OzOne wrote in message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:34:24 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message

Like I said, you need a national law to cover this.

We once fought a war over state's rights. Such a law would probably
stimulate another civil war. g

Max

Didn't the side that wanted to more freedom win?

Not in this lifetime. The Confederacy of Southern States lost the war. It
was they who were fighting for the rights of states to self-determine in
spite of federal mandates to the contrary on many issues.

Surely freedom to carry a weapon interstate is a basic American right

For some weapons, it is. Now handguns, that's a different story . . .

Max

OzOne wrote in message

State rights is one thing, freedom of the people is different I think.

By all means. Of course no individuals in any organized society are truly
free.

Max

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:27:08 -0500, "Scott Vernon"
wrote this crap:


I sleep with my gun under my pillow, hammer cocked, finger on the
trigger.


Is it loaded with water?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

No, actually the exact opposite. The Confederate States was the ultimate
states-rights organization.

OzOne wrote:
State rights is one thing, freedom of the people is different I think.


Other than upholding slavery, the Confederacy granted far more liberty
to the individual citizen as well as to the states. It was actually too
free, there was no legal way for the central gov't to compel anything
from tax payment to military service. That left gov't in the hands of
the old-money aristocracy & business plutocracy, and pretty much total
freedom to the individual.

If the North had not invaded (hence the name of the war) most
Southerners would not have given a tinker's damn for their own
Confederate gov't and never enlisted for military service at all. As it
was, everybody signed up to tell the Yankees to git outta their yard.

Had the South won (and it was closer than many people realize) the
Confederacy would have fallen apart.

DSK

Joe wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:

Joe wrote:


Hey Martin,

Can you not read?


I read quite well. It is however unfortunate that you lack the


literary tools to make your point, it you in fact have one, succinctly.


"It you in fact have one"?


Sorry Joe, replace the "t" with an "f", I am sure most adult readers would be able to solve that particular conundrum.


Your literary tools and ability to understand the written word is
about a sharp as a bowling ball for colombine.



I thought I made a point with concise and precise brevity and was to
the point.


Wading through your atrocious grammar is rather a chore, but then I surmise that you really have no idea that your grammatical skills are at best no
better than an average 9 year old, your logic lags somewhat further behind.

Do you support the Constitution of The United States of America?



Yes I do. And I have.


How do feel about the ethics and sentiments propounded in
the Declaration of Independence,



The Declaration of Independence and the liberties recognized in it are
grounded in a higher law to which all human laws are answerable. This
higher law can be understood to derive from reason...the truths of the
Declaration are held to be "self-evident"...but also revelation.


So that bit about freedom of speech and beliefs only applies if you share those beliefs? What about due process, oh sorry forget that, I recall that
you think that it's just fine for police to brutalize suspects, and incarceration without charge or trial is perfectly acceptable.




or are they also "liberal, lilly livered Kerry crap"?




Hey you have the God given right to suck up to a piece of **** liar
like moore. Just like I have the liberty and freedom to think he is a
using, sorry, low down, hunk of ****, dirtbag has-been, asshole.
Don't Like It?


Ah yes, the inevitable profanity, first resort of the blustering buffoon. A little comity would go a long way. You might note that I have never
expressed any support for Moore's particular view point, I do however think that wishing a man ill because you disagree with his view point is at best
irrational.

Do try and regain your composure, I wouldn't want you to rupture a blood vessel.

Cheers
Marty

"Bob Crantz" wrote

Did you know that gold is the only legal tender for payment of debt
between
the states. Says so in the Constitution.

Where? Please quote section and article

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
...
The two permit held by this bodyguard, allow this individual
to carry a permit in a total of 30 states, but not New York.

New York is one of the "NAZI" gun states that deny individuals
the right to protect themselves, unless they are rich liberal politicians.

This person was declaring it because he could not get it through
airport security. Even in checked baggage, it must be declared.

In New York, this will get you arrested, even if you are merely
changing planes passing through, without leaving the airport.


Hmmmm ... what does federal law say about that? I know it says I can
transport a gun thru NY in a car provided it is unloaded and in a locked
container. Seems the same would apply to baggage but then you know NY.

Sad when a government doesn't trust its citizens with simple firearms ...


OzOne wrote in message ...
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:50:37 -0500, "Bart Senior"
scribbled thusly:

Does Australia have a national permit? How hard are they to
get?

No National permit, each State has it's own laws, but if you are
licences in one State, you are permitted to carry your weapon in
another on a temporary/visitor status.
A pistol licence is extremely hard to obtain and for most purposes you
need to be in the security or protection industries to carry a pistol,
and even then it almost invariable cannot be concealed.
Sport shooters are allowed a pistol, but it must be locked up in the
licenced pistol club at all times other than when travelling to and
from a shooting range.

Then again, we only have 6 states to fall into line.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

OzOne wrote
Surely freedom to carry a weapon interstate is a basic American right

Federal law says one may transport firearms from one jurisdiction where they
are legal to another thru a jurisdiction where possession is restricted
provided certain packaging restrictions are met (eg, unloaded, in a locked
container). Trouble is local law enforcement resents this and will illegally
thwart it if they can.

Example - NJ police stop you and ask it you have guns, drugs, etc. You
admit having a gun properly cased IAW federal law in your trunk. They
demand to see it to record make and serial #. You comply. They hand the gun
back to you then arrest you ... gun is in your hand not in the case!!
Happened to a dude I know. That's why neither I nor my money go near such
states.

OzOne wrote .
State rights is one thing, freedom of the people is different I think.

Oz, The war was not fought to free slaves as propaganda says - it was fought
over tarriffs. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in
rebel states not, for example, in Maryland. Northern factories used
children instead of slaves - cheaper and more plentiful!