How do I avoid looking and acting American while traveling in Europe?

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:46:03 GMT, Mitchell Holman
wrote:

Louis Boyd wrote in
news:ce9hjr$mi1$1
@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:

gruhn wrote:
So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.


Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give
an
answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?


If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few miltary
style
weapons you sure as hell can't trust a politician who you and your
neighbor helped elect to command several hundred thousand men
equiped
with those same weapons!


So what you are saying is you think the
Columbine murderers should have had real hand
grenades instead of the homemade ones that
fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked
to see that, eh?



No. What he is saying the teachers who were of the proper age,
should
have been armed. Then the two little *******s would have been dead
very early on and there would have been no massacre.

Btw..you might note the two twits violated 57 different Federal laws
during their rampage. Seems like the laws didnt do much good, now did
they?

Gunner


"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:46:03 GMT, Mitchell Holman
wrote:

Louis Boyd wrote in
news:ce9hjr$mi1$1
@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:

gruhn wrote:
So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.


Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give
an
answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?


If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few miltary
style
weapons you sure as hell can't trust a politician who you and your
neighbor helped elect to command several hundred thousand men
equiped
with those same weapons!


So what you are saying is you think the
Columbine murderers should have had real hand
grenades instead of the homemade ones that
fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked
to see that, eh?



No. What he is saying the teachers who were of the proper age,
should
have been armed. Then the two little *******s would have been dead
very early on and there would have been no massacre.

Btw..you might note the two twits violated 57 different Federal laws
during their rampage. Seems like the laws didnt do much good, now did
they?

Gunner


"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Stuart Grey wrote:

snip"John P. Mullen" wrote in
:

snip

The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms,
but does not state that they have a right to the same arms
the government has.

You are wrong.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such
Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The unorganized militia is every man between the ages of 18
and ??, regardless of their service or lack of service in the
military. Thus, the congress specifies what arms the militia
is to use as a way of standardization. What they didn't want
was for a hodge podge of arms and munitions to be used once
the militia was called into service turning it into a
logicistical nightmare.


You really should read what you posted. It clearly refers to an
organized militia, not an unorganized one.

Certainly, you wouldn't want a nuclear
missile in your back yard.

I wouldn’t want my neighbor to have one, no. And I believe the
constitution should be amended to admit there is no personal
right to WMD. However, that is no excuse for ignoring the
constitution as written. The ways of amending the constitution
do not include appointing socialist left wing judges to ignore
it.

Why not? THere are plenty of right wing judges who ignore it, too.


At the time of its writing,
those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons.

No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It
would be fun to try, I suppose.


And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either.

States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but
most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of
weapon.

The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast
majority of the military of the United States, with the
federal government providing a core cadre and standardization
in weapons in training.

You are confusing the militia with the National Guard.

Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the
USA.

The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt
for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent
goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the
constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the
downfall of the United States.

Well not the ACLU around here.

It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same.


No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require citizens
to
sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU.
Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy.

snip

The left wing has perverted the courts by putting
socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to
do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that
this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very
problem. That is why we have the second amendment.

And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind?

See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about
the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second
amendment that are not in the constitution.

Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A
sawed-off
shotgun is a favorite of criminals.

There is the “right” to not be offended, which is a perversion
of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not
exist. What offends you is your own problem.


The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of more
substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because
offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often
taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself
illegal.

There is the “right” to force others to associate with you,
against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the
interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to
discriminate on the basis of race or whatever.


People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share it
its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to
run
a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to
refuse to serve on the basis you suggest.

There is the “right” to all kinds of government entitlements,
and entitlement being all those things to which no individual
is entitled to as a right.


The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does
require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to
race
or ethnicity.

The
right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a
fair trial?

Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act.


So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you
and
hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being
charged or ...

Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back
after it happens to you.


The right of non-Christians to expect the same
legal treatment as "Christians?"

Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and
names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco
to be come just “Francisco” because the word San is Spanish
for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the
cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles),
which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic
mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to
not be offended.

Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made it
clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However, there
was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a
change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the
case.

What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have a
greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols can
play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained. and
possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under duress
from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not
Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and
state.

Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you
look
at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I
described above.

John Mullen
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Stuart Grey wrote:

snip"John P. Mullen" wrote in
:

snip

The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms,
but does not state that they have a right to the same arms
the government has.

You are wrong.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such
Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The unorganized militia is every man between the ages of 18
and ??, regardless of their service or lack of service in the
military. Thus, the congress specifies what arms the militia
is to use as a way of standardization. What they didn't want
was for a hodge podge of arms and munitions to be used once
the militia was called into service turning it into a
logicistical nightmare.


You really should read what you posted. It clearly refers to an
organized militia, not an unorganized one.

Certainly, you wouldn't want a nuclear
missile in your back yard.

I wouldn’t want my neighbor to have one, no. And I believe the
constitution should be amended to admit there is no personal
right to WMD. However, that is no excuse for ignoring the
constitution as written. The ways of amending the constitution
do not include appointing socialist left wing judges to ignore
it.

Why not? THere are plenty of right wing judges who ignore it, too.


At the time of its writing,
those arms were essentially the same as hunting weapons.

No. I’ve never hunted squirrels with my 8 pounder cannon. It
would be fun to try, I suppose.


And, individuals did not possess eight pounder cannon, either.

States do have militias with considerable weaponry, but
most of us do not have the resources to have most kinds of
weapon.

The whole PHILOSOPHY was that the states provide the vast
majority of the military of the United States, with the
federal government providing a core cadre and standardization
in weapons in training.

You are confusing the militia with the National Guard.

Which is exactly why the ACLU is so important in the
USA.

The ACLU, as pointed out in another thread, has contempt
for the right to keep and bear arms. The ACLU’s apparent
goal as revealed by their actions is to pervert the
constitution to the point of absurdity so as to cause the
downfall of the United States.

Well not the ACLU around here.

It doesn’t matter where the ACLU is, their goal is the same.


No, it isn't. As long as Congress writes laws which require citizens
to
sue to get their rights, we will need an organization like the ACLU.
Otherwise, there will only be justice for the wealthy.

snip

The left wing has perverted the courts by putting
socialist willing to lie and do whatever else they need to
do to pervert the constitution. The founders knew that
this could happen; the anti-federalist predicted this very
problem. That is why we have the second amendment.

And, what sort of perversions do you have in mind?

See, for example, Miller, which made stupid assumptions about
the kinds of arms recognized as protected by the second
amendment that are not in the constitution.

Well, the state also has a duty to protect its citizens. A
sawed-off
shotgun is a favorite of criminals.

There is the “right” to not be offended, which is a perversion
of the constitution. The right to not be offended does not
exist. What offends you is your own problem.


The use of offensive speech often is a precursor or a reminder of more
substantial acts. That is, it is a form of intimidation. Because
offensive speech is closely linked with discrimination, it is often
taken as evidence that discrimination exists. It is not, in itself
illegal.

There is the “right” to force others to associate with you,
against their wishes. This was a gross perversion of the
interstate commerce clause to force local business NOT to
discriminate on the basis of race or whatever.


People who participate in a commercial system have a right to share it
its benefits. Anything less is economic slavery. If people want to
run
a business, they have a duty to serve all the public, within reason.
There is no guarantee in the Constitution of any merchant's right to
refuse to serve on the basis you suggest.

There is the “right” to all kinds of government entitlements,
and entitlement being all those things to which no individual
is entitled to as a right.


The Constitution does not require any such entitlements, but does
require that distribution of such entitlements be without regard to
race
or ethnicity.

The
right of every citizen to an effective legal defense and a
fair trial?

Ah yeah. The lawyer full employment act.


So, you would not mind if some government bozo decided to arrest you
and
hold you in prison for an indefinite period of time without being
charged or ...

Wait a minute. That's what is happening now. I'll just check back
after it happens to you.


The right of non-Christians to expect the same
legal treatment as "Christians?"

Ah yes, the right to not be offended by Christian symbols and
names! It won’t be long before you people force San Francisco
to be come just “Francisco” because the word San is Spanish
for saint and that offends you. You’ve already disposed of the
cross on the seal of the city of Los Angles (the Angles),
which was there because L.A. was founded as a Catholic
mission. That kind of legal treatment, the fictional right to
not be offended.

Well, our city logo consists of three crosses and the ACLU has made it
clear to us that they do not have a problem with that. However, there
was a local who said for years that he would get the ACLU to force a
change. He was very embarrassed when they refused to take up the
case.

What I find offensive is the idea that people who are Christian have a
greater right to the benefits of being a US citizen. These symbols can
play a part in this attitude. By having these symbols maintained. and
possibly paid for by, tax money, which the state collects under duress
from all citizens, regardless of religious belief, is not
Constitutional. For one, it violates the separation of Church and
state.

Now, I've heard this type of hysterical argument before, but if you
look
at what is actually being challenged and banned, it is of the sort I
described above.

John Mullen
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:19:42 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Copelandia Cyanescens

No, I sat here and watched you slobber your idiocy down the front of
your shirt for the duration, just like I've been watching your
subtarded
brethern do the same, for more years than you've been walking
upright.

But then that's what I expected, and that's why I did it... just to
show
the world what a gutless, disingenuous ass you are. What gutless,
disingenuous asses *ALL* your ilk are. You and your type seem to
mistakenly feel your unnatural fixations are somehow relevant in the
real world, and that the rest of us should play lip service to your
mental problems.

As I warned I do not debate with those too stupid to do so in a
civilised way, a marked tendency of your persuasion.
plonk

Once again, when another poster gets the best of Reid..and he is no
longer able to refute..he runs and hides from that poster via kill
file.

This of course is simply putting his fingers in his ears and
screaming..I cant hear you!

Most people lose this trick by the time they are 11.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:19:42 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Copelandia Cyanescens

No, I sat here and watched you slobber your idiocy down the front of
your shirt for the duration, just like I've been watching your
subtarded
brethern do the same, for more years than you've been walking
upright.

But then that's what I expected, and that's why I did it... just to
show
the world what a gutless, disingenuous ass you are. What gutless,
disingenuous asses *ALL* your ilk are. You and your type seem to
mistakenly feel your unnatural fixations are somehow relevant in the
real world, and that the rest of us should play lip service to your
mental problems.

As I warned I do not debate with those too stupid to do so in a
civilised way, a marked tendency of your persuasion.
plonk

Once again, when another poster gets the best of Reid..and he is no
longer able to refute..he runs and hides from that poster via kill
file.

This of course is simply putting his fingers in his ears and
screaming..I cant hear you!

Most people lose this trick by the time they are 11.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 08:19:42 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Copelandia Cyanescens

No, I sat here and watched you slobber your idiocy down the front of
your shirt for the duration, just like I've been watching your
subtarded
brethern do the same, for more years than you've been walking
upright.

But then that's what I expected, and that's why I did it... just to
show
the world what a gutless, disingenuous ass you are. What gutless,
disingenuous asses *ALL* your ilk are. You and your type seem to
mistakenly feel your unnatural fixations are somehow relevant in the
real world, and that the rest of us should play lip service to your
mental problems.

As I warned I do not debate with those too stupid to do so in a
civilised way, a marked tendency of your persuasion.
plonk

Once again, when another poster gets the best of Reid..and he is no
longer able to refute..he runs and hides from that poster via kill
file.

This of course is simply putting his fingers in his ears and
screaming..I cant hear you!

Most people lose this trick by the time they are 11.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Bjórrúnar skaltu Gunner rista --

Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations.

You mean you'll mindlessly produce discredited and irrelevant
links that you hope are close to the topic.

You just don't know how to think for yourself, Mark.
--multiplaza.nl.nu--
post
Subject: There is no constitutional right...
From: .no-spam.invalid (Anonymous)
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: newsSync (Multiplaza) 387206
References:

Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:10:49 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:

The constitution states citizens have a right to bear arms, but does
not
state that they have a right to the same arms the government has.

Yes it does.

Your claim..point out exactly where you think the right to same arms
as the military is invalid.

Then Ill rip it to shreds with citations.

Double dog dare you.

Gunner


Now, you may have citations to support your contention, but that does

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
foisted Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:25:37
GMT on
misc.survivalism , viz:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give
an
answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it
doesn't
fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small
arms, only a few can safeguard a tank.

John Mullen

**** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea?

Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank.

And there are other minor tricks you can do to disable any piece of
heavy equipment. Distributor caps, or equivalent.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."
--multiplaza.nl.nu--
post
Subject: Paris Notes (2)
From: lid )
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: newsSync (Multiplaza) 387214
References:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:29:14 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Donna Evleth writes:

I know this. But Europeans do not always know this. So that is why
I
appended the "as in native Americans," to distinguish from Indians
from

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
foisted Fri, 30 Jul 2004 03:25:37
GMT on
misc.survivalism , viz:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:13:31 -0600, "John P. Mullen"
wrote:



gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things. Can you give
an
answer that doesn't boil down to "because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to see it
doesn't
fall into the wring hands. While most people can manage a few small
arms, only a few can safeguard a tank.

John Mullen

**** John..where the hell did you get THAT stupid idea?

Padlocks work just fine for safeguarding a tank.

And there are other minor tricks you can do to disable any piece of
heavy equipment. Distributor caps, or equivalent.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small,
insignificant, and biodegradable."
--multiplaza.nl.nu--
post
Subject: Paris Notes (2)
From: lid )
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: newsSync (Multiplaza) 387214
References:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:29:14 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Donna Evleth writes:

I know this. But Europeans do not always know this. So that is why
I
appended the "as in native Americans," to distinguish from Indians
from