Deadrat wrote:
> "Reality_Check©"  wrote
>> "Deadrat"  wrote in message
>>> "Reality_Check©"  wrote in
>>>> "Deadrat"  wrote in message
>>>>> richard  wrote in
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:43:52 -0400, Larry  wrote:
>>>>>>> richard  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html?
>>>>>>>> tag=nefd.lede#com me nts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your beloved Attorney Generally has single handedly decided to
>>>>>>>> wage war on usenet. He has stated to the ISP's, either shut it
>>>>>>>> down, or we will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW, he wants to put a halt to YOUR freedom of speech rights.
>>>>>>>> Time Warner, Sprint, and Verizon may be pulling the plug. If
>>>>>>>> not all of usenet, at least the ALT hierarchy resides.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In an effort to combat child pornography access, Cuomo and his
>>>>>>>> team found 88 usenet groups that contained the stuff. However,
>>>>>>>> there was no mention of how child pornography was defined.
>>>>>>>> Nudity in itself is not illegal. Never has been.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know what?  I didn't look at the name of the poster of this
>>>>>>> story.
>>>>>>> I just saw the subject, and started reading.  Then, when I got
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> above paragraph, I said to myself, "This sounds like something
>>>>>>> Richard would write."  Lo and behold, he did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your complaint is that the story posted on CNET doesn't contain
>>>>>>> a definition of child pornography?  Complain about the author,
>>>>>>> then, not the Attorney General (not the Attorney Generally, as
>>>>>>> you call him in the first sentence).  Seeing as he is a lawyer,
>>>>>>> and has a staff of lawyers, I'm sure he knows what is legal in
>>>>>>> New York and what isn't, Richard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just as millions of citizens "KNOW" what is illegal. Cuomo has no
>>>>>> legal authority to enforce his personal beliefs. He MUST follow
>>>>>> the law as it is written. That includes rulings of the US
>>>>>> Supreme Court. So if it is legal within the United States, then
>>>>>> he can not make it illegal in his state.
>>>>>
>>>>> More accurately, if it is Constitutionally protected, then it
>>>>> cannot be made against state law.
>>>>
>>>> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
>>>> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
>>>> infringed.
>>>>
>>>> Whooops ....
>>>
>>> Whaddaymean "Whooops ...."?  That's exactly what happened.  The
>>> Constitution (See the 2nd Amendment) does not allow the feds to
>>> disarm the states.  And guess what?  The states all have militias
>>> that they regulate.
>>
>> How many NUKES and other WMD do the individual states deploy?
>
> This is STUPID even by your STANDARDS.

You're lying again.


> Not having ALL weaPONS is NOT
> the same THING as having NO WEAPons.


Ah yes ... there's the rub.

Do tell.

>>> But you knew that

So, per your own admission, the Feds can, and do, deny the people
(well regulated militia included) the right to keep and bear arms,
given your new assertion that as long as the Feds allow
the possession of at least the smallest, least effective "arm" -- to
the exclusion of all other arms -- they haven't violated the letter of
the law, eh ratzo ?

"Deadrat"  wrote in message 
news:zmi4k.11717$Ri.1835@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> "Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.org> wrote in
> news:TZydnYtrsbH0MMzVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> "Deadrat"  wrote in message
>> news:Jad4k.1222$LG4.858@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> "Felix D." <#1Chekist@OGPU.org> wrote in
>>> news:e6qdnWdYFMIKwMzVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Deadrat"  wrote in message
>>>> news:HJb4k.4879$N87.457@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> "Scout"  wrote in
>>>>> news:Qc54k.40295$Xu2.9512@trnddc04:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nor may (Congress) intervene to prevent the people themselves as
>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>> from doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet they do.  All the time.  How do you figure that this
>>>>> happens?
>>>>
>>>> A fine disregard for the Constitution and a brain dead "citizenry."
>>>
>>> Ah, so in your opinion the law should be changed and all "good"
>>> citizens should agree with you.
>>
>> No, numbnuts:  I'm saying Congress and all sorts of other legislative
>> bodies are legislating away the right to keep and bear arms because
>> the politicians have a fine disregard for the constitution and the
>> citizenry is brain dead.
>>
>> There. Is that plain enough for you?
>
> Congress isn't busy legislating away the right to keep and bear arms.  In
> fact, Congress has passed a law recognizing that the right is an
> individual one.  Of course, in this case, their opinion matters just as
> little as yours.

All they have to do is get it ratified as an Amendment, how hard could
that be if all the "True Freedom-Lovin' 'murrikans" want it to be so?

>You'll just have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule
> in the DC gun law case.
>
> Politicians do have a disregard for the Constitution, and W found out
> today what happens when you carry that disregard too far.  But I'd bet W
> was a favorite of yours.
>
> Is that plain enough for you?