On Friday 21 September 2001 14:22 pm, Rick Sivernell wrote:
> Personally I think you are just full of it. You have not given up any right
> what so ever. Some restrictions are required for all of iur own safety. We
> have it better here than any where else on this planet and that will always
> be
On Friday 21 September 2001 14:22, Rick Sivernell babbled:
> Personally I think you are just full of it. You have not given up any right
> what so ever. Some restrictions are required for all of iur own safety. We
> have it better here than any where else on this planet and that will always
> be t
Personally I think you are just full of it. You have not given up any right
what so ever. Some restrictions are required for all of iur own safety. We
have it better here than any where else on this planet and that will always
be true. Get your self a US flag & start waving it, you will feel mu
On Friday 21 September 2001 06:52, you wrote:
[snip]
>
> I just heard on the radio that the FAA has now restricted flying
> within *3* miles of any outdoor sporting event or assembledge of
> people.. This would include a high school football game.
>
> They didn't mention any altitude with this
Amen
- Richard
Lee wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, you wrote:
> > >Snip
> > The Framers didn't have to worry about Islamic madmen in jets flying into high
> > rise buildings. The Framers didn't anticipate nuclear weapons.
> > Joel
>
> Every time some zealot wishes to protect us from some threat ,
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, you wrote:
> >Snip
> The Framers didn't have to worry about Islamic madmen in jets flying into high
> rise buildings. The Framers didn't anticipate nuclear weapons.
> Joel
Every time some zealot wishes to protect us from some threat , be it
Nazis,Japanese, communists, KKK Kl
On Friday 21 September 2001 3:22 am, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
> And, I must also ask, what freedoms are lost now? CNN (don't ya just love
> 'em) have asked the question, and the people they asked have said that if
> that is what it takes, then maybe it will be that way. But this is NOT the
> same
On Thursday 20 September 2001 17:29, you wrote:
> Rick Sivernell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Joel
> >
> >You have not or will you or anyone else for that matter loose
> > anyrights & privileges.
[snipt]
> Must respectfully disagree. The history of every crisis point in U.S. (or
> other nat
> One of the first cries raised after the bombing of the Federal Building in
> Oklahoma City was for more gun limits to prevent acts of terrorism in the
> U.S. Totally unrelated, but perpetrated and accepted in the interests of
> security.
>
> The "RICO Act" - confiscation of property without tr
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:29:35 -
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Rick Sivernell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
| > Joel
| >
| >You have not or will you or anyone else for that matter loose anyrights &
| > privileges. That is unless you screw up. I think you are talking about the
| > war on Terro
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:45:23 -0400
Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| In a way it's the noise ones with two x chromosomes that cause part of the problem.
|A lot of
| conservative Muslims are outraged by women in the military. In most Muslim countries
|they
| aren't even allowed to drive cars. Bu
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:29:35 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rick Sivernell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Joel
> >
> >You have not or will you or anyone else for that matter loose anyrights &
> > privileges. That is unless you screw up. I think you are talking about the
> > war on Terrori
> of, internet services. Yes, the limitations on government can make it more
> difficult for federal, state, and local authorities - but that was knowingly
> the intent of the Framers. With reason.
The Framers didn't have to worry about Islamic madmen in jets flying into high
rise buildings. The
Rick Sivernell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Joel
>
>You have not or will you or anyone else for that matter loose anyrights &
> privileges. That is unless you screw up. I think you are talking about the
> war on Terrorism, I know you will correct me if I am wrong here , But
> every body get
On Thursday 20 September 2001 12:52 pm, you wrote:
> Preamble "... provide for the common defense ..."
>
> Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress - To declare war, to raise and
> support armies, provide for calling forth the militia, and organize, arm
> and discipline the militia.
>
> Amendment
Preamble "... provide for the common defense ..."
Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress - To declare war, to raise and support
armies, provide
for calling forth the militia, and organize, arm and discipline the militia.
Amendments - Article 8 - Abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude
In a way it's the noise ones with two x chromosomes that cause part of the problem. A
lot of
conservative Muslims are outraged by women in the military. In most Muslim countries
they
aren't even allowed to drive cars. But, in Saudi Arabia the American military has
sent along
quit a few female
>
> What rights have you been denied. Only young men make good cannon fodder
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is also something about involuntary servitude in the constitution.
Joel
___
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives,
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 09:20 pm, you wrote:
> Isn't it funny, but when we start talking about the need to defend rights
> and freedom, the first thing we do is to suspend the
> civil rights of all honest, healthy, straight men between 18-?40 (How high
> will they go? And, they don't draft
Isn't it funny, but when we start talking about the need to defend rights
and freedom, the first thing we do is to suspend the
civil rights of all honest, healthy, straight men between 18-?40 (How high will they
go? And, they don't draft felons, do they? Or the other, very noisy half of
the adult
Not your normal police procedures but most definently standard swat or cert
procedure.
On Wednesday 19 September 2001 00:18, Chang wrote:
> I thought you were about police procedures... be civilized a little bit...
>
> Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
> >uh, http://www.remington.com
> >
> >On Tuesday 18 S
I thought you were about police procedures... be civilized a little bit...
Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
>uh, http://www.remington.com
>
>On Tuesday 18 September 2001 01:03, Chang wrote:
>
>>you guys interseted me,. where is the full documentation for these?
>>iinternal useonly? or you guys were playi
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 19:12, Lee wrote:
| Not so wimpy. The 223 has more knock down than the .303. The bullet
| moves at 3,300 ft/sec and spins at anywhere between 18,000 to
| 24,000 rpm (depending on rifling twist). When it hits something
| soft it tends to keyhole (turns end for end) at
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 09:18, Glenn Williams wrote:
| How about this rule: U.S. Pistol, cal .45, M1911A1
which we also wimped out on, adopting the ridiculous 9mm instead. we
need to go back to the colt, and we need to fully embrace .308, and
anybody who ain't man enough for it ought to b
Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
>Snip
> > >>as i understand it, our arrest of him will be under a provision of
> > >>british military law, rule .303. we had a version of that, rule .308,
> > >>but we wimped out and now are stuck with our own rule .223.
Not so wimpy. The 223 has more knock down than the
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:23:58 -0700
Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 08:14:15PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
> >> >People almost invariably choose personal security over "freedom".
> >> >Any rational person would.
> >>
> >> Speak for yourself. I prefer ``Live Free
Forrister [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I am afraid...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:23:58 -0700
Bill Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 08:14:15PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
> >> >
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 08:14:15PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
>> >People almost invariably choose personal security over "freedom".
>> >Any rational person would.
>>
>> Speak for yourself. I prefer ``Live Free or Die''.
>
The Brazilians understand:
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files
sorry it is now superceeded by Browning rule 9mm.
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 08:18, Glenn Williams wrote:
> On Monday 17 September 2001 20:07, you wrote:
> > On Monday 17 September 2001 21:07, Chang wrote:
> > | Then find out why Ladden did it? Talk to him before making a
> > | military arrest.
On Monday 17 September 2001 20:07, you wrote:
> On Monday 17 September 2001 21:07, Chang wrote:
> | Then find out why Ladden did it? Talk to him before making a
> | military arrest. :)
>
> as i understand it, our arrest of him will be under a provision of
> british military law, rule .303. we had
Actually the best is the M-79 with 40 mm shotgun shells. I had a bunch in Nam
while I was flying in the Ashaw valley. Next was the M-16 with our special
made clips, 4 each taped together at 90 degree angles, 80 quick rounds
please
cheers
--
Rick Sivernell
Dallas, Texas 75287
972 306-2296
[EM
Dennis
I have viewed the web site you had ,
http://www.mn.afrl.af.mil/public/mnme/mnme.html ,& I have just one question
here. Does SBLneed to take it oral or as a supository. Either way I think it
will releive any heart burn.
cheers
--
Rick Sivernell
Dallas, Texas 75287
972 306-2296
[EMA
My personal choice is a 12ga with 00
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 01:38, dep wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2001 02:03, Chang wrote:
> | you guys interseted me,. where is the full documentation for these?
> | iinternal useonly? or you guys were playing with numbers? :)
>
> we're talking the ca
uh, http://www.remington.com
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 01:03, Chang wrote:
> you guys interseted me,. where is the full documentation for these?
> iinternal useonly? or you guys were playing with numbers? :)
>
> Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
> >I think that shortly we will be able to use rule .270 or
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 02:03, Chang wrote:
| you guys interseted me,. where is the full documentation for these?
| iinternal useonly? or you guys were playing with numbers? :)
we're talking the calibre of service longarms. .303 is the standard
british cartridge of most of the 20th century.
you guys interseted me,. where is the full documentation for these?
iinternal useonly? or you guys were playing with numbers? :)
Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
>I think that shortly we will be able to use rule .270 or .300 under the
>personal choice option.
>Also, I do believe that rule .50 should be s
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 00:12, Ralph Sanford wrote:
a tremendous amout, all of it *exactly* right, the definition of
those willing to stand up on their hind legs and roar as opposed to
those who walk on all fours and whimper.
--
dep
There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the lan
On Mon, 2001-09-17 at 18:14, Joel Hammer wrote:
> > >People almost invariably choose personal security over "freedom".
> > >Any rational person would.
> >
> > Speak for yourself. I prefer ``Live Free or Die''.
>
> I would rather show a photo id to get on a plane than be hijacked.
Of course wit
On Monday 17 September 2001 22:57, Ronnie Gauthier wrote:
| I think that shortly we will be able to use rule .270 or .300 under
| the personal choice option.
| Also, I do believe that rule .50 should be seriously considered as
| a good long range solution.
here's a not-bad choice:
http://www.hkp
Ben was a wise man who probably would have been running Linux if
computers were around in his time. His words still hold true.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I am afraid...
>
> I am afraid of those who would, in mindless persuit of some increase in
> security discard the freedo
Joel Hammer wrote:
> Joel
> P.S. This thread seems to have hit rock bottom with this email! Shall we not
> say TID (Thread is dead)?
>
> ___
Agreed. It was fun getting there though.
--
Andrew Mathews
-
I think that shortly we will be able to use rule .270 or .300 under the
personal choice option.
Also, I do believe that rule .50 should be seriously considered as a good
long range solution.
On Monday 17 September 2001 21:07, dep wrote:
> On Monday 17 September 2001 21:07, Chang wrote:
> | The
> correctness. The difference (besides opposable thumbs) is that some
> animals refuse to give up their freedom. Ever seen anyone ride a zebra?
> They can't be broken like a horse. Why do many animals have a greatly
> reduced lifespan when caged? Their spirit is broken. I can't say I've
I an not
On Monday 17 September 2001 22:01, Andrew Mathews wrote:
| Agreed. Nor is there absolute perfection, absolute power, or
| absolute correctness. The difference (besides opposable thumbs) is
| that some animals refuse to give up their freedom. Ever seen anyone
| ride a zebra? They can't be broken l
On Monday 17 September 2001 09:09, Jerry McBride wrote:
| I'd rather submit to random searches than random acts of terrorism.
i'd rather be vigilant and get to my weapon before he can get to his.
| Damn that bastard for what he's done to us. Damn him all the way to
| his grave.
entirely right
On Monday 17 September 2001 21:07, Chang wrote:
| Then find out why Ladden did it? Talk to him before making a
| military arrest. :)
as i understand it, our arrest of him will be under a provision of
british military law, rule .303. we had a version of that, rule .308,
but we wimped out and no
Joel Hammer wrote:
> There is no such thing as absolute freedom. That would be called anarchy.
> Even animals have a social order and rules.
> Joel
Agreed. Nor is there absolute perfection, absolute power, or absolute
correctness. The difference (besides opposable thumbs) is that some
animals re
On Monday 17 September 2001 19:56, Bill Campbell wrote:
| Speak for yourself. I prefer ``Live Free or Die''.
i see you and raise you fifty: i prefer "let me live free. and if you
don't, prepare to die."
--
dep
There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in thei
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:14:15 -0400 Joel Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >People almost invariably choose personal security over "freedom".
> > >Any rational person would.
> >
> > Speak for yourself. I prefer ``Live Free or Die''.
>
> I would rather...
I hate to admit this, but after som
It's just propaganda kind of things. Soon, all measures would be loosen
again. Stay tuned.
>>I am afraid of heights (I would hate to have to jump more
>>than 10 stories) and now airplanes, whether in one or watching them
>>fly overhead.
>>People almost invariably
Then find out why Ladden did it? Talk to him before making a military
arrest. :)
Joel Hammer wrote:
>I am afraid of heights (I would hate to have to jump more
>than 10 stories) and now airplanes, whether in one or watching them
>fly overhead.
>People almost invariably choose perso
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:03:09 -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
>I am afraid of heights (I would hate to have to jump more
>than 10 stories) and now airplanes, whether in one or watching them
>fly overhead.
>People almost invariably choose personal security over "freedom".
>Any
> >People almost invariably choose personal security over "freedom".
> >Any rational person would.
>
> Speak for yourself. I prefer ``Live Free or Die''.
I would rather show a photo id to get on a plane than be hijacked.
I would rather the state license drivers of cars so I don't get killed by
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 05:03:09PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
>I am afraid of heights (I would hate to have to jump more
>than 10 stories) and now airplanes, whether in one or watching them
>fly overhead.
>People almost invariably choose personal security over "freedom".
>
I am afraid of heights (I would hate to have to jump more
than 10 stories) and now airplanes, whether in one or watching them
fly overhead.
People almost invariably choose personal security over "freedom".
Any rational person would.
Joel
__
I could not agree more..
stayler
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:04:24 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am afraid of those who would, in mindless persuit of some increase in
>security discard the freedoms that so many have fought and died to preserve.
>Benjamin Franklin observed that &
I am afraid...
I am afraid of those who would, in mindless persuit of some increase in
security discard the freedoms that so many have fought and died to preserve.
Benjamin Franklin observed that "those who would sacrifice essential
freedoms for a little security will soon have neither.&qu
57 matches
Mail list logo
