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

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 204.17...
"Jeff McCann" wrote in

:


"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 199.17...
"John P. Mullen" wrote in
:

gruhn wrote:

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

You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution?
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.

Is that so different than safeguarding a car?

IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should
put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This
is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the
theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal
them".

Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing
Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't
prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them,
because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and
abuse.

What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one
similar to this issue, and that's marijuana.

Heroin leaps to mind. It is more effective with fewer side effects
than
MS. Furthermore, we know that pain is one of medicine's most
undertreated syndromes, and this is in large part due to the
tremendous
hassles MDs face from the DEA and law enforcement over prescription
analgesia and other Rxs with high abuse potential.

If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on
crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for
manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or
exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more
prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state
judges have been stripped of their duty to render
individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign
governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US.

How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't
soft on crime?

Read for comprehension. I wrote " . . . made America "soft" on crime

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 204.17...
"Jeff McCann" wrote in

:


"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 199.17...
"John P. Mullen" wrote in
:

gruhn wrote:

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

You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution?
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.

Is that so different than safeguarding a car?

IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should
put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This
is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the
theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal
them".

Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing
Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't
prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them,
because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and
abuse.

What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one
similar to this issue, and that's marijuana.

Heroin leaps to mind. It is more effective with fewer side effects
than
MS. Furthermore, we know that pain is one of medicine's most
undertreated syndromes, and this is in large part due to the
tremendous
hassles MDs face from the DEA and law enforcement over prescription
analgesia and other Rxs with high abuse potential.

If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on
crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for
manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or
exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more
prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state
judges have been stripped of their duty to render
individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign
governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US.

How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't
soft on crime?

Read for comprehension. I wrote " . . . made America "soft" on crime

Stuart Grey wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

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?

Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy tobacco.
Kids can't buy firearms.

Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what the
pussy liberals have done to the educational system. The left
wing is using the schools to indoctrinate children into the
idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their
only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government
authorities. But since the assholes in the school never did a
damn thing to stop the practice of harassment, two kids went
fruitcake on them.

Lets not forget the police, which took no action on complaints against
the two.

John Mullen
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:05:52 -0600, John P. Mullen
wrote:

"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:28:36 -0600, John P. Mullen
wrote:

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. Also, the M-16 is
not
considered to be an assault weapon.

There's no technical definition of "assault weapon" other than "an
ugly
gun with a lot of black plastic that scares the Violence Policy
Center".


If it makes a marine drool, it's an assault weapon.

:-)

I've known marines who'd drool looking through the windows of an Air
Force mess hall. Actually, I've been known to do the same, myself.
(Why can't the Army teach their cooks how to cook?)


In the Navy, we felt the wingnuts dod OK, but for really fine grub,
nobody could beat the submarine service. We ate over at sub base
whenever we could.

The M-16 is not considered an assault rifle, because it doesn't use
a
reduced-power full-caliber round.

The AR-15 is not considered an assault rifle because it isn't
capable
of full-automatic fire.

Yep.

But, the law is tricky.

The law is absurd, and has nothing whatsoever to do with functional
distinctions between weapons, or with assault rifles as properly
defined.


That is because it is written by people who do not understand firearms
with plenty of advice from special interest groups. Also, in the end,
it must be upheld by the courts. Magazine capacity is something they
understand. After all, when I was a kid, almost all police officers
carried the .38 special handgun. In 1963, a fellow I knew wrote a
computer program that evaluated all existing loads for that caliber,
as
well as a few alternates and he concluded that the .38 special was one
of the worst choices for law enforcement.

For example, when a kid in Pennsylvania, I had
to install a block in the tubular magazine of my .22 cal bolt action
rifle because otherwise, when loaded with .22 shorts, it would be
considered a "machine gun" under then current law.

Yet, we had a M1 carbine, an Enfield, two Springfields, a .30-40
Craig,
a .32 winchester, a .35 Remington, several shotguns, a WWII Japanese
sniper's rifle, a Luger, a .45 ACP Colt, something that took a 3in
dia
round, and a few other weapons that I would gladly take over a .22
in
the matter of self-defense.

The great thing the AWB death will mean to me is the end of magazine
limits.

Well, I seldom used more than a half dozen bullets a day. I was
taught
to make every bullet count. Then again, I was taught to hunt, not
assault foreign troops.

:-)


Which means that .22LR gatling gun suddenly appears worth the
scratch.
(It's mechanically fired, so it's not a machinegun, under the law,
but with ten round mags, why bother?)


Well, we talked about that. Under PA law, it would not be, as you
say,
a machine gun. Anyone with reasonable machining skill could
manufacture
a Gatling gun, but, the magazine would be a hindrance.

How about a 12 ga Gatlin gun?

:-)

John Mullen
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Stuart Grey wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

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?

Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy tobacco.
Kids can't buy firearms.

Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what the
pussy liberals have done to the educational system. The left
wing is using the schools to indoctrinate children into the
idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their
only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government
authorities. But since the assholes in the school never did a
damn thing to stop the practice of harassment, two kids went
fruitcake on them.

Lets not forget the police, which took no action on complaints against
the two.

John Mullen
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Stuart Grey wrote:

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

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?

Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy tobacco.
Kids can't buy firearms.

Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what the
pussy liberals have done to the educational system. The left
wing is using the schools to indoctrinate children into the
idea that they have no right to self defense, and that their
only recourse to grievances is to appeal to government
authorities. But since the assholes in the school never did a
damn thing to stop the practice of harassment, two kids went
fruitcake on them.

Lets not forget the police, which took no action on complaints against
the two.

John Mullen
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:05:52 -0600, John P. Mullen
wrote:

"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:28:36 -0600, John P. Mullen
wrote:

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. Also, the M-16 is
not
considered to be an assault weapon.

There's no technical definition of "assault weapon" other than "an
ugly
gun with a lot of black plastic that scares the Violence Policy
Center".


If it makes a marine drool, it's an assault weapon.

:-)

I've known marines who'd drool looking through the windows of an Air
Force mess hall. Actually, I've been known to do the same, myself.
(Why can't the Army teach their cooks how to cook?)


In the Navy, we felt the wingnuts dod OK, but for really fine grub,
nobody could beat the submarine service. We ate over at sub base
whenever we could.

The M-16 is not considered an assault rifle, because it doesn't use
a
reduced-power full-caliber round.

The AR-15 is not considered an assault rifle because it isn't
capable
of full-automatic fire.

Yep.

But, the law is tricky.

The law is absurd, and has nothing whatsoever to do with functional
distinctions between weapons, or with assault rifles as properly
defined.


That is because it is written by people who do not understand firearms
with plenty of advice from special interest groups. Also, in the end,
it must be upheld by the courts. Magazine capacity is something they
understand. After all, when I was a kid, almost all police officers
carried the .38 special handgun. In 1963, a fellow I knew wrote a
computer program that evaluated all existing loads for that caliber,
as
well as a few alternates and he concluded that the .38 special was one
of the worst choices for law enforcement.

For example, when a kid in Pennsylvania, I had
to install a block in the tubular magazine of my .22 cal bolt action
rifle because otherwise, when loaded with .22 shorts, it would be
considered a "machine gun" under then current law.

Yet, we had a M1 carbine, an Enfield, two Springfields, a .30-40
Craig,
a .32 winchester, a .35 Remington, several shotguns, a WWII Japanese
sniper's rifle, a Luger, a .45 ACP Colt, something that took a 3in
dia
round, and a few other weapons that I would gladly take over a .22
in
the matter of self-defense.

The great thing the AWB death will mean to me is the end of magazine
limits.

Well, I seldom used more than a half dozen bullets a day. I was
taught
to make every bullet count. Then again, I was taught to hunt, not
assault foreign troops.

:-)


Which means that .22LR gatling gun suddenly appears worth the
scratch.
(It's mechanically fired, so it's not a machinegun, under the law,
but with ten round mags, why bother?)


Well, we talked about that. Under PA law, it would not be, as you
say,
a machine gun. Anyone with reasonable machining skill could
manufacture
a Gatling gun, but, the magazine would be a hindrance.

How about a 12 ga Gatlin gun?

:-)

John Mullen
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:05:52 -0600, John P. Mullen
wrote:

"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:28:36 -0600, John P. Mullen
wrote:

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. Also, the M-16 is
not
considered to be an assault weapon.

There's no technical definition of "assault weapon" other than "an
ugly
gun with a lot of black plastic that scares the Violence Policy
Center".


If it makes a marine drool, it's an assault weapon.

:-)

I've known marines who'd drool looking through the windows of an Air
Force mess hall. Actually, I've been known to do the same, myself.
(Why can't the Army teach their cooks how to cook?)


In the Navy, we felt the wingnuts dod OK, but for really fine grub,
nobody could beat the submarine service. We ate over at sub base
whenever we could.

The M-16 is not considered an assault rifle, because it doesn't use
a
reduced-power full-caliber round.

The AR-15 is not considered an assault rifle because it isn't
capable
of full-automatic fire.

Yep.

But, the law is tricky.

The law is absurd, and has nothing whatsoever to do with functional
distinctions between weapons, or with assault rifles as properly
defined.


That is because it is written by people who do not understand firearms
with plenty of advice from special interest groups. Also, in the end,
it must be upheld by the courts. Magazine capacity is something they
understand. After all, when I was a kid, almost all police officers
carried the .38 special handgun. In 1963, a fellow I knew wrote a
computer program that evaluated all existing loads for that caliber,
as
well as a few alternates and he concluded that the .38 special was one
of the worst choices for law enforcement.

For example, when a kid in Pennsylvania, I had
to install a block in the tubular magazine of my .22 cal bolt action
rifle because otherwise, when loaded with .22 shorts, it would be
considered a "machine gun" under then current law.

Yet, we had a M1 carbine, an Enfield, two Springfields, a .30-40
Craig,
a .32 winchester, a .35 Remington, several shotguns, a WWII Japanese
sniper's rifle, a Luger, a .45 ACP Colt, something that took a 3in
dia
round, and a few other weapons that I would gladly take over a .22
in
the matter of self-defense.

The great thing the AWB death will mean to me is the end of magazine
limits.

Well, I seldom used more than a half dozen bullets a day. I was
taught
to make every bullet count. Then again, I was taught to hunt, not
assault foreign troops.

:-)


Which means that .22LR gatling gun suddenly appears worth the
scratch.
(It's mechanically fired, so it's not a machinegun, under the law,
but with ten round mags, why bother?)


Well, we talked about that. Under PA law, it would not be, as you
say,
a machine gun. Anyone with reasonable machining skill could
manufacture
a Gatling gun, but, the magazine would be a hindrance.

How about a 12 ga Gatlin gun?

:-)

John Mullen
--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--