If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:rCqEb.29251$pY.19294@fed1read04... Okay I think I see your sentiments, you're looking for a fight. You will not find one here. I know, you've made it clear that you're not about to support any of your statements. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
In article aBqEb.29249$pY.23641@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
wrote: I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're on a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post. normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts. -- Bob Noel |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:04:07 -0600, Gig Giacona wrote:
Why do you want AOPA to take notes for you. It wouldn't be used in court it was all hearsay. Not in court, for the next program they create, or to expound on it to the police. They need to get training material for the police, and this would fall right into that category, i.e. when you notice a guy in a plane with a key jammed into the ignition and lock picks on him, plus a porta potty next to the plane, hold the guy for questions. That's what AOPA should be working on, more training for police and how to spot thieves about to steal or have already stolen a plane. This would have been a good example. AOPA could have led the training for police, that's what I'm saying, they could have used this to create a better program, not for law enforcement, not for court, not for justice. For a program like the airport watch, but for law enforcement. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:18:38 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:
I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're on a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post. That's not how it's done, nor how it should be done. Postings should be trimmed enough to get the point you're making across. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do. The Supreme Court reads the entire Constitution differently, but it's still pretty clear nontheless. Catch 22. The Constitution says what the Supremes say it does. If you can get Bush to appoint you, and the Democrats not to fillibuster you, you can begin to move the interpretation in your direction, but it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago. At the time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.* (Which was in error (primarily because the defense NEVER SHOWED UP), as it was known as a "Trench Broom" in WW1 and has extensive use in the SA War. Miller has got to be one of the most bogus SC cases of all time.) SCOTUS? Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,36 (1998) Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 124-125 (1998). Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997). Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 307 (1994) ... to name just a few! Could you give us the Reader's Digest version of those cases? |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:55:58 GMT Bob Noel wrote:
In article aBqEb.29249$pY.23641@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell" wrote: I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're on a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post. normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts. Not if your reply requires the context of the original post. R. Hubbell -- Bob Noel |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
In article L8NEb.31174$pY.17564@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
wrote: I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post. normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts. Not if your reply requires the context of the original post. few replies do. -- Bob Noel |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
"R. Hubbell" wrote in message news:L8NEb.31174$pY.17564@fed1read04... Not if your reply requires the context of the original post. If you need more context than the average user review the thread. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lockheed wins Presidential helicopter contract | Tiger | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 29th 05 05:24 AM |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 38 | November 19th 03 04:04 PM |