Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: Dave and Ian's NRA challenge - was: NBC changes ...

Expand Messages
  • dave_mucha
    sorry billy-boy you are not even close enough to be smart enough to tell me what I think. for a guy why flails in the wind crying abut bush spending your grand
    Message 1 of 736 , Feb 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      sorry billy-boy you are not even close enough to be smart enough to tell me what I think.

      for a guy why flails in the wind crying abut bush spending your grand children future, then endorsing when bama doubles down on that spending, whinning about bush listening to phone calls from terrorist countries into the USA, and mum on the DHS buying 10 bullets for every man woman and child in the USA, well, you have no credibility whatsoever,





      --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Bill Kenny <billcnc@...> wrote:
      >
      > What are you doing quoting "States Rights" when you don't even believe in
      > the canard of states rights?
      >
      >
      > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:28 AM, dave_mucha <dave_mucha@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > so, you believe that the states have no rights and the Federal law trumps
      > > everything ?
      > >
      > > wonderful !
      > > no law can prohibit guns that the Constitution allows. therefore NYC is in
      > > dierct opposition of the Constitution and should immeadiatly eleminate and
      > > restrictive gun laws.
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > >
      > > can you let Congress know so we can fix this little oversight ?
      > >
      > > Dave
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Bill Kenny wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Yes dave,
      > > >
      > > > Please red the constitution, ... and pay VERY close attention to article
      > > > #6.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, dave_mucha wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > **
      > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > are you still waiting for obama care to get that medical treatment you
      > > so
      > > > > obviously need ?
      > > > >
      > > > > the left has been steadfastly proposing that a disarmed populace can be
      > > > > taken care of by armed police.
      > > > >
      > > > > does this mean that the police are then in control of you and your
      > > actions
      > > > > ?
      > > > >
      > > > > the 'united' part of the 'united' states is the collective agreement
      > > that
      > > > > the States collectivity join to allow the federal government to act as
      > > a
      > > > > single body.
      > > > >
      > > > > at times the States rights trump federal authority
      > > > > at times federal authority trumps States rights.
      > > > >
      > > > > Read the Constitution. Read how an amendment can be made. it is very
      > > > > possible that a State can outlaw a thing that the Federal government
      > > does
      > > > > not.
      > > > >
      > > > > If you are a vet, have you ever read the Constitution in which you
      > > swore
      > > > > an oath to protect ?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, Bill Kenny wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:11 PM, bigmanfun wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > Ratification of this as written would be unconstitutional as we do
      > > not
      > > > > > > recognize the State (federal gov't) as having Sovereign Rights and
      > > > > > > Responsibilities.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Well, hell then, ... I guess the military is unconstitutional then,
      > > ...
      > > > > > under your description as written above.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I think the military has the" responsibility" of protecting the
      > > country
      > > > > > AND all of it's territories. How would that work, ... does one state
      > > > > > control it, ... and if so, please tell us which one that would be?
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Thanks
      > > > > > Bill
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Thanks
      > > > Bill
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      >
      >
      > Thanks
      > Bill
      >
    • Ted Miller
      Dave, that is exactly what I mean.   Ted From: dave_mucha To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:48 PM
      Message 736 of 736 , Mar 29, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Dave, that is exactly what I mean.
         
        Ted

        From: dave_mucha <dave_mucha@...>
        To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:48 PM
        Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: I dont know if dan lied, but Feinstein avoids the truth
         
        May I take it that you meant to say

        we SHOULD also prosecute anyone in the government that lies effecting our rights ?

        I wholehearted agree. The Constitution is the protector of the individual against a massive and tyrannical government.

        If pelosi actually said that her bill does one thing, when in reality it does something else, she should be brought up at LEAST on ethics violations.

        Alas, that means that the pres, VP and about 3/4 of congress would be up on charges within the week.

        Dave

        --- In mailto:7x10minilathe%40yahoogroups.com, Ted Miller <millertheo4of9@...> wrote:
        >
        > We also prosecute anyone  in the Government that lies effecting our rights.
        >  
        > Ted
        >
        > From: dave_mucha <dave_mucha@...>
        > To: mailto:7x10minilathe%40yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 5:23 PM
        > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: I dont know if dan lied, but Feinstein avoids the truth
        >
        >  
        > many years ago Philadelphia did a computer cross reference of crimes
        > they has some 35,000 crimes
        > half were one-time repeat offenders
        > another 20% were multiple offenders.
        > what is showed that a much smaller percentage was first time criminals.
        >
        > in 2010, something like 350 deaths were from rifles.
        >
        > the media lies, outright lies, about what type of guns are used in many crimes.
        >
        > We would be much better served to prosecute the media for actual lies as it would remove a large segment of the artificial chaos in society.
        > since they are almost above the law, they should be held to a MUCH higher standard than regular people.
        >
        > Dave
        >
        > --- In mailto:7x10minilathe%40yahoogroups.com, Ian Newman <ian_new@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Philip,
        > >
        > > Isn't "the ability to fire bullets" a characteristic of military all military firearms?
        > >
        > > As I have said from the start - I believe that "banning" is not the answer - effective and enforceable registration would solve a lot of problems.  Of course, effectively enforced registration and control of re-sale would deprive lunatics, terrorists and criminals of a ready supply of firearms, attacking  their constitutional right to bear arms and so would be greeted with howls of protest from some quarters.
        > >
        > > All the best,
        > > Ian
        > >
        > > --- On Thu, 28/3/13, Philip Lester <philiplester@> wrote:
        > >
        > > From: Philip Lester <philiplester@>
        > > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe]OT: I dont know if dan lied, but Feinstein avoids the truth
        > > To: mailto:7x10minilathe%40yahoogroups.com
        > > Date: Thursday, 28 March, 2013, 17:34
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >  
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > You keep hearing that her bill would only affect 120 guns, but this part
        > >
        > > of it "semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
        > >
        > > detachable magazine and have one military characteristic" can make all
        > >
        > > guns with a clip illegal. You could even claim the color is a military
        > >
        > > characteristic, in fact having just a clip is a military characteristic.
        > >
        >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.