"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
m...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
link.net...
None of those items are in the constitution!
The 2nd amendment is the only one that is even close, and it does not
specify or limit type of arms.


Huh? That's my precise point. If you believe that the constitution must
be interpreted on a literal word-for-word basis, then states can have
slavery if they wish (because the constitution does not expressly
prohibit it), states can prevent women and blacks from voting (because
the constitution does not expressly prohibit it), and the government has
no right to regulate drug sales (because the constitution does not
expressly provide for it). If the intent of the framers is so
important, the surely the "arms" mentioned in the 2nd amendment does not
include repeating pistols and automatic rifles because the framers did
not know of such things and could not possibly have intended them to be
included in the definition of "arms."

Peter Aitken


There is an amendment prohibiting slavery in the US.

You are corerct - my mistake.

Drug sales are interstate commerce. Expressly allowed to be controlled
by the Fed's.

Interpretation! Where are drugs mentioned in the constitution? Or why
can't drug companies sell horse pee within a state?

The Fed's do overstep their authority at times. Is why we have courts
that can rule on such cases. The state of Texas should have sued the
Fed's over Waco. Was clearly a case of Fed's overstepping their
authority. Actually people should have been tried for murder and gone to
jail for other crimes in that case.

Oh please. A law enforcement officer knocks on a door to serve a legal
warrant and is shot. Feeble-minded religious nutcases armed wth machine
guns

A fully armed contingent of ATF agents attack the compound on trumped up
charges. Machines guns are not against the law in some states. You have to
have a Federal Destructive weapons Permit. $200 / year. Koresh oftern had
lunch with the sheriff of Waco. Go present the warrant then. Then they
come up with child molestation to justify the raid. Federal crime?

set their own compound on fire. This has been investigated to death and
only the most fervid conspiracy theory nitwits still whine about it.

And proof they set the compound on fire. Lots of tear gas canisters flying,
all can start a fire, a tank knocking down wall. That can start a fire
also.


Calling out the active duty military, should have had everyone who
authorized it unemployed.

What? That makes no sense at all. Lay off the gin, will ya g?

The only allowable legal reasons to engage the active military in a raid
with in the USA is Insurrection and Drugs. The drug charge was used, way
after the situation was out of control. No proof of illegal drug trade ever
came up. I guess you think the Army can be used anytime the Fed's want? I
guess you think it is OK to commandeer your house and bivouac troops
therein.


If we want to change the constitution, there are procedures. Been used
to pass 16 admendments in addition to the Original 10 Bill of Rights.

Yes. And your point is....?


My point is that it is up to the states and people to ammend the
constitution via the rules that allow it. Not 5 judges in black robes. My
point is also you are very ignorant of the Constitution.

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message news:vjIWe.52862.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the
Xtians is shorthand for Christians.


And likewise I thought no one could so easily miss the point. You make me
laugh. What baseline insecurity prompts the need for shorthand of this
type? Are you fearful of writing the full word "Christmas"? Have you been
brainwashed into thinking that merely by writing the letters "C-h-r-i-s-t"
as part of a routinely accepted word you are allowing yourself to be made a
complicite lackey of the great universal right-wing Christian conspiracy?
I have never seen Muslims refer to Xdan, nor have any of my Jewish friends
spoken or written of Xkah during the winter months, so the need for
shorthand appears to be not universal. I conclude, therefore, that you
likely have some particular aversion to the word. Or do you simply not have
the time to type the full word, busy man? If that be the case, I'd suggest
you can't spare any further seconds bloviating upon newsgroups.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message news:vjIWe.52862.


Nice try, but no one could possibly be so dumb as to not be aware the
Xtians is shorthand for Christians.


And likewise I thought no one could so easily miss the point. You make me
laugh. What baseline insecurity prompts the need for shorthand of this
type? Are you fearful of writing the full word "Christmas"? Have you
been brainwashed into thinking that merely by writing the letters
"C-h-r-i-s-t" as part of a routinely accepted word you are allowing
yourself to be made a complicite lackey of the great universal right-wing
Christian conspiracy? I have never seen Muslims refer to Xdan, nor have
any of my Jewish friends spoken or written of Xkah during the winter
months, so the need for shorthand appears to be not universal. I
conclude, therefore, that you likely have some particular aversion to the
word. Or do you simply not have the time to type the full word, busy man?
If that be the case, I'd suggest you can't spare any further seconds
bloviating upon newsgroups.


Fer chrissake you blithering nitwit, I am just saving some typing. And since
X is a cross, symbol of christianity, that's why it is used in Xtian and
Xmas but not in abbreviations for other religions. Please save your 5th
grade psychologizing for people who are down at your intelligence and
educational level.


--
Peter Aitken

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message



Fer chrissake you blithering nitwit, I am just saving some typing. etc.,
etc.....

LMAO

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.

I agree. Those damned college-educated liberals who dare to think outside
the box and take a world view on issues. Damn their altruism! I'm moving
to one of them states where science and reason take a back seat to religion.
Now all I have to do is figure out who's religion is the right one; wait, no
worries, I'll just ask Pat "Assassinate them all" Robertson; he'll know.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P Fritz" wrote in message

The nitwits are the people that seem to believe the constitution somehow
reads "freedom from religion"

It means "freedom from YOUR religion", nitwit. How would you like it if
the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of "under god"?


We've got it all wrong. Shouldn't the pledge say "... under God, Buddah,
Allah, Yaweh, etc." Then we could all get along. Whenever a new religion
comes along we can add that deity as well.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote in message news:CO%Ve.1155


How would you like it if the pledge read "under Buddha", instead of
"under
god"?


I don't know. I've often felt underbuddha, but it usually passes in a
day
or two.

Eisboch





Here's what I have to say about that:

http://tinyurl.com/9zgyq


Harry,
I'm not Jewish and I find your contribution to be that of a pure
unadulterated asshole.
To use the vandalism of anyone's grave as humor is outside the realm of
deceny.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states were
allowed to do as they choose.


No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

Why is it perversion for a government of the people to evolve?

"Ben" . net wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
A liberal California judge. I really wish that the state of California
would either secede from the union...or crumble into the sea during the
next earthquake. They are completely out of touch with the rest of
America.

I agree. Those damned college-educated liberals who dare to think outside
the box and take a world view on issues. Damn their altruism! I'm moving
to one of them states where science and reason take a back seat to
religion. Now all I have to do is figure out who's religion is the right
one; wait, no worries, I'll just ask Pat "Assassinate them all" Robertson;
he'll know.

Why you can practice any religion you want, just don't try to force your
views, religious or political on others. The problem with the liberals is
that they can't get the majority of the citizens to agree with them anymore
so that have to rely upon the liberal judges to implement their views.

"Ben" . net wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message

They did not want a Federal Government religion.........the states
were
allowed to do as they choose.


No, the states could not do as they please. The states were also bound
by
the US constitution. And it is a good thing.

Nope.......the original intent of the US Constitution was to limit
federal
powers to those proscribed in the Constitution, as well as defining a few
certain rights......everything else was left to the states........it has
only been through 200 years of perversion that the country has become
federalized and thus corrupted.

Why is it perversion for a government of the people to evolve?

It is not a perversion for the people to evolve. But, it is a problem for a
minority of the poeple (i.e. liberals) to impose their view of evolving
without getting the majority's approval.