John Edwards Said, The Privilege Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms

[grasshopper]

  Well, if this is a litmus test for a politician (this is NOT and endorsement)  a few month ago in New Hampshire, there was a snowmobile racing event in Kingston NH. and Mitt Romney was there.  I was about 5 feet in back of his posse with a back pack with 5 clips of hollow point .45 with my .45 in my coat.  I was not accosted at the entrance of the event, nothing was being done for protection but 4 secret service guys i picked out, 2 huge state troopers and I suspect 3 in front of the obvious ones and 4 in the back, well, thats how I would have done it.
  I KNOW if Edwards was there, he would have had metal detectors at the entrance and a shitload of uniformed police as well as his personal security contingant he has hired for he doesn't trust the normal secret service guys.
  Funny, being that close to a potential leader of this country, I was looking for threats myself to protect those around me as well as Mitt and his family.  When people say, "Ignorance is bliss", this is true.  Looking at all the people in the event, they had NO idea of the potential threats.  Sheeple.

[Romak]

Thats what they dont get my man Grasshopper, politicians have nothing to worry about from gun owners. If anything we would be there to protect them from the nutjobs that would do them harm. The only thing they should be concerned about are our votes. Or of course if they decided to ban guns..............

[mvpel]

It'll all be fine next summer, so I'm not too worried.

[grasshopper]

  Next summer?  I just got a vision...  Manchvegas looks like Stalingrad.....   after the German assault.

[grasshopper]

 :DBorg assault!    You'll be assimilated!  Resistance is futile!

[Romak]

It would be kind of hard to assault Manchvegas as easy as most other cities. The citizens of that city are pretty well armed, Ive seen better collections in homes in the heart of the city than I have in most rural areas. If it wasnt for all the Massholes moving in from Lowell, etc Id still be there.

[grasshopper]

   I lived on Porter St.  By the now Bank of America.  There was a druggie gun fight rite across the street in the yellow florists building on the corner.  My friend who just got his Girlfriend and child to move back with him in the house we were renting was fed up with the violence.  We went to Weare NH. and built him a house.
   Hmmm, a babbleing brook in the back yard or a gunfight in Manchvegas?
   I was the one walking at night with my night commander in my sholder holster keeping an eye on the druggies until we finally moved.  It quieted down REAL fast in that neighborhood.  I guess the druggies got the message when I ruteanly cleaned my AK 47 sporter on the picnic table and worked the slide a few dozen times to "check functionality".  sounds almost like a pump shotgun!   .
   About Massholes.  I'm a refugee from Mass.  I got out of there in 92.  Best move I ever made.
  I got my FID card in late 83 at 15 in a half.  It was supposed to be for life.  I went to get a copy of it and they changed the law.  I had to renew it every few years AND they wanted to gegister my guns!  That was IT!  Bye bye.
   I shit you not on this.  My neighbor in Mass on Portland Street in Haverhill was Mike Mc'Durmott, the asshole that shot up that business in Dracut Mass.  Mc'Durmott killed 11 people with an SKS rifle!  My next door neighbor!!!!! 
   I moved out 6 years before he did this though.

[Romak]

No kidding. What ever happened with that lawsuit the NH wife brought up for her husband that was killed in that deal. Her husband was a gun dealer I think and wasnt able to carry in MA to protect himself, although he always had a pistol on him wherever he was in NH. I think she sued the state for being responsible for his death because of their gun laws. Im kind of hazy on the details because it was so long ago....Most people I know carry in MA whenever they have to go there even without a permit, something along the line of being judged by 12 rather than carried by 8, or whatever that line is. I used to live on the west side before I made the move to the middle of nowhere. It was nice but with two little ones it wasnt what I wanted for my kids. The only thing I miss is getting good food anytime I want. Hey grasshopper didnt realize you had such a negative influence on people you meet, sounds like you planted the seed into that Mcdermott fella

[grasshopper]

    Nope, not me, He was on anti depressants, that rite there was a real BIG warning sign.  He was faking Skitzofrenia though  (not too faking it)
   We hardly saw the guy, he'd go out to his car on a saturday morning and check for throw up.  We were 8 guys with muscle cars in a 2 family house with 1 of the 2 apartments full.  We had the upstairs.
  We cleaned up that neighborhood when  we were there.  We went to the crack houses and asked them to stop it, we were even so stupidly drunk one night during a hurricane we were, 3 of us, in a HUGE oak tree yelling for the dealers to "Hey, give us some".  The hookers were driven from the neighborhood, the customers didn't like us taking pictures of them and their cars and getting in and having a heart to heart at 3 in the morning.  Dumb?  Maybe..  did it work?  Yes.  Dads were playing catch with their children when we left the neighborhood and this also caused other neighbors to keep up the pressure.
   I hate druggies, pot heads and mass murderers  (get it Mass. murderers????)))  

[grasshopper]

   Hey, you up camp?

[Romak]

Dont know about you but its a good beer night tonight.

[Pat K]

Dont know about you but its a good beer night tonight.

It is always a good Beer night. 

[Seamas]

Is this neutral?  From their web site (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html):

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Collective right, of states, anachronistic, (at least they are right about more powerful weapons) etc. QED and humph!

1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10!

That's a good statement of the status quo and the ACLU's specious and tendentious interpretation of the Second Amendment.   The joke is: "How does the ACLU count to ten?  1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10."  I will never support them until they change their position.

The ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment is stupid, but their actual position is to be neutral—meaning they don't support it, but they don't work against it, either.

[J’raxis 270145]

That's a good statement of the status quo and the ACLU's specious and tendentious interpretation of the Second Amendment.   The joke is: "How does the ACLU count to ten?  1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10."  I will never support them until they change their position.

The ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment is stupid, but their actual position is to be neutral—meaning they don't support it, but they don't work against it, either.

Is this neutral?  From their web site (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html):

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Collective right, of states, anachronistic, (at least they are right about more powerful weapons) etc. QED and humph!

1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10!

"Neutral" means how they act, not what they believe. They don't take cases in support of an individual RKBA, but they don't work against it either.

[Seamas]

I see how they act as not neutral given that they claim to support the Bill of Rights but both disavow the Second Amendment and do not support those who are having their rights infringed.  From their own web site (http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html) they claim that "The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all (my emphasis) of these protections and guarantees:" (from the Bill of Rights).  By adopting a tendentious interpretation of the Second Amendment they are not living up to their own mission; probably because they are not a true civil rights organization but a "rights that liberals like" organization. 

It's one thing if an individual claims they don't care one way or another about the Second Amendment - they are "neutral".  When an organization claims as their very mission to support all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights but in words and acts does not - that is neither neutral nor honest.

That's a good statement of the status quo and the ACLU's specious and tendentious interpretation of the Second Amendment.   The joke is: "How does the ACLU count to ten?  1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10."  I will never support them until they change their position.

The ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment is stupid, but their actual position is to be neutral—meaning they don't support it, but they don't work against it, either.

Is this neutral?  From their web site (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html):

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Collective right, of states, anachronistic, (at least they are right about more powerful weapons) etc. QED and humph!

1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10!

"Neutral" means how they act, not what they believe. They don't take cases in support of an individual RKBA, but they don't work against it either.