney-General of Maryland, and one of the Delegates in
the said Convention.
- the FIRST definition of POWER from the Bouvier Law Dictionary 
- the definition of RIGHT from the Bouvier Law Dictionary

BrainDead is a laugh riot!!! BrainDead defaulted on the argument
yet again! No debate points for BrainDead!

Unable to refute ANY of this unimpeachable primary source
material, BrainDead AND his claque just ignore it all, and/or
resort to fantastic handwave dismissals!!! Ravings!!! Lies!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!


> he has posted hundreds of times
> before,

Because you maroons haven't refuted them! You just snip them
away as if THAT were refutation!

> interspersed with name flames,

Oh, suck an egg, you bilious fuckwad! Oh, I'm sorry, was fuckwad
YOUR special word, once you stole it from Frenchu? How about
fucktard? Dipshit?

Man, I rarely SEE a post of yours that isn't laden with bile and
name-calling!

> vitro and trollage directed at his
> more learned detractors.

"more learned detractors"! LOL! Like YOU? Mayerloon? Snout?

Learned is as learned does, BrainDead. 

> Steve Krulick is a LIENG TROLL and self-admitted as such.

That would be "LYING" if it were true, but it's not.

Now, all you have to do is show where *I* "self-admitted as
such" and you might be further along. Except if I WERE a "lieng
[sic] troll" then if *I* self-admitted as such" I'd probably be
lying about it, and hence how could anyone believe THAT! LOL!

Go ahead, BrainDead, and show where I admitted to being a lying
troll!

And explain how you keep reading my work after EVERY time you
PLONK me!
 
> -*MORT*-

BrainDead, and can't keep up with his own bullshit!

-- 
Steven Krulick / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ellenville NY 12428-130727