> Example: From the Declaration of Independence to the Sedition
> Act took only 22 years, and that was when the founding fathers
> still actively dominated political life. Today, a USA Patriot
> Act takes only minutes to enact, with neither debate nor
> hearings, and members of Congress don't even
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, jet wrote:
> At 16:18 -0500 2003/02/12, cubic-dog wrote:
> >
> >The NRA is openly hostile towards the "embarrasing 2nd Amendment".
> >The NRA is mostly all about allowing the weathly wingshooters to
> >be the last to fall. The rest of us, like the armed citizens, get
> >barter
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:30:12 -0500, Declan wrote:
> Note by broad conservative community I do not include
> politically-active gun owners, who would like an actual principled
> stand on the 2A. Fat chance.
People who look for "principled stands" by a government, any
government, aren't paying att
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:46:11AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> He talks the talk, but his Justice Department continues to enforce
> assault weapon laws (which are ipso fact unconstitutional, as the
> language of the Second makes it clear that military-type rifles for the
> citizen militia were the i
At 16:18 -0500 2003/02/12, cubic-dog wrote:
>
>The NRA is openly hostile towards the "embarrasing 2nd Amendment".
>The NRA is mostly all about allowing the weathly wingshooters to
>be the last to fall. The rest of us, like the armed citizens, get
>bartered off everytime gun control bill comes to a
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bill Frantz wrote:
> At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote:
> >But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even
> >on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being
> >right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Mike Rosing wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tim May wrote:
>
> > And so on. He talks the talk, but he and his buddies in HomeSec are
> > establishing a national police force, "states rights" be damned.
>
> He's proof that you can fool just about everyone simultaneously -
> the
hi,
> I've not followed it closely, but Powell claims to
> have a tape of
> Bin Laden talking to "Iraqi's". Al Jazerra denys
> it's real. This is
> all from NPR. The game is afoot, let's see who can
> deliver the bigger
> lie.
A tape as an evidence?Is a tape still considered as a
valid piece o
At 2:40 + 2003/02/12, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
>This one just won't die. People keep repeating it. Not much
>different from Bush's "Time is running out" or "They hate us
>because we love freedom". Would you like to show us the part of
>the twelve page German law of March, 1938 that limits
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Sarad AV wrote:
> A tape as an evidence?Is a tape still considered as a
> valid piece of evidence in a court of law?
It's that oath thing, it's pretty much always required the person making
the tape to swear it hasn't been tampered with and that they are the party
who create
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, jet wrote:
> If you've read it recently, I'll take your word for it.
That's a very(!!!) dangerous approach.
Odds are the person hasn't read it at all. Check the archive for a
reference to a pre-print in arXiv (ie xyz.lanl.gov) about pre-prints and
how 80% of them are bogus
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:00:38 -0800, you wrote:
>
> At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote:
> >But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even
> >on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being
> >right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Ch
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:44:13 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>
> But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox
>Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means
>mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tim May wrote:
> And so on. He talks the talk, but he and his buddies in HomeSec are
> establishing a national police force, "states rights" be damned.
He's proof that you can fool just about everyone simultaneously -
the NRA supports him inspite of his lack of of commitment
> Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
> That Item Whose Name May Not Be Spoken on Television: a gun.
>
> If there's disruption, looting, a breakdown in what now passes for
> civil order, a gun is just about the most important thing to have.
> Probably not necessary to use it, for 99.5%
At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote:
>But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even
>on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being
>right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the
>like would prefer that guns be in the hands
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 11:20 AM, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote:
But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even
on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being
right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft
My point was that a gun is an item for an emergency, not that everyone
who does not now have one should buy one. Nor was my point addressing
the issue of "what would happen if everyone tried to buy one suddenly!?"
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 12:43 PM, Trei, Peter wrote:
Three points:
1.
At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote:
>But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even
>on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being
>right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the
>like would prefer that guns be in the hands
Here in war-preparing America, reports are running on CNN, CNBC, CBS,
and presumably other networks about the importance of some basic
emergency supplies for all good citizen-units. This is mostly good
advice, of course.
Being a paranoid and a kind of survivalist, I already have first aid
kits
20 matches
Mail list logo
