Better communications by police could have reduced gun-sales di...

[Daniel]

Actually, Topix owns this board, the server, and this thread.

Guess that means you're owned, too.

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>You are absolutely correct. I don't own squat. Why would I want to own squat? I do, however, own you, this thread, and anyone in here that can't post to my thread without mentioning me or posting to me.

[Trin Tragula]

Daniel wrote:

Actually, Topix owns this board, the server, and this thread.
Guess that means you're owned, too.
<quoted text>

You have to realize: Truth(less) has a pretty high opinion of himself. He even thinks his interpretation of the dictionary is the only correct one. He claims to "own" everyone. With remarks like that, it sounds like he supports tyranny and slavery to me

[Truth]

Trin Tragula wrote:

<quoted text>
You have to realize: Truth(less) has a pretty high opinion of himself. He even thinks his interpretation of the dictionary is the only correct one. He claims to "own" everyone. With remarks like that, it sounds like he supports tyranny and slavery to me

Couldn't post without mentioning me?
You're owned.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Couldn't post without mentioning me?
You're owned.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>You are absolutely correct. I don't own squat. Why would I want to own squat? I do, however, own you, this thread, and anyone in here that can't post to my thread without mentioning me or posting to me.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

[Monty]

Daniel wrote:

Actually, Topix owns this board, the server, and this thread.
Guess that means you're owned, too.
<quoted text>

SOOOO True!!!!

[Truth]

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

Nothing new to say? How surprising. Why not quote the entire Amendment?
Same thing several posts in a row from you. Nothing new. You're power is fading.
You're owned.

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Nothing new to say? How surprising. Why not quote the entire Amendment?
Same thing several posts in a row from you. Nothing new. You're power is fading.
You're owned.

Only in your perverse cowardly and effeminate dreams, punk.

"Self-preservation is the first principle of our nature. When our lives and properties are at stake, it would be foolish and unnatural to refrain from such measures as might preserve them because they would be detrimental to others...... that the united strength of the several members might give stability and security to the whole body, and each respective member; so that one part cannot encroach upon another without becoming a common enemy, and eventually endangering the safety and happiness of all the other parts."

- Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton - "A FULL VINDICATION.", Dec. 15, 1774, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition)(New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 1.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/OriginsII/...

[Trin Tragula]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Couldn't post without mentioning me?
You're owned.

So you agree that when I mentioned Truth(less) I was mentioning you.

Prceless. Who's owned?

[Truth]

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

<quoted text>
Only in your perverse cowardly and effeminate dreams, punk.
"Self-preservation is the first principle of our nature. When our lives and properties are at stake, it would be foolish and unnatural to refrain from such measures as might preserve them because they would be detrimental to others...... that the united strength of the several members might give stability and security to the whole body, and each respective member; so that one part cannot encroach upon another without becoming a common enemy, and eventually endangering the safety and happiness of all the other parts."
- Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton - "A FULL VINDICATION.", Dec. 15, 1774, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition)(New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904). In 12 vols. Vol. 1.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/OriginsII/...

Just as expected. You wouldn't quote the entire 2nd Amendment.
You're owned.

[Truth]

Trin Tragula wrote:

<quoted text>
So you agree that when I mentioned Truth(less) I was mentioning you.
Prceless. Who's owned?

Nice lie Trin. Where is the statement of agreement?
Not one word I said could possibly be construed as being agreeable.
You're owned. You're lack of understanding is making it more evident.

[el politico]

Are you still whining in here truthless? Damn boy, I bet your momma beat your ass black and blue for all that bitching when you were a kid.

Maybe that is why you like Trin and Gunshow so much, you got to where you enjoyed those spankings too much, and they remind you of your momma now. That is just too kinky.

In 1990, Justice Rehnquist wrote:
"The people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution .... The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble).... While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected ... by the First and Second Amendments ... refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990)(Rehnquist, J.).
“The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

In Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992), Justice O'Connor wrote for the majority that the scope of the due process clause is not limited to "the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution...[such as] the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms." Id. at 2805 (quoting Poe v. Ulman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961)

There are over TWENTY supreme court cases where the 2nd amendment is similarly acknowledged as a PERSONAL right, and where the justices quote only the second half.

Maybe you can comprehend Justice Kennedy's words, but I doubt it:
"And so in effect the amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms."

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Just as expected. You wouldn't quote the entire 2nd Amendment.
You're owned.

Not quite, communist-socialist:

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1789.

“...On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words,'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'

“It passed in the negative.

“On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words,'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'

“It passed in the affirmative.

“On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows:'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

“It passed in the affirmative....”

“...Resolved, That the Senate do concur in the resolve of the House of Representatives, on "Articles to be proposed to the legislatures of the states, as amendments to the constitution of the United States," with the amendments; two thirds of the Senators present concurring therein.

“Ordered, That the Secretary do carry a message to the House of Representatives accordingly.

“Adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow."

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Nice lie Trin. Where is the statement of agreement?
Not one word I said could possibly be construed as being agreeable.
You're owned. You're lack of understanding is making it more evident.

Talking to yourself in the mirror again, eh effeminate coward?

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Nothing new to say? How surprising. Why not quote the entire Amendment?
Same thing several posts in a row from you. Nothing new. You're power is fading.
You're owned.

"Mr. MADISON thought the regulation of the militia naturally appertaining to the authority charged with the public defence...."

- August 18.(1787), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 5]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...
Thursday, August 23.(1787).

"...In Convention.-- The report of the committee of eleven, made the 21st of August, being taken up, and the following clause being under consideration, to wit:--

"To make laws for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed," --

Mr. SHERMAN moved to strike out the last member, "and authority of training," &c. He thought it unnecessary. The states will have this authority, of course, if not given up.

Mr. ELLSWORTH doubted the propriety of striking out the sentence. The reason assigned applies as well to the other reservation, of the appointment to offices. He remarked, at the same time, that the term "discipline," was of vast extent, and might be so expounded as to include all power on the subject.

Mr. KING, by way of explanation, said, that by organizing, the committee meant, proportioning the officers and men -- by arming, specifying the kind, size, and calibre of arms -- and by disciplining, prescribing the manual exercise, evolutions, &c.

Mr. SHERMAN withdrew his motion...."

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Just as expected. You wouldn't quote the entire 2nd Amendment.
You're owned.

You must enjoy being shown to the world just how IGNORANT you really ARE....

The preamble to the Bill of Rights itself:
http://gunshowonthenet.com/BillOfRights.htm

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

"Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

...Amendment II

DECLARATORY; (Common Defense)
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

RESTRICTIVE; (Self-Defense/Preservation, The First Law of Nature).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Right...
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/SelfPreser...
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Just as expected. You wouldn't quote the entire 2nd Amendment.
You're owned.

Next, let us consider the PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT of the British-American 'subject' BEFORE the CONSTITUTION. As it was then explained by a very knowledgeable and well known authority;

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

- William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765–1769.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Commentari...

Then, let us give our attention to how the new American Citizen's Right was dramatically improved AFTER the Constitution;

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty....The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries,(1803).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/BOOKS/BlackCommTuc...

Thus,'truth'[less] is shown not only to be a LIAR, but an IGNORAMUS as well....

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Just as expected. You wouldn't quote the entire 2nd Amendment.
You're owned.

It is blatantly obvious to ALL just >who< "owns" whom punk. And, just to make it clear for your simplistic mind to comprehend, you don't own SQUAT....

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Just as expected. You wouldn't quote the entire 2nd Amendment.
You're owned.

"Nothing is as terrible to see as ignorance in action."

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

And you are pegged.....

[GunShowOnTheNet]

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>Just as expected. You wouldn't quote the entire 2nd Amendment.
You're owned.

Here's another one for you to CHOKE on effeminate coward:

"...Yet it would be useless to deny the existence of a general feeling in the commmunity that a law against carrying pistols would be a virtual disarmament of the law-abiding citizen, who would obey the statute, for the benefit of the lawless, who would persistently disregard it. That opinion was even expressed by a Magistrate on the bench, and is, no doubt, largely shared by the better portion of the community. Theoretically, the citizen has no occasion for weapons of self-defense. Practically we all know he has, and must at times, in any city however well governed and well policed.

"The objection that such a law as that suggested would be disregarded by the very persons whom it was chiefly designed to reach, is not, of course, logically speaking, a valid objection. The disorderly and dangerous classes defy all laws, and their opposition is not only to be expected, but constitutes one of the chief necessities for making laws at all. Nevertheless, the objection will have weight with many, and may tend to the continuance of a practice which all good men must deprecate, if they do not condemn. The way to meet this argument has already been indicated in these columns. If it is impracticable to forbid the carrying of pistols outright, their sale should at least be so restricted as to furnish a partial guarantee against their getting into improper hands...."

"...Nor need there be any apprehension that the just freedom of the citizen would thereby be infringed. The constitutional right to carry arms..."

And thus we see how that the individual Constitutional Right was PUBLICLY and NATIONALLY ADMITTED, as well as how the subversion started....
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/05/s...