Re: NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

[Max Isn't Well]

In article >, §ñühwØ£f
says...

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>
> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris Herself
> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
> >>>Aratzio says...
> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
> > <biggus snippus>
> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a media term
> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire a
> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. Now,
> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual term
> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is actually
> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled by
> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in some
> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in describing what
> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Specific
> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly controlled.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
> >>>>
> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is legal..
> >>>
> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT specify
> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
> >>>
> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the citizenry with
> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they have.
> >>
> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to fear
> >> from their government.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something* about the
> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two after
> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>
> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if merikins
> have guns since they know that the military could crush any "revolution"
> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins share. Like
> the idea that their vote actually counts :)

The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[§ñühw¤£f]

Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>:

>In article >, §ñühwØ£f
>says...
>
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>
>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
Herself
>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>> >>>Aratzio says...
>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks,
>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>> > <biggus snippus>
>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
media term
>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire
a
>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver.
Now,
>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual
term
>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
actually
>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
by
>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
some
>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
describing what
>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >Specific
>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
controlled.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is
legal.
>> >>>
>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
specify
>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>> >>>
>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
citizenry with
>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they
have.
>> >>
>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to
fear
>> >> from their government.
>> >
>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
about the
>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
after
>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>
>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
merikins
>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
"revolution"
>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
share. Like
>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>
>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
>
<blink>
I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

§ñühw¤£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
@registered.motzarella.org:

> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
> >:
>
>>In article >, §ñühwØ£f
>>says...
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>>
>>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
>>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
> Herself
>>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>>> >>>Aratzio says...
>>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
> alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>>> > <biggus snippus>
>>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
> media term
>>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire
> a
>>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver.
> Now,
>>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual
> term
>>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
> actually
>>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
> by
>>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
> some
>>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
> describing what
>>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >Specific
>>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
> controlled.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is
> legal.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
> specify
>>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
> citizenry with
>>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they
> have.
>>> >>
>>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to
> fear
>>> >> from their government.
>>> >
>>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
> about the
>>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
>>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
> after
>>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>>
>>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
> merikins
>>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
> "revolution"
>>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
> share. Like
>>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>>
>>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
>>
> <blink>
> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
>

in a lot of the world it certainly does!


Bertie

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 9, 9:22*am, §ñühw¤£f > wrote:
> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
> >:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article >, §ñühwØ£f
> >says...
>
> >> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>
> >> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
> >> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
> >> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
> Herself
> >> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
> >> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
> >> >>>Aratzio says...
> >> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
> alt.usenet.kooks,
> >> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
> >> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
> >> > <biggus snippus>
> >> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>
> >> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. *It is a
> media term
> >> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. *They fire
> a
> >> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. *
> Now,
> >> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual
> term
> >> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
> actually
> >> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
> by
> >> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
> some
> >> >>>> >states. *The media also uses this term incorrectly in
> describing what
> >> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>
> >> >>>> >Specific
> >> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
> controlled.
>
> >> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>
> >> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is
> legal.
>
> >> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. *The second amendment does NOT
> specify
> >> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>
> >> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
> citizenry with
> >> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they
> have.
>
> >> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to
> fear
> >> >> from their government.
>
> >> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
> about the
> >> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
> >> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
> after
> >> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>
> >> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
> merikins
> >> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
> "revolution"
> >> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
> share. Like
> >> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>
> >The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
>
> <blink>
> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".- Hide quoted text -
>

I think he was killed by his doctors ....

Cheers

[Maxwell[_2_]]

In article >, Bertie the
Bunyip says...

> §ñühw=3F£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
> @registered.motzarella.org:
>
> > Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
> > >:
> >
> >>In article >, §ñühwØ£f
> >>says...
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
> >>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
> >>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
> > Herself
> >>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
> >>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
> >>> >>>Aratzio says...
> >>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
> > alt.usenet.kooks,
> >>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
> >>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
> >>> > <biggus snippus>
> >>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
> > media term
> >>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire
> > a
> >>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver.
> > Now,
> >>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual
> > term
> >>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
> > actually
> >>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
> > by
> >>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
> > some
> >>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
> > describing what
> >>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >Specific
> >>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
> > controlled.
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is
> > legal.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
> > specify
> >>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
> > citizenry with
> >>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they
> > have.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to
> > fear
> >>> >> from their government.
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
> > about the
> >>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
> >>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
> > after
> >>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
> >>>
> >>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
> > merikins
> >>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
> > "revolution"
> >>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
> > share. Like
> >>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
> >>
> >>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
> >>
> > <blink>
> > I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
> >
>
> in a lot of the world it certainly does!

I can't think of anywhere it doesn't!

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

[§ñühwØ£f]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:26:59 -0700, More_Flaps wrote:

> On Jun 9, 9:22*am, §ñühw¤£f > wrote:
>> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>> >:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article >, §ñühwØ£f
>> >says...
>>
>> >> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>
>> >> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>> >> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
>> >> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
>> Herself
>> >> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>> >> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>> >> >>>Aratzio says...
>> >> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
>> alt.usenet.kooks,
>> >> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>> >> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>> >> > <biggus snippus>
>> >> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>>
>> >> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. *It is a
>> media term
>> >> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. *They fire
>> a
>> >> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver. *
>> Now,
>> >> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual
>> term
>> >> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
>> actually
>> >> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
>> by
>> >> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
>> some
>> >> >>>> >states. *The media also uses this term incorrectly in
>> describing what
>> >> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>>
>> >> >>>> >Specific
>> >> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
>> controlled.
>>
>> >> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>>
>> >> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is
>> legal.
>>
>> >> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. *The second amendment does NOT
>> specify
>> >> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>>
>> >> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
>> citizenry with
>> >> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they
>> have.
>>
>> >> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to
>> fear
>> >> >> from their government.
>>
>> >> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
>> about the
>> >> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
>> >> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
>> after
>> >> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>
>> >> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
>> merikins
>> >> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
>> "revolution"
>> >> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
>> share. Like
>> >> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>>
>> >The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
>>
>> <blink>
>> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> I think he was killed by his doctors ....
>
> Cheers

WAS IT DR.NO????

--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/gitmo-interrogators-told-to-destroy-handwritten-notes/

[§ñühwØ£f]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> §ñühw¤£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
> @registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>> >:
>>
>>>In article >, §ñühwØ£f
>>>says...
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>>>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights, rec.crafts.metalworking,
>>>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
>> Herself
>>>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>>>> >>>Aratzio says...
>>>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
>> alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>>>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>>>> > <biggus snippus>
>>>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
>> media term
>>>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They fire
>> a
>>>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a revolver.
>> Now,
>>>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an actual
>> term
>>>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
>> actually
>>>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
>> by
>>>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
>> some
>>>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
>> describing what
>>>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >Specific
>>>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
>> controlled.
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons is
>> legal.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
>> specify
>>>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
>> citizenry with
>>>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon they
>> have.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing to
>> fear
>>>> >> from their government.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
>> about the
>>>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate you're
>>>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
>> after
>>>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
>> merikins
>>>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
>> "revolution"
>>>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
>> share. Like
>>>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>>>
>>>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
>>>
>> <blink>
>> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
>>
>
> in a lot of the world it certainly does!
>
>
> Bertie

You've been spending too much time in Myanmar...


--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/08/gitmo-interrogators-told-to-destroy-handwritten-notes/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell <luv2^fly99@live.^com> wrote in
:

> In article >, Bertie the
> Bunyip says...
>
>> §ñühw=3F£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$
> 7
>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>
>> > Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>> > >:
>> >
>> >>In article >, §ñühw
> أf
>> >>says...
>> >>
>> >>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>> >>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
rec.crafts.metalworking,
>> >>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
>> > Herself
>> >>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>> >>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>> >>> >>>Aratzio says...
>> >>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
>> > alt.usenet.kooks,
>> >>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>> >>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>> >>> > <biggus snippus>
>> >>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
>> > media term
>> >>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They
fire
>
>> > a
>> >>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a
revolver.
>
>> > Now,
>> >>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an
actual
>
>> > term
>> >>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
>> > actually
>> >>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been
controlled
>> > by
>> >>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
>> > some
>> >>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
>> > describing what
>> >>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >Specific
>> >>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
>> > controlled.
>> >>> >>>> >
>> >>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons
is
>
>> > legal.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
>> > specify
>> >>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
>> > citizenry with
>> >>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon
they
>
>> > have.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing
to
>
>> > fear
>> >>> >> from their government.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
>> > about the
>> >>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate
you're
>> >>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or
two
>> > after
>> >>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
>> > merikins
>> >>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
>> > "revolution"
>> >>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
>> > share. Like
>> >>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>> >>
>> >>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
>> >>
>> > <blink>
>> > I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
>> >
>>
>> in a lot of the world it certainly does!
>
> I can't think of anywhere it doesn't!
>

Hmmm, you have a point.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

§ñühwØ£f > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> §ñühw¤£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>In article >, §ñühwØ£f
>>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>>>>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
rec.crafts.metalworking,
>>>>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
>>> Herself
>>>>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>>>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>>>>> >>>Aratzio says...
>>>>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
>>> alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>>>>> > <biggus snippus>
>>>>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
>>> media term
>>>>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They
fire
>>> a
>>>>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a
revolver.
>>> Now,
>>>>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an
actual
>>> term
>>>>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
>>> actually
>>>>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
>>> by
>>>>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
>>> some
>>>>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
>>> describing what
>>>>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> >Specific
>>>>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
>>> controlled.
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons
is
>>> legal.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
>>> specify
>>>>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
>>> citizenry with
>>>>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon
they
>>> have.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing
to
>>> fear
>>>>> >> from their government.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
>>> about the
>>>>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate
you're
>>>>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
>>> after
>>>>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
>>> merikins
>>>>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
>>> "revolution"
>>>>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
>>> share. Like
>>>>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>>>>
>>>>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
>>>>
>>> <blink>
>>> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
>>>
>>
>> in a lot of the world it certainly does!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You've been spending too much time in Myanmar...
>
>

Well, i have spent a lot of time in the third world, and election time
in a lot of it means a coup, but the so-called first world is often
about three weeks from martial law. I'm still astonished as to how few
repercussions did arise form 9-11, in fact. Some other nations that look
entirely stable are less so than one might imagine, IMO. I'm not gonna
worry, though!

Bertie


Berte

[Maxwell[_2_]]

[Maxwell[_2_]]

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:pud3k.1363$Jh7.671
@newsfe21.lga:

>
>
>

Really? Got proof k00kie boi?


Bertie

[Maxwell Isn't Smart]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:37:14 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip droned:
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:pud3k.1363$Jh7.671
> @newsfe21.lga:
>
>>
>
> Really? Got proof k00kie boi?

OMGss. Maxwell could challenge Patriot Games for CNOTM...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Maxwell Isn't Smart > wrote in
it.com:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:37:14 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip droned:
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:pud3k.1363$Jh7.671
>> @newsfe21.lga:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Really? Got proof k00kie boi?
>
> OMGss. Maxwell could challenge Patriot Games for CNOTM...
>

Is that a nomination?



Bertie

[§ñühwØ£f]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:41:38 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> §ñühwØ£f > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> §ñühw¤£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
>>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>>
>>>> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>>>> >:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >, §ñühwØ£f
>>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>>>>>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
> rec.crafts.metalworking,
>>>>>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
>>>> Herself
>>>>>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>>>>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>>>>>> >>>Aratzio says...
>>>>>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
>>>> alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>> > <biggus snippus>
>>>>>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
>>>> media term
>>>>>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They
> fire
>>>> a
>>>>>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a
> revolver.
>>>> Now,
>>>>>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an
> actual
>>>> term
>>>>>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
>>>> actually
>>>>>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been controlled
>>>> by
>>>>>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned in
>>>> some
>>>>>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
>>>> describing what
>>>>>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>> >>>> >Specific
>>>>>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
>>>> controlled.
>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons
> is
>>>> legal.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
>>>> specify
>>>>>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
>>>> citizenry with
>>>>>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon
> they
>>>> have.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing
> to
>>>> fear
>>>>>> >> from their government.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
>>>> about the
>>>>>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate
> you're
>>>>>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or two
>>>> after
>>>>>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care if
>>>> merikins
>>>>>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
>>>> "revolution"
>>>>>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
>>>> share. Like
>>>>>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>>>>>
>>>>>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey Oswald
>>>>>
>>>> <blink>
>>>> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
>>>>
>>>
>>> in a lot of the world it certainly does!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> You've been spending too much time in Myanmar...
>>
>>
>
> Well, i have spent a lot of time in the third world, and election time
> in a lot of it means a coup, but the so-called first world is often
> about three weeks from martial law. I'm still astonished as to how few
> repercussions did arise form 9-11, in fact.

Your ideas interest me. Elaborate.

Some other nations that look
> entirely stable are less so than one might imagine, IMO. I'm not gonna
> worry, though!
>
> Bertie
>
It wont get you cheeper gas, thats for sure.

--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/09/breakingkucinich-introduces-articles-of-impeachment-against-bush/

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

§ñühwØ£f > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:41:38 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> §ñühwØ£f > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> §ñühw¤£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
>>>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>>>
>>>>> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>>>>> >:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >, §ñühwØ£f
>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>>>>>>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
>> rec.crafts.metalworking,
>>>>>>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
>>>>> Herself
>>>>>>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>>>>>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>Aratzio says...
>>>>>>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
>>>>> alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>> > <biggus snippus>
>>>>>>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
>>>>> media term
>>>>>>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They
>> fire
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a
>> revolver.
>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an
>> actual
>>>>> term
>>>>>>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
>>>>> actually
>>>>>>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been
>>>>>>> >>>> >controlled
>>>>> by
>>>>>>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned
>>>>>>> >>>> >in
>>>>> some
>>>>>>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
>>>>> describing what
>>>>>>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>> >>>> >Specific
>>>>>>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
>>>>> controlled.
>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons
>> is
>>>>> legal.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
>>>>> specify
>>>>>>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
>>>>> citizenry with
>>>>>>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon
>> they
>>>>> have.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing
>> to
>>>>> fear
>>>>>>> >> from their government.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
>>>>> about the
>>>>>>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate
>> you're
>>>>>>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or
>>>>>>> > two
>>>>> after
>>>>>>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care
>>>>>>> if
>>>>> merikins
>>>>>>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
>>>>> "revolution"
>>>>>>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
>>>>> share. Like
>>>>>>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey
>>>>>>Oswald
>>>>>>
>>>>> <blink>
>>>>> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> in a lot of the world it certainly does!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> You've been spending too much time in Myanmar...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, i have spent a lot of time in the third world, and election
>> time in a lot of it means a coup, but the so-called first world is
>> often about three weeks from martial law. I'm still astonished as to
>> how few repercussions did arise form 9-11, in fact.
>
> Your ideas interest me. Elaborate.
>

Well, pick a well disciplined democracy of your choice. Not necessarily
what some might call a sheeple state, but one that's orderly and with
some reasonable amount of respect for the authorities. In times of
crisis, in times of fear, people look to those authorities for
direction. Theyh're accustomed to doing what they're told, so they'll di
it,whatever it takes. Obvious. Anyhow, you get an incident and you get
someone to demonise the characters you wish to direct your populace
against and zipedee do dah, you have a war, or invasion or whatever
other kind of lunacy you wish your populace to embark upon.
Really, all that needs to be done is for some asshole, for whatever
reason, to say "those ****ers over there are the cause of all your
problems. just look at 'em with their funny food and weird music trying
to mess us up, we gotta stop 'em"
One study I read estimated it would take about three weeks to go from a
quiet peaceful society to this stage. The more disciplined and coherent
a society, the mor likely this was to be accomplished, a notion which
has been borne out by history..

You might have heard of some of these experiments. The first is
particularly scary.

http://www.prisonexp.org/

http://www.age-of-the-
sage.org/psychology/milgram_obedience_experiment.html


There's footage of both of these experiments around the net, I beleive.



> Some other nations that look
>> entirely stable are less so than one might imagine, IMO. I'm not
>> gonna worry, though!
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> It wont get you cheeper gas, thats for sure.
>

Or make me any younger..

Bertie


Bertie
>

[The Black Goat With A Thousand Young]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:55:42 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip fixed me with a
beady eye, and foamed wildly:
> Maxwell Isn't Smart wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:37:14 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip droned:
>>> "Maxwell" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> Really? Got proof k00kie boi?
>>
>> OMGss. Maxwell could challenge Patriot Games for CNOTM...
>
> Is that a nomination?

Not from me -- I seconded PG...

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! Cthulhu fhtagn! mhm 29x21; Top Asshole #3; Lits Slut #16
Chas. E. Pemberton; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
COOSN-029-06-71069; Usenet Ruiner #5; Official Chung Demon
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
"Life size models of Cthulhu, on sale now!"

"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
>

"You are the GOD-DAMNED, IGNORANT LIAR here.
Now, that is not me taking the Lord's name in vain."
-- John Wentzky: Living proof of the Death of Irony, in Message-ID:
>

"For the most part, morality is universal." -- John "Easily" Shocked

"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Gay men deserve to die." -- John Wentzky, in Message-ID:
>

"Laws count, the US Constitution count more, and we need to have judges
on the bench who are going to Carry Out those laws, not Make Law or
Interpret Law." -- John "Easily" Shocked contradicts his own words on
the overriding importance of society's reluctance to accept
homosexuality, in Message-ID: <brIDe.67062$Qo.12613@fed1read01>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

§ñühwØ£f > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:14:17 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> §ñühwØ£f > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:41:38 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> §ñühwØ£f > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> §ñühw¤£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
>>>>>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>>>>>>> >:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>>§ñühwØ£f says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>>>>>>>>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
>>>> rec.crafts.metalworking,
>>>>>>>>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess
>>>>>>>>> > Eris
>>>>>>> Herself
>>>>>>>>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>>>>>>>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>Aratzio says...
>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>>> alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for
>>>>>>>>> >>>> writing:
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > <biggus snippus>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> weapon.
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >a
>>>>>>> media term
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They
>>>> fire
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a
>>>> revolver.
>>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an
>>>> actual
>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >controlled
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >in
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
>>>>>>> describing what
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >Specific
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
>>>>>>> controlled.
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of
>>>>>>>>> >>>> weapons
>>>> is
>>>>>>> legal.
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does
>>>>>>>>> >>>NOT
>>>>>>> specify
>>>>>>>>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
>>>>>>> citizenry with
>>>>>>>>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon
>>>> they
>>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have
>>>>>>>>> >> nothing
>>>> to
>>>>>>> fear
>>>>>>>>> >> from their government.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do
>>>>>>>>> > something*
>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate
>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or
>>>>>>>>> > two
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care
>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> merikins
>>>>>>>>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
>>>>>>> "revolution"
>>>>>>>>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
>>>>>>> share. Like
>>>>>>>>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey
>>>>>>>>Oswald
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <blink>
>>>>>>> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in a lot of the world it certainly does!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>> You've been spending too much time in Myanmar...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, i have spent a lot of time in the third world, and election
>>>> time in a lot of it means a coup, but the so-called first world is
>>>> often about three weeks from martial law. I'm still astonished as
>>>> to how few repercussions did arise form 9-11, in fact.
>>>
>>> Your ideas interest me. Elaborate.
>>>
>>
>> Well, pick a well disciplined democracy of your choice. Not
>> necessarily what some might call a sheeple state, but one that's
>> orderly and with some reasonable amount of respect for the
>> authorities. In times of crisis, in times of fear, people look to
>> those authorities for direction. Theyh're accustomed to doing what
>> they're told, so they'll di it,whatever it takes. Obvious. Anyhow,
>> you get an incident and you get someone to demonise the characters
>> you wish to direct your populace against and zipedee do dah, you have
>> a war, or invasion or whatever other kind of lunacy you wish your
>> populace to embark upon. Really, all that needs to be done is for
>> some asshole, for whatever reason, to say "those ****ers over there
>> are the cause of all your problems. just look at 'em with their funny
>> food and weird music trying to mess us up, we gotta stop 'em"
>> One study I read estimated it would take about three weeks to go from
>> a quiet peaceful society to this stage. The more disciplined and
>> coherent a society, the mor likely this was to be accomplished, a
>> notion which has been borne out by history..
>>
> Having read 1984 again a few months back it seems to be the case for
> most of us "civilized" folks.
>
>> You might have heard of some of these experiments. The first is
>> particularly scary.
>>
>> http://www.prisonexp.org/
>>
> We studies that in psych class...


Yeah, pretty stock stuff, I know. There was another one I saw footage of
Where a young backpacker type would go up to someone on a mostly empty
train and ask them if they would please move as he'd like to sit there.
A remarkable number of people did. But when they had an older man in
some sort of semblance of a uniform stand behind the backpacker, saying
nothing, just looking at the person as the backpacker asked the same
question, the number shot up dramatically. This was tried in several
countries and the aforementioned anal retentive-no jaywalking-tidy lawn
countries got the highest scores.
>
>> http://www.age-of-the-
>> sage.org/psychology/milgram_obedience_experiment.html
>>
>>
>> There's footage of both of these experiments around the net, I
>> beleive.
>>
> http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm
> Even the Simpson references this when they go to counceling and
> the family members are each given a button to push.
>>


Oh yeah, tha's right. I never connected the two.
>>
>>> Some other nations that look
>>>> entirely stable are less so than one might imagine, IMO. I'm not
>>>> gonna worry, though!
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> It wont get you cheeper gas, thats for sure.
>>>
>>>
>> Or make me any younger..
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Yew kids git offa my lawn...

You give them a warning?


Bertie
>
>

[§ñühwØ£f]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:14:17 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> §ñühwØ£f > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:41:38 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> §ñühwØ£f > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> §ñühw¤£f > wrote in news:g2hiji$inn$7
>>>>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Max Isn't Well <luv2^fly99@live.^com>
>>>>>> >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >, §ñühwØ£f
>>>>>>>says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:03:09 +0000, TransWench wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > I was busily flonking away in talk.politics.guns,
>>>>>>>> > alt.politics.usa.constitution.gun-rights,
>>> rec.crafts.metalworking,
>>>>>>>> > misc.survivalism, and alt.usenet.kooks, when The Goddess Eris
>>>>>> Herself
>>>>>>>> > suddenly made me reply to ZeD:
>>>>>>>> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 15:44:09 -0700, Max Isn't Well wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>Aratzio says...
>>>>>>>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:51 -0500, in the land of
>>>>>> alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>>>>> >>>> "RD (The Sandman)" got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>>> >>>> >Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>>>> > <biggus snippus>
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> I don't think there is a right to own an assault weapon.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >I don't think you know what an assault weapon is. It is a
>>>>>> media term
>>>>>>>> >>>> >used to describe *semi* auto military look alikes. They
>>> fire
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> >>>> >medium powered round one shot at a time just like a
>>> revolver.
>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>>> >>>> >if you wish to use the term "assault rifle" that is an
>>> actual
>>>>>> term
>>>>>>>> >>>> >that describes *full* auto capable weaponry like what is
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> >>>> >used by the military. Full auto weaponry has been
>>>>>>>> >>>> >controlled
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> >>>> >federal law since 1934. Ownership of full auto is banned
>>>>>>>> >>>> >in
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> >>>> >states. The media also uses this term incorrectly in
>>>>>> describing what
>>>>>>>> >>>> >are assault "weapons".
>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >Specific
>>>>>>>> >>>> >> types of military grade weapons should be tightly
>>>>>> controlled.
>>>>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> >They are.....like since 1934.
>>>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>> And demonstrates that controlling specific types of weapons
>>> is
>>>>>> legal.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>'Legal' but unconstitutional. The second amendment does NOT
>>>>>> specify
>>>>>>>> >>>semi-automatic arms or even small arms.
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>The purpose of the second amendment being to provide the
>>>>>> citizenry with
>>>>>>>> >>>protection from the government, I an entitled to any weapon
>>> they
>>>>>> have.
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> That's a fact. The anti gun nuts must think they have nothing
>>> to
>>>>>> fear
>>>>>>>> >> from their government.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > I'm still waiting for you gun nuts to actually *do something*
>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>> > foaming-at-the-mouth government you now have...At the rate
>>> you're
>>>>>>>> > "mobilising", I figure you should be ready to move a week or
>>>>>>>> > two
>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>> > Way Too ****ing Late.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep, it'll happen the First of Never. The gubamint dosent care
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>> merikins
>>>>>>>> have guns since they know that the military could crush any
>>>>>> "revolution"
>>>>>>>> that might happen. its a false sense of freedums that merikins
>>>>>> share. Like
>>>>>>>> the idea that their vote actually counts :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The last American whose vote actually counted was Lee Harvey
>>>>>>>Oswald
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <blink>
>>>>>> I dont think a slug counts as a "vote".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> in a lot of the world it certainly does!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> You've been spending too much time in Myanmar...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, i have spent a lot of time in the third world, and election
>>> time in a lot of it means a coup, but the so-called first world is
>>> often about three weeks from martial law. I'm still astonished as to
>>> how few repercussions did arise form 9-11, in fact.
>>
>> Your ideas interest me. Elaborate.
>>
>
> Well, pick a well disciplined democracy of your choice. Not necessarily
> what some might call a sheeple state, but one that's orderly and with
> some reasonable amount of respect for the authorities. In times of
> crisis, in times of fear, people look to those authorities for
> direction. Theyh're accustomed to doing what they're told, so they'll di
> it,whatever it takes. Obvious. Anyhow, you get an incident and you get
> someone to demonise the characters you wish to direct your populace
> against and zipedee do dah, you have a war, or invasion or whatever
> other kind of lunacy you wish your populace to embark upon.
> Really, all that needs to be done is for some asshole, for whatever
> reason, to say "those ****ers over there are the cause of all your
> problems. just look at 'em with their funny food and weird music trying
> to mess us up, we gotta stop 'em"
> One study I read estimated it would take about three weeks to go from a
> quiet peaceful society to this stage. The more disciplined and coherent
> a society, the mor likely this was to be accomplished, a notion which
> has been borne out by history..
>
Having read 1984 again a few months back it seems to be the case for most
of us "civilized" folks.

> You might have heard of some of these experiments. The first is
> particularly scary.
>
> http://www.prisonexp.org/
>
We studies that in psych class...

> http://www.age-of-the-
> sage.org/psychology/milgram_obedience_experiment.html
>
>
> There's footage of both of these experiments around the net, I beleive.
>
http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm
Even the Simpson references this when they go to counceling and
the family members are each given a button to push.
>
>
>> Some other nations that look
>>> entirely stable are less so than one might imagine, IMO. I'm not gonna
>>> worry, though!
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> It wont get you cheeper gas, thats for sure.
>>
>>
> Or make me any younger..
>
> Bertie
>
Yew kids git offa my lawn...

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/image.php?image=screenshots/lists/news_198.jpg

:)