"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
Lookout <mrLookout at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote :
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
Devil's_Advocate at (no spam) devil.xxx> wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-t
oro nto -
seized-
police523.html

You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with
lapsed registrations in a six-month push aimed at
reducing the number of
guns
on the city's streets."

Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost
their
guns.

Did you really think that would get by me?

You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.

You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize
human
rights!

Gun ownership is a human right?

To have the most effective means of defending oneself is.
Today that
is
a firearm.

Then a bazooka would qualify. Good luck with that.

Nope....a bazooka is too heavy to carry around all the time and
it is a

So what. A musket can weight 8 to 10 pounds. A bazooka comes in
at around 13.

My P9 weighs 25 ounces. My .357 weighs 28 ounces and my .327
weighs the same.

How nice. "The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
would carry" - your words.

Yep.......long arms (rifles, shotguns) and sidearms (handguns).
Which of those do you think doesn't fit one of those two categories.
Take all the screens you need.

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
firearm, it

Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do
with anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything
about that?

Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:

"....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the
time." That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles
and shotguns.

The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A
body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time.

yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms supplied
by themselves and of the king in common use at the time." do you
think belies what I said?

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

So, the military shops at Walmart?

What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
having trouble with?

Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?

Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
handgun.

Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...

Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The
case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?

"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong. Unless
you can provide a quote from the decision.

is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman

So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
launcher?

An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my
point of view and that of the federal government.

Your point of view doesn't count.

The feds do and they agree with me.

Good luck buying grenades...

would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
again.

Infantry carry grenade launchers.

Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
perfectly legal per federal law.

They don't ALL have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues

Now, where do you buy grenades?

No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

Not a tangent. You started this train.

How hard is that to conceal? How do
you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have
to do with TORONTO?

Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should
take that up with the poster who made the comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto

DUH...

And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?

That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed to
simply registration.

You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle?

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:38:07 -0600, RichTravsky
traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

|>> > Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...
|
|>> Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
|>> The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?
|
|>"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
|>Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.
|

A handgun is very low on the self defense echelon,

to
power against T2a-->T5 and all the stuff modern crooks use these days,
but it is wieldy and the hi-calibers are usually sufficient for
average uses.

Try shooting a rifle on a right corner, meaning your right your
right hand on the stock, and your left on the trigger...you would be
exposing all your body otherwise.

In a self defense situation the handgun is much better at
handling
those situations, shoot weak/strong and both hands, after you have
mapped out your location, giving you the ultimate edge on the Home
Invaders.

Usually a handgun is all you need and rifles still over penetrate
leaving little in stopping power. Shotguns with #00 buckshot are still
the best for shotgun stopping power, but I find shotguns and rifles a
bit cumbersome these "city" days.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:58:27 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
rdsandman(spamlock) at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

|
|>> In a self defense situation the handgun is much better at
|>> handling
|>> those situations, shoot weak/strong and both hands, after you have
|>> mapped out your location, giving you the ultimate edge on the Home
|>> Invaders.
|
|>I thought you just postulated above that a handgun was low on the
|>list. Do you really think most modern crooks carry AKs and ARs?
|>Most of them carry 9mms.
|

Right but:

Once in a car, a rifle is pretty easy to conceal, a lot of brats
take pot shots at intersections or just generally in their
neighborhood from a house.

Not too many ppl carry a gun around here "Canada" , although
there
are hordes of military surplus rifles, the handgun in glove box is an
occasional thing.

Laws in Canada are like Maryland, California, and New York, for
the
longest time.

|>> Usually a handgun is all you need and rifles still over
|>> penetrate
|>> leaving little in stopping power. Shotguns with #00 buckshot are
|>> still the best for shotgun stopping power, but I find shotguns and
|>> rifles a bit cumbersome these "city" days.
|
|>They are like trying to conceal a Harley Davidson.

Right but:

HA types used to favor ARs since the '60s, bought on the streets
from a trench coated gun runner. They do a lot of their "patch
pulling" internal killings and rival deterrents with
handguns/Rifles/and Blasting Cap/Bombs, which is a great waste of raw
gunpowder..

Bob

RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
Lookout <mrLookout at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote :
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's Advocate"
Devil's_Advocate at (no spam) devil.xxx> wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-t
oro nto -
seized-
police523.html

You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with
lapsed registrations in a six-month push aimed at
reducing the number of
guns
on the city's streets."

Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE lost
their
guns.

Did you really think that would get by me?

You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.

You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont recognize
human
rights!

Gun ownership is a human right?

To have the most effective means of defending oneself is.
Today that
is
a firearm.

Then a bazooka would qualify. Good luck with that.

Nope....a bazooka is too heavy to carry around all the time and
it is a

So what. A musket can weight 8 to 10 pounds. A bazooka comes in
at around 13.

My P9 weighs 25 ounces. My .357 weighs 28 ounces and my .327
weighs the same.

How nice. "The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman
would carry" - your words.

Yep.......long arms (rifles, shotguns) and sidearms (handguns).
Which of those do you think doesn't fit one of those two categories.
Take all the screens you need.

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered a
firearm, it

Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do
with anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything
about that?

Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:

"....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the
time." That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns, rifles
and shotguns.

The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A
body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further,
that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in
common use at the time.

yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms supplied
by themselves and of the king in common use at the time." do you
think belies what I said?

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

Nope.....although I can legally own one, I have no interest in doing so.
Do you want one?

So, the military shops at Walmart?

What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
having trouble with?

Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?

Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was militia
and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is no requirement
for that membership.....you must change with the times. Learn to read.
Heller would be a good place to start.

Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
handgun.

Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...

Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine. The
case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?

"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong. Unless
you can provide a quote from the decision.

Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you cannot
read it and understand it.........

is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman

So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
launcher?

An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my
point of view and that of the federal government.

Your point of view doesn't count.

The feds do and they agree with me.

Good luck buying grenades...

Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire for
launcher.....why buy grenades for one.

would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
again.

Infantry carry grenade launchers.

Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
perfectly legal per federal law.

They don't ALL have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues

Now, where do you buy grenades?

No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

Not a tangent. You started this train.

Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the end of
this one, I am responding to you.

How hard is that to conceal? How do
you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution have
to do with TORONTO?

Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you should
take that up with the poster who made the comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto

DUH...

And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?

That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed to
simply registration.

You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't handle.

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
Lookout <mrLookout at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote :
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's
Advocate"
Devil's_Advocate at (no spam) devil.xxx> wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/gun
s-t oro nto -
seized-
police523.html

You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with
lapsed registrations in a six-month push aimed at
reducing the number of
guns
on the city's streets."

Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE
lost their
guns.

Did you really think that would get by me?

You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.

You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont
recognize human
rights!

Gun ownership is a human right?

To have the most effective means of defending oneself is.
Today that
is
a firearm.

Then a bazooka would qualify. Good luck with that.

Nope....a bazooka is too heavy to carry around all the time
and it is a

So what. A musket can weight 8 to 10 pounds. A bazooka comes
in at around 13.

My P9 weighs 25 ounces. My .357 weighs 28 ounces and my .327
weighs the same.

How nice. "The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman would carry" - your words.

Yep.......long arms (rifles, shotguns) and sidearms (handguns).
Which of those do you think doesn't fit one of those two
categories. Take all the screens you need.

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered
a firearm, it

Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do
with anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything
about that?

Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:

"....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the
time." That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns,
rifles and shotguns.

The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And
further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.

yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the king in common use at the time."
do you think belies what I said?

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

Nope.....although I can legally own one, I have no interest in doing
so. Do you want one?

Can you buy grenades for it?

So, the military shops at Walmart?

What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
having trouble with?

Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?

Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was
militia and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is no
requirement for that membership.....you must change with the times.
Learn to read. Heller would be a good place to start.

"normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?

Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
handgun.

Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...

Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?

"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.

Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you
cannot read it and understand it.........

I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up your
claim.

is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman

So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
launcher?

An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my
point of view and that of the federal government.

Your point of view doesn't count.

The feds do and they agree with me.

Good luck buying grenades...

Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire
for launcher.....why buy grenades for one.

Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but
about the Constitution.

would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
again.

Infantry carry grenade launchers.

Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
perfectly legal per federal law.

They don't ALL have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues

Now, where do you buy grenades?

No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a
reaction when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

Not a tangent. You started this train.

Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the end
of this one, I am responding to you.

Yes, you did. And then you hilariously sputter on about tangents...

How hard is that to conceal? How do
you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution
have to do with TORONTO?

Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you
should take that up with the poster who made the comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto

DUH...

And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?

That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed
to simply registration.

You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't
handle.

(laughs and points)

Got that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for that self
defense was a handgun"

Oh wait - "Don't have to"

Get back to us when you understand that the American Constitution is
not binding in Canada. And when you understand that registration has
nothing to do with the 2nd.

RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
Lookout <mrLookout at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote :
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's
Advocate"
Devil's_Advocate at (no spam) devil.xxx> wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/gun
s-t oro nto -
seized-
police523.html

You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms with
lapsed registrations in a six-month push aimed at
reducing the number of
guns
on the city's streets."

Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE
lost their
guns.

Did you really think that would get by me?

You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.

You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont
recognize human
rights!

Gun ownership is a human right?

To have the most effective means of defending oneself is.
Today that
is
a firearm.

Then a bazooka would qualify. Good luck with that.

Nope....a bazooka is too heavy to carry around all the time
and it is a

So what. A musket can weight 8 to 10 pounds. A bazooka comes
in at around 13.

My P9 weighs 25 ounces. My .357 weighs 28 ounces and my .327
weighs the same.

How nice. "The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman would carry" - your words.

Yep.......long arms (rifles, shotguns) and sidearms (handguns).
Which of those do you think doesn't fit one of those two
categories. Take all the screens you need.

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not considered
a firearm, it

Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to do
with anything? Where in the Constitution does it say anything
about that?

Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:

"....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at the
time." That is no longer muskets. That is modern handguns,
rifles and shotguns.
T
The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And
further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.

yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the king in common use at the time."
do you think belies what I said?

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

Nope.....although I can legally own one, I have no interest in doing
so. Do you want one?

Can you buy grenades for it?

Don't know.....don't care. As I noted, I have no interest in one.

So, the military shops at Walmart?

What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are you
having trouble with?

Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?

Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was
militia and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is no
requirement for that membership.....you must change with the times.
Learn to read. Heller would be a good place to start.

"normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?

You have to go back and look at context.

Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self defense
were fine and the best firearm for that self defense was a
handgun.

Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...

Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget that?

"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.

Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you
cannot read it and understand it.........

I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up your
claim.

Of what? That there isn't a direct quote of "the best firearm for that
defense was a handgun"? Good for you. Do you know how to take two
thoughts and put them together into one?

is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman

So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel grenade
launcher?

An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from my
point of view and that of the federal government.

Your point of view doesn't count.

The feds do and they agree with me.

Good luck buying grenades...

Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire
for launcher.....why buy grenades for one.

Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but
about the Constitution.

Then why are you asking if *I* can buy them?

would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
again.

Infantry carry grenade launchers.

Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
perfectly legal per federal law.

They don't ALL have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues

Now, where do you buy grenades?

No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a
reaction when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

Not a tangent. You started this train.

Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the end
of this one, I am responding to you.

Yes, you did. And then you hilariously sputter on about tangents...

Right.......

How hard is that to conceal? How do
you conceal an M16? And what does the American Constitution
have to do with TORONTO?

Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you
should take that up with the poster who made the comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto

DUH...

And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?

That's where it started but by the time I came in it had changed
to simply registration.

You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't
handle.

(laughs and points)

Got that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for that self
defense was a handgun"

Oh wait - "Don't have to"

Get back to us when you understand that the American Constitution is
not binding in Canada. And when you understand that registration has
nothing to do with the 2nd.

I understand both of those....I am, however, surprized that you do.

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
Lookout <mrLookout at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote :
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's
Advocate"
Devil's_Advocate at (no spam) devil.xxx> wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/
gun s-t oro nto -
seized-
police523.html

You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms
with lapsed registrations in a six-month push
aimed at reducing the number of
guns
on the city's streets."

Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION
LAPSE lost their
guns.

Did you really think that would get by me?

You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.

You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont
recognize human
rights!

Gun ownership is a human right?

To have the most effective means of defending oneself
is. Today that
is
a firearm.

Then a bazooka would qualify. Good luck with that.

Nope....a bazooka is too heavy to carry around all the
time and it is a

So what. A musket can weight 8 to 10 pounds. A bazooka
comes in at around 13.

My P9 weighs 25 ounces. My .357 weighs 28 ounces and my
.327 weighs the same.

How nice. "The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman would carry" - your words.

Yep.......long arms (rifles, shotguns) and sidearms (handguns).
Which of those do you think doesn't fit one of those two
categories. Take all the screens you need.

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not
considered a firearm, it

Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to
do with anything? Where in the Constitution does it say
anything about that?

Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:

"....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at
the time." That is no longer muskets. That is modern
handguns, rifles and shotguns.
T
The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military
discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the
time.

yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the king in common use at the
time." do you think belies what I said?

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

Nope.....although I can legally own one, I have no interest in
doing so. Do you want one?

Can you buy grenades for it?

Don't know.....don't care. As I noted, I have no interest in one.

Yes, you do know. You don't care because it negates "arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" and "The Second
Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry". So that
would only allow what was in use 200 years ago.

So, the military shops at Walmart?

What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are
you having trouble with?

Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?

Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was
militia and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is
no requirement for that membership.....you must change with the
times. Learn to read. Heller would be a good place to start.

"normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?

You have to go back and look at context.

Context for what? Your forgetting that it was *you* who brought up
the military?

Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self
defense were fine and the best firearm for that self defense
was a handgun.

Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...

Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget
that?

"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.

Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you
cannot read it and understand it.........

I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up
your claim.

Of what? That there isn't a direct quote of "the best firearm for
that defense was a handgun"? Good for you. Do you know how to take
two thoughts and put them together into one?

Do you know how to not blow your argument?

is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman

So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel
grenade launcher?

An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from
my point of view and that of the federal government.

Your point of view doesn't count.

The feds do and they agree with me.

Good luck buying grenades...

Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire
for launcher.....why buy grenades for one.

Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but
about the Constitution.

Then why are you asking if *I* can buy them?

"The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry".

Today, "normal infantryman" carry grenade launchers....

would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
again.

Infantry carry grenade launchers.

Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
perfectly legal per federal law.

They don't ALL have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues

Now, where do you buy grenades?

No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a
reaction when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle?
;)

Not a tangent. You started this train.

Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the
end of this one, I am responding to you.

Yes, you did. And then you hilariously sputter on about tangents...

Right.......

Hilarious, he brings up "normal infantryman" and considers it someone
else's tangent.......

How hard is that to conceal? How do
you conceal an M16? And what does the American
Constitution have to do with TORONTO?

Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you
should take that up with the poster who made the comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto

DUH...

And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?

That's where it started but by the time I came in it had
changed to simply registration.

You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't
handle.

(laughs and points)

Got that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for that
self defense was a handgun"

Oh wait - "Don't have to"

Get back to us when you understand that the American Constitution
is not binding in Canada. And when you understand that registration
has nothing to do with the 2nd.

I understand both of those....I am, however, surprized that you do.

If you did understand it you would have acknowledged it long ago. You
may sit down now...

Now, about that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for
that self defense was a handgun" ...

RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
RichTravsky <traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com:
Devil's Advocate wrote:
Lookout <mrLookout at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote :
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:45:23 -0500, "Devil's
Advocate"
Devil's_Advocate at (no spam) devil.xxx> wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/
gun s-t oro nto -
seized-
police523.html

You lying ignorant stupid bastard.
"Toronto police have seized almost 400 firearms
with lapsed registrations in a six-month push
aimed at reducing the number of
guns
on the city's streets."

Stupid gun owners WHO LET THEIR REGISTRATION
LAPSE lost their
guns.

Did you really think that would get by me?

You're all a bunch of punk ass liars.

You're all a bunch of punk ass tyrants who dont
recognize human
rights!

Gun ownership is a human right?

To have the most effective means of defending oneself
is. Today that
is
a firearm.

Then a bazooka would qualify. Good luck with that.

Nope....a bazooka is too heavy to carry around all the
time and it is a

So what. A musket can weight 8 to 10 pounds. A bazooka
comes in at around 13.

My P9 weighs 25 ounces. My .357 weighs 28 ounces and my
.327 weighs the same.

How nice. "The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman would carry" - your words.

Yep.......long arms (rifles, shotguns) and sidearms (handguns).
Which of those do you think doesn't fit one of those two
categories. Take all the screens you need.

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

bitch to conceal. Additionally, a bazooka is not
considered a firearm, it

Try concealing a musket. ANd what does concealment have to
do with anything? Where in the Constitution does it say
anything about that?

Don't have to. The Supreme Court in Miller stated:

"....provided by themselves and of a type in common use at
the time." That is no longer muskets. That is modern
handguns, rifles and shotguns.
T
The *correct* quote is (with expanded text)

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all
males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military
discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for
service these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the
time.

yep and what part of "..were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the king in common use at the
time." do you think belies what I said?

So you want to carry a grenade launcher?

Nope.....although I can legally own one, I have no interest in
doing so. Do you want one?

Can you buy grenades for it?

Don't know.....don't care. As I noted, I have no interest in one.

Yes, you do know. You don't care because it negates "arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" and "The Second
Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry". So that
would only allow what was in use 200 years ago.

Wrong, unless you think the First Amendment only protects town criers.

So, the military shops at Walmart?

What part of "...bearing arms supplied by themselves..." are
you having trouble with?

Which the military hasn't done in eons.... Next?

Why do you keep trying to bring the military into this? That was
militia and was back in the old days. In modern times, there is
no requirement for that membership.....you must change with the
times. Learn to read. Heller would be a good place to start.

"normal infantryman" isn't military? And who brought that up? Hmmm?

You have to go back and look at context.

Context for what? Your forgetting that it was *you* who brought up
the military?

As I said.....look at context. Do you understand what that means?

Additionally, Heller stated that firearms used in self
defense were fine and the best firearm for that self defense
was a handgun.

Uh, no, for purposes "such as self-defense"...

Yep......that means that firearm used in self defense was fine.
The case was about a handgun, you moron, or did you forget
that?

"the best firearm for that self defense was a handgun" - wrong.
Unless you can provide a quote from the decision.

Don't have to. That in essence is what the decision said. If you
cannot read it and understand it.........

I read it and understood it. You just admitted you can't back up
your claim.

Of what? That there isn't a direct quote of "the best firearm for
that defense was a handgun"? Good for you. Do you know how to take
two thoughts and put them together into one?

Do you know how to not blow your argument?

Why ask, you don't even understand it.

is ordnance. The Second Amendment is about what a normal
infantryman

So what. What do you call an M16 with an underbarrel
grenade launcher?

An M16 with a grenade launcher. Perfectly legal both from
my point of view and that of the federal government.

Your point of view doesn't count.

The feds do and they agree with me.

Good luck buying grenades...

Have no need for them.....I already explained that I had no desire
for launcher.....why buy grenades for one.

Weak dodge on your part. It's not about your personal desires but
about the Constitution.

Then why are you asking if *I* can buy them?

"The Second Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry".

Today, "normal infantryman" carry grenade launchers....

Some of them....and, yes, I can legally purchase a grenade launcher.
Happy now?

would carry......see rifles, shotguns and sidearms. Try
again.

Infantry carry grenade launchers.

Not all of them, but even if they did, grenade launchers are
perfectly legal per federal law.

They don't ALL have to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade#Legal_issues

Now, where do you buy grenades?

No need. You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a
reaction when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle?
;)

Not a tangent. You started this train.

Not really. You responded to my post and now, at least until the
end of this one, I am responding to you.

Yes, you did. And then you hilariously sputter on about tangents...

Right.......

Hilarious, he brings up "normal infantryman" and considers it someone
else's tangent.......

How hard is that to conceal? How do
you conceal an M16? And what does the American
Constitution have to do with TORONTO?

Who said it had anything to do with Toronto? Perhaps you
should take that up with the poster who made the comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/22/guns-toronto

DUH...

And the subject line that accompanied it? Double DUH?

That's where it started but by the time I came in it had
changed to simply registration.

You always get off on tangents? Or is that just a reaction
when you come across stuff in posts you can't handle? ;)

I really don't know. I haven't seen you post anything I couldn't
handle.

(laughs and points)

Got that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for that
self defense was a handgun"

Oh wait - "Don't have to"

Get back to us when you understand that the American Constitution
is not binding in Canada. And when you understand that registration
has nothing to do with the 2nd.

I understand both of those....I am, however, surprized that you do.

If you did understand it you would have acknowledged it long ago. You
may sit down now...

Now, about that quote from Heller to support "the best firearm for
that self defense was a handgun" ...

You want my gun? Come and get it, you coward. I'm in the phone book.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:32:02 -0600, RichTravsky
traRvEsky at (no spam) hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

|
|>> Don't know.....don't care. As I noted, I have no interest in one.
|
|>Yes, you do know. You don't care because it negates "arms supplied by
|>themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" and "The Second
|>Amendment is about what a normal infantryman would carry". So that would
|>only allow what was in use 200 years ago.
|

That would be at the least considered , as any kind of handgun
today,

2A is interesting but when a bunch of ugly niggers are gang baking
in your home's door, it does't really mean anything at that point.

You can also equate a "ball" canon to any infantry rifles of today,
maybe even a LAWs rocket launcher, but you only have one shot with that
and the use in sporting purposes unless you are adept enough to make a
merciful quick kill by blowing a moose's head right off.....no pain
there, no arrogant trophy, just a lot of food.

Bob