CTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:07 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> > Adam wrote:
> > very rare case -- a pure fluke, if you're familiar with holsters and
> their
> > wear and tear), then the owner would have a case agains
> Adam wrote:
> very rare case -- a pure fluke, if you're familiar with holsters and their
> wear and tear), then the owner would have a case against the holster
> manufacturer.
>
Is there some law that supersedes "the theory of strict liability" in
that case then?
As far as I know, the consum
rvis
President
Productivity Enhancement
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:12 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> > Adam wrote:
> > Now ask yourself, At what point does the own
> Adam wrote:
> Now ask yourself, At what point does the owner's loss of his gun cease to
> make him culpable?
I realize these types of issues can be controversial (as seen in other
threads), but ... what the hell ...
There seem to be 2 issues here (I could be wrong):
1.) product liability, an
> I'm wary of stuff that puts the onus of responsibility on people that
> aren't
> directly responsible.
>
> The person who shot the other person is to blame, not some chain of
> events
> that led up to whatever occurred.
>
> If it's the chain of events, see, there's potentially never an end to
>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Adam Churvis <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Denny,
>
> The gun owner pays the transfer tax, not the dealer. The gun owner takes
> complete responsibility for his gun, his actions, and just as importantly
> his inactions (like not securing his guns against easy thef
> -Original Message-
> From: denstar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 4:58 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> I'm thinking widespread change like you're after is more a societal
> deal than a legal deal.
>
I'm thinking widespread change like you're after is more a societal
deal than a legal deal.
Laws have their place, but with a flawed legal system, I'm hesitant to
rely on them so heavily.
My dad's got a great story about how a "voluntary" boat registration
became a required boat tax...
Why not
http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/secondamendment/male
Yup.
-Cameron
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Arc
> Adam wrote:
> We're all going to have to compromise, but hopefully this way still gives
> everyone the crux of what they're truly desire: a truly significant
> reduction or near elimination of illegal guns
You should really take this to a policy institute and/or start your own.
This is exact
CTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Adam Churvis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What do you all think of these ideas? Are we getting somewhere?
>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Adam Churvis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you all think of these ideas? Are we getting somewhere? Could this
> actually fly?
You know what's funny? After the "go to their homes, and kill them"
comment, I'm wondering if registration is even such a
Could this
> actually fly?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Adam Phillip Churvis
> President
> Productivity Enhancement
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Adam Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:03 AM
>> To: CF-Communi
> tBone wrote:
> You just said you knew it's what the framers intended, so how would it
> not be legislating around the amendment?
>
Here's the deal: this whole thing was brought on by the Cato Institute
and a sweeping ruling by a lower court that scared even the Bush
Administration.
Now that's
> Adam wrote:
> What do you all think of these ideas? Are we getting somewhere? Could this
> actually fly?
>
I think it's fecking awesome and EXACTLY what's needed: regulation
without undue prohibition. I think you'd get broad support; tBone's a
purist, so maybe not him, but you could sleep w
ivity Enhancement
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 9:03 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Right To Bear Arms
>
> I have always thought that the intention of the Second Amendment was
> three-fold:
You just said you knew it's what the framers intended, so how would it
not be legislating around the amendment?
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> If we make it ok to legislate around the 2nd, whats to stop them doing
>> the same for the 1st, 4th, 5th or any others?
>>
>
> Implicit in your st
> tBone wrote:
> If we make it ok to legislate around the 2nd, whats to stop them doing
> the same for the 1st, 4th, 5th or any others?
>
Implicit in your statement is that we would be legislating around it -
and I get that that's your opinion. The problem is that not everyone
agrees with you an
nor do they harbor ill will toward
> people.
> If they did, they would be in therapy and not allowed around firearms.
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Adam Phillip Churvis
> President
> Productivity Enhancement
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jer
If we make it ok to legislate around the 2nd, whats to stop them doing
the same for the 1st, 4th, 5th or any others?
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> nation require. You just happen to know that no amendment changing the
>> 2nd would pass.
>>
>
> True dat. Which is why I like Adam's Stat
> tBone wrote:
> nation require. You just happen to know that no amendment changing the
> 2nd would pass.
>
True dat. Which is why I like Adam's State Waiver solution. It
provides a level of regulation I think is needed without being overly
punitive to gun rights.
I'm a gun owner and I want
But then we wind up with NY and California not allowing it and AZ saying
do what you want.
Wouldn't the 10th and 15th amendments prohibit that?
Or should we just do away with the constitution, and legislate as we see
fit?
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> Adam wrote:
>> I have always thought that the inten
o own even the most powerful of weapons.
>
> What do you all think of this?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Adam Phillip Churvis
> President
> Productivity Enhancement
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Friday, Mar
We have an amendment process.
Look not following the amendment process is what has led to the bloat we
have in government today. The government shouldn't be able to simply
legislate away our rights, or legislate on issues that aren't in their
purview. Why do we have a deficit? The federal go
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Adam Churvis <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have always thought that the intention of the Second Amendment was
> three-fold: to establish that the states needed their own militia, that
> the
> citizens were that militia, and that *both* the states' militia and the
> gg wrote:
> It's a piece of genius - anything to get the power our of the federal
> gov't, but I think your solution definitely meets the 80/20 rule
> overall.
>
Plus it elevates the dialog from gun/no-gun (positional) to what we
can agree and act on (principled).
~~~
> Adam wrote:
> I have always thought that the intention of the Second Amendment was
> three-fold: to establish that the states needed their own militia, that the
> citizens were that militia, and that *both* the states' militia and the
> individuals making up those militia had the right to keep
Respectfully,
Adam Phillip Churvis
President
Productivity Enhancement
> -Original Message-
> From: Loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 8:04 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> You're wrong man. I think you eve
> GG wrote:
> both ensures morons don't have guns and our state's rights to organize
> and defend ourselves against the federal gov't.
>
And as for the argument that an individual needs guns to fight to the
man, well if that's the state of affairs in America then we've failed
to maintain the spi
> tBone wrote:
> You're wrong man. I think you even know thats not what the framers
> intended.
The problem with that argument to me is:
(1.) Who the feck cares what the framers intended? They're dead.
Sure, they were smart people, but they also expected us to take a
little responsibility and
If someone gets $100,000 worth of education and can't get anything paying
more than $20,000, they obviously didn't pay attention in class.
-Original Message-
From: Casey Dougall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:24 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Rig
You're wrong man. I think you even know thats not what the framers
intended. It's too damned easy to read what those guys had to say on
the issue and see they meant it to be an individual right, that they
really did mean there should be no laws on arms.
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> Th
> JJ wrote:
> If he is on his property, then he shouldn't need a license, and then it just
> might be a case of cross-generational Darwin Award qualification.
>
Hmmm...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0318083forehead1.html
~~~
That is not some guy, that is a HUNTER, which I agree should require some
basic training and proof of non-moronship.
That is a guy with a gun shooting it outside of his property or a range.
He needs a hunting license and a clue.
If he is on his property, then he shouldn't need a license, and the
> tBone wrote:
> The states pussed out on speed limits, no denying that one.
lol
> Have you listened to the supreme court opening debates yet?
Oh, yeah, they might do it, but here's my gun bitch:
A few years back some dude shot his son in the chest because he
"thought he was a bear" despite the
Yeah, I would like to see some of the stupid laws in California get
repealed. Like having to put a concealable weapon in a locked container
and ensuring it is not loaded, or when transporting a non-concealable
weapon, it has to be unloaded.Or only having a fixed capacity of five
rounds for a s
The states pussed out on speed limits, no denying that one.
Have you listened to the supreme court opening debates yet? They are on
C-Span. Quite honestly, I'm hopeful to see more than just the DC
handgun ban struck down here or in the near future. We need to do it
quick before some of these
> tBone wrote:
> Whats this France thing with you lately, you want us to emulate a
> socialist country now?
>
Naw, it just seems that if you toss out "like France" into any
contentious discussion someone freaks out.
As for gun rights, my thought is that we either regulate them like we
do driving
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do many of the multiple shootings I can think of all have "college
> graduate" after their names?
Because kids are thrown straight into college from high school. They never
learned how to become an active citizen in
Put down the cast iron muffin pan... oh never mind.
Yes, i was kidding. Mostly. I would be very, very nice to those women. More
because they are women than because they are armed.
To be fair, there ARE some people that I am wary of, because they just
_might_ have a gun back in the truck. That is
Enhancement
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:55 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> Not a requirement, but you better say they are hawt, regardless.
>
> The
Why do many of the multiple shootings I can think of all have "college
graduate" after their names?
And most of the high-school age shooters have parents with degrees?
I shouldn't even mention the Unibomber or the 9/11 hijackers
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Whats this France thing with you lately, you want us to emulate a
socialist country now?
How the mighty have fallen.
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>> HAHAHA so a college degree makes people more capable of using a weapon
>> sensibly so they don't need a license?
>>
>> LMAO let me get up off
Speed limits are a state issue. Plus you know I would.
Gruss Gott wrote:
>> tBone wrote:
>> You really need to relabel you're self a democrat and be done with it.
>>
>
> Just FYI, the Democrats are the original gun rights advocates due to
> the Farmer-Laborer base. It wasn't until the 70s that
> Bill wrote:
> HAHAHA so a college degree makes people more capable of using a weapon
> sensibly so they don't need a license?
>
> LMAO let me get up off the floor and turn my BS detector off.
>
Nope, it's simply a quality filter that's empirically proven. And I'm
not saying it's used in place
> tBone wrote:
> You really need to relabel you're self a democrat and be done with it.
>
Just FYI, the Democrats are the original gun rights advocates due to
the Farmer-Laborer base. It wasn't until the 70s that they started
advocating gun bans.
As to guns rights, if you're saying arms should
1. While some police forces require either an associates OR military
service, the majority do not. May don't even require a high school
diploma. For a while before I got into coding on a serious level that
was going to be my post military job. I have a GED and a minor criminal
history and i
Not a requirement, but you better say they are hawt, regardless.
They have guns!
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Adam Churvis <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The girls that qualified for Bejing are also pretty hawt :)
>
> Not a requirement, of course. ;)
>
~~~
> I don't know about Raleigh, but in Fairfax County, even the beat cops
> had to
> have at least an associate's degree in criminal justice.
Guns and an AD are two separate job requirements, not a natural association,
so there is no direct correlation between them.
> All commissioned military offi
y
Raleigh, NC. 27616
(919) 874-6229 (home)
(703) 220-2835 (cell)
-Original Message-
From: Adam Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:49 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Right To Bear Arms
Some of the best shooters I have ever known have never been to college,
ssage-
> From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:30 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> HAHAHA so a college degree makes people more capable of using a weapon
> sensibly so they don't need a license?
>
bravo!
On 3/20/08, Adam Churvis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Adam wrote:
> > > 5) There are times when a private citizen truly needs machine guns
> > to
> >
> > Don't you find it ironic that your example of "needing machine guns"
> > is to protect those same machine guns?
>
>
> No, not at a
HAHAHA so a college degree makes people more capable of using a weapon
sensibly so they don't need a license?
LMAO let me get up off the floor and turn my BS detector off.
On 3/20/08, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Adam wrote:
> > 5) There are times when a private citizen truly need
hahahahah
- from one of the "other" type
Adam Churvis wrote:
>>> Adam wrote:
>>> 5) There are times when a private citizen truly needs machine guns
>> to
>>
>> Don't you find it ironic that your example of "needing machine guns"
>> is to protect those same machine guns?
>
> No, not at all. It
Curious... What is the 'anti-science' plank in the Republican platform?
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:25 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Unfortunately, its not the only plank in eithe
> > Adam wrote:
> > 5) There are times when a private citizen truly needs machine guns
> to
>
> Don't you find it ironic that your example of "needing machine guns"
> is to protect those same machine guns?
No, not at all. It was valuable business property, and he was the owner of
the business.
Unfortunately, its not the only plank in either platform, and is often seen
as the least important plank (from a protection standpoint, since many
people think it is the least likely to be effectively eroded)
Just the anti-science plank for the Republican party moves it out of reach
for most peopl
I meant from libertarian, never new gruss to be a repub.
Also, they shouldn't be democrats then. Even though many ignore the
parties planks the democrats is specifically pro-gun control, and the
republicans specifically against it.
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> I hope that was a joke.
>
> I don't se
I hope that was a joke.
I don't see that gun ownership is a Republican/Democrat issue. It is more an
urban/suburban/rural issue (which, despite the talking heads' attempts to
convince us it does, does not track R/D)
Most Democrats I know who own guns are as rabid or more so than similar
Republica
The you are all for violating the intent of the right, both as stands to
the individual being able to provide their own weapons for militia duty,
and as to the establishment of NO laws regarding private ownership of arms.
You really need to relabel you're self a democrat and be done with it.
Gr
Good stuff.
Did you listen to the opening arguments yesterday?
Sounds like the court is going to come down on the individual right
side, and from the questions they were asking sounds like class 3 laws
might even get the chop.
Adam Churvis wrote:
> Just so everyone understands how it works:
>
> Adam wrote:
> 5) There are times when a private citizen truly needs machine guns to
Don't you find it ironic that your example of "needing machine guns"
is to protect those same machine guns?
I'm all for gun rights, but I'm in the licensing camp meaning that I
don't think anyone should be able
omething that the Federal govt can nationalize when it wants so the
> only
> thing left in the event of govt gone amuck is citizens.
>
> On 3/18/08, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You really need a M16 or a Rocket Launcher to defend yourself from a
> > ro
Empire by Orson Scott Card is a very good book.
On 3/19/08, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Adam...
>
> Take the number of people that may know 1/4 of what you just said, and
> how to do it.
> now take the US Armed Forces. Battle hardened...ready...fully
> equipped. It's completely a pipedrea
in the event of govt gone amuck is citizens.
On 3/18/08, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You really need a M16 or a Rocket Launcher to defend yourself from a
> robber?
> A lot of the right to bear arms is a luxury *if* the reason behind it
> is self defence.
>
>
>
it was a bad movie that became more dated over time. It would be even scarier
with that remake you made.
>Has it been that many years since you last saw Patrick Swayze, Jennifer
>Grey, Charlie Sheen and Lea Thompson on horseback doing that very thing?
>
>Cmon, people, if you forget your bad 80s
> But remember, the head Russian backed Mexican soldier turned out to be a
> good guy because he let Patrick Swayze live to carry his dead brother
> awayor...something like that.*shrug*
He let them go because they reminded him of his own struggles as a
Revolutionary.
And then they froz
Like reading the news without a sense of the absurd.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Adam Churvis <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a number of things far worse than death.
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the mo
LMAO!!
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> I think the pc term is "really southern Floridians who haven't moved yet"
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the m
Cubans and Mexicans.
Movie Quote:
Col Andy Tanner: "Yeah, that's right. Infiltrators came up illegal from
Mexico. Cubans mostly. ..."
Loathe wrote:
> Cubans man, they were cuban
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is th
n't let oppressors have a free hand.
There are a number of things far worse than death.
Respectfully,
Adam Phillip Churvis
President
Productivity Enhancement
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:34 PM
> To:
Here we go:
"Yeah. That's right. Infiltrators came up illegal from Mexico. Cubans
mostly. They managed to infiltrate SAC bases in the Midwest, several down in
Texas and wreaked a helluva lot of havoc, I'm here to tell you. They opened
up the door down here, and the whole Cuban & Nicaraguan armies
wrote:
> >>
> >>> Red Dawn...best propaganda flick of the 80's. Evil Russkies gunning
> down
> >>> unarmed schoolchildren...oh, the memories.
> >>>
> >>> Just for the record, the characters in the movie were just tryi
I think the pc term is "really southern Floridians who haven't moved yet"
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cubans man, they were cubans
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most impo
The bat-guano crazy peeps don't worry me so much with gun ownership.
It is a problem, but not the main one. The number of gun deaths to these
incidents, while splashy in the media, and painful to the survivors, is just
not that big a societal deal, imho.
No more so than a crazy person driving ful
AM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: Right To Bear Arms
>>
>> Anyone or anything that desires to infringe upon his rights by force,
>> and in
>> the case of a government, by fraud as well.
>
> Maybe this is the beginning of an answer (and I'm guessing
>>> Red Dawn...best propaganda flick of the 80's. Evil Russkies gunning down
>>> unarmed schoolchildren...oh, the memories.
>>>
>>> Just for the record, the characters in the movie were just trying to
>>> survive, not overthrow the government.
>>>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:24 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Right To Bear Arms
>
> Anyone or anything that desires to infringe upon his rights by force,
> and in
> the case o
s.
> >
> > Just for the record, the characters in the movie were just trying to
> > survive, not overthrow the government.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:11 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
>
> Has it been that many years since you last saw Patrick Swayze, Jennifer
> Grey, Charlie Sheen and Lea Thompson on horseback doing that very thing?
>
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:11 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
Has it been that many years since you last saw Patrick Swayze, Jennifer
Grey, Charlie Sheen and Lea Thompson on horseback doing that very thing?
Cmon, people, if you forget your bad 80s fake hi
And, there was a major scene that was deleted. A tank rolling up to a
McDonald's restaurant where enemy soldiers were eating. It is assumed
that the reason was that a few weeks before the release, there was a
mass murder in a McDonald's in San Ysidro, Ca.
Bruce
Adam Churvis wrote:
> Oh! Inte
gt; Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> Yeah he was in there.
>
> Also, Those are russian/soviet Hind helicopters.
>
> G Money wrote:
> > Wasn't Emilio Estevez in there somewhereor did he miss out on Red
> Dawn?
> >
> > I loved that movie because of t
n [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:11 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> Has it been that many years since you last saw Patrick Swayze, Jennifer
> Grey, Charlie Sheen and Lea Thompson on horseback doing that very
> thing
10:31 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Right To Bear Arms
>
> But in all seriousness, does anyone really think that the United States
> Government could be overthrown by force? There's a better chance of
> that
> kind of change happening politically..
>
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:26 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> Adam...
>
> Take the number of people that may know 1/4 of what you just said, and
> how to do it.
> now take the US Armed Fo
You know what I think you're right it was charlie.
Bruce Sorge wrote:
> He was not in it. Only his brother.
>
>
> Bruce
>
> G Money wrote:
>> Wasn't Emilio Estevez in there somewhereor did he miss out on Red Dawn?
>>
>> I loved that movie because of the opening sequence with the paratrooper
Yeah he was in there.
Also, Those are russian/soviet Hind helicopters.
G Money wrote:
> Wasn't Emilio Estevez in there somewhereor did he miss out on Red Dawn?
>
> I loved that movie because of the opening sequence with the paratroopers
> (just eerie the thought of looking out your school wi
Don't even think such a thing, you know someone has already floated the
idea I'm sure.
Christ I've seen far too many childhood movies and shows destroyed
already, please not red dawn.
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Has it been that many years since you last saw Patrick Swayze, Jennifer
> Grey, Charlie
There are many people in this country that think that was a terrible and
unconstitutional idea.
C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
>> But in all seriousness, does anyone really think that the United States
>> Government could be overthrown by force? There's a better chance of that
>> kind of change happ
He was not in it. Only his brother.
Bruce
G Money wrote:
> Wasn't Emilio Estevez in there somewhereor did he miss out on Red Dawn?
>
> I loved that movie because of the opening sequence with the paratroopers
> (just eerie the thought of looking out your school window and seeing that)
> and b
Wasn't Emilio Estevez in there somewhereor did he miss out on Red Dawn?
I loved that movie because of the opening sequence with the paratroopers
(just eerie the thought of looking out your school window and seeing that)
and because of the fixed wing helicopters.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:11
> Cmon, people, if you forget your bad 80s fake history, you are bound to
> repeat it. Or worse, have it remade starring the Raven, the kid from Home
> Alone 3, and Mylie Cyrus.
(*twitch*)
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is
Has it been that many years since you last saw Patrick Swayze, Jennifer
Grey, Charlie Sheen and Lea Thompson on horseback doing that very thing?
Cmon, people, if you forget your bad 80s fake history, you are bound to
repeat it. Or worse, have it remade starring the Raven, the kid from Home
Alone 3
> But in all seriousness, does anyone really think that the United States
> Government could be overthrown by force? There's a better chance of that
> kind of change happening politically..
Isn't that kinda what's happened since "the Great Society" started?
Look at how much has changed even in t
(home)
(703) 220-2835 (cell)
-Original Message-
From: Adam Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:24 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Right To Bear Arms
Anyone or anything that desires to infringe upon his rights by force, and in
the case of a government, by fra
Adam...
Take the number of people that may know 1/4 of what you just said, and
how to do it.
now take the US Armed Forces. Battle hardened...ready...fully
equipped. It's completely a pipedream and nothing more than
ideological philosophy to think that the Citizens could 'take back'
their country a
March 19, 2008 9:39 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> Not to be tread upon by whom...someone else with a gun?
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Adam Churvis <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > These skills, and his will to not be tre
Not to be tread upon by whom...someone else with a gun?
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Adam Churvis <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These skills, and his will to not be tread upon, and
> I feel like I've done a well-rounded job of raising him.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Adam Phillip Churvis
> Presiden
; -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:04 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Right To Bear Arms
>
> Which is nothing more than a pipe dream no matter how many weapons you
> have.
> Unless you want to be able to buy T
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
