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
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
bartered off
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 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, 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 created
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 gun
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 of
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 NRA
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 the
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 vote.
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
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 of
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.
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
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 of
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% of
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 to
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 in
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 Cheney
19 matches
Mail list logo
