B&H and Adorama Closed!

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:53:36 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

Leftist-"liberals" seem to have this strange love for the word
"fascist,"

It comes as a reaction to the right's barrage of calling liberals
"socialists" and "Marxists" and their idiotic allegations that liberals
hate America.

Your "liberals" are not liberals in the classical sense of the word. They
are leftists who have learned they can't, don't dare, identify themselves as
leftists, since doing so would make them unelectable and powerless. (With
the singular exception of Bernie Sanders, one-time Socialist mayor of
Burlington, Vermont and now "independent" congresscritter--who always votes
with the Democrats, showing that he never really strayed from his socialist
beliefs. But the little Vermont is an odd place anyway; look, it has given
us Howard "Screamer" Dean, who now steers the national Democrat ship.)

A moment of exuberation, in contrast to the tight-assed
conservatives is enough for the fascist right to stop listening to the
message. It's far easier to blow off the nessenger.




which they routinely apply to anyone and everyone who thinks the
Constitution means exactly what it says, no more and no less.

Actually, no. When a rightist says "the constitution means exactly what
it says," he actually means "the constitution says exactly what I want
it to mean."

No, he says what he means, and this is in fact the chief difference between
a conservative and a leftist-"liberal."

More of Neil's non-responsive bull****.



And for some reason, when a judge's ruling is to protect
people from abuses of the constitution, the rightists say the judge is a
liberal activist who legislates from the bench,

You're speaking of judicially-invented "protections," of course, not
anything actually written in the Constitution.


... which says that enumeration in the Constitution is not a
limit to rights retained by the people. Oh, how the fascists would
love you to forget that little bit, which allows for the evolution of
human thought and compassion.

"Compassionate conservative" -- what ****.


but when a judge
supports those abuses, he's a "strict constructionist," whereas he
really is a rightist activist legislating from the bench.

So ruling that the Constitution means what it says, no more and no less, is
being "a rightist activist legislating from the bench" in your view? What a
topsy-turvy world you leftists live in!



Thus they believe things are "constitutional" which are not even
hinted at in the document,

No, it's that the rightists can't understand the meaning of the ninth
amendment, and insist that the only rights that the people have are
those that are explicitly stated in the constitution.

You want "rights" invented by judges, and never written in law, to carry the
same weight as those actually written in the Constitution. In other words,
you believe you have the right to demand leftist activism from the bench.
And like other leftists you seem to have misinterpreted the Ninth Amendment
to mean "anything goes." The Ninth Amendment, like the rest of the
Constitution, means exactly what it says, no more and no less.



In a 1935 speech, Adolf Hitler said that Germany's new gun control
laws would be a model that the world would follow.

Baloney!

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Just did an extensive Googling on this and the "1935 Hitler speech" (which
has been in fact widely reported) is almost certainly a myth, and even the
year is wrong. So you appear to be correct here, proving once again that
even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

That said, the piece you link to, entitled "The Myth of Nazi Gun Control,"
is devoted mainly to the "myth" that gun control facilitated the Nazis' rise
to power. This is a non sequitur, or at least I never heard anyone claim
that it had anything to do with their rise to power, only that Hitler
promoted gun control in Nazi Germany. The piece itself says: "The 1928 law
was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being
the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were
advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of
Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law
was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the
dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933." Thus even if the supposed 1935
speech was never made, which seems almost certain, the main thrust of the
"myth"--that Hitler promoted gun control in Nazi Germany--is obviously true.
There's no myth there.

Moreover, there are strong suggestions that our own Gun Control Act of 1968
was modeled at least in part on the Nazis' Weapons Law of 1938:
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

I remember reading a lot of stuff about that at the time, but forgot about
it until it turned up in this Google search.

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 10:53:36 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:



but when a judge
supports those abuses, he's a "strict constructionist," whereas he
really is a rightist activist legislating from the bench.

So ruling that the Constitution means what it says, no more and no less, is
being "a rightist activist legislating from the bench" in your view? What a
topsy-turvy world you leftists live in!

The onstitution allows for progress in human consciousness.


Thus they believe things are "constitutional" which are not even
hinted at in the document,

No, it's that the rightists can't understand the meaning of the ninth
amendment, and insist that the only rights that the people have are
those that are explicitly stated in the constitution.

You want "rights" invented by judges, and never written in law, to carry the
same weight as those actually written in the Constitution. In other words,
you believe you have the right to demand leftist activism from the bench.
And like other leftists you seem to have misinterpreted the Ninth Amendment
to mean "anything goes." The Ninth Amendment, like the rest of the
Constitution, means exactly what it says, no more and no less.

And you would have the Supreme Court turn over private
property to private enterprise, as they recently did. How's that fro
judicial activism. They've essentially said that depriving private
citizens of their property so that private corporate enterprizes is
"for the public good, so long as a city collects more in taxes from
the corporate marauder.

What a cynical prostitution of the concept of private
property.

And the fascist conservatives are delighted.




In a 1935 speech, Adolf Hitler said that Germany's new gun control
laws would be a model that the world would follow.

Baloney!

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

Just did an extensive Googling on this and the "1935 Hitler speech" (which
has been in fact widely reported) is almost certainly a myth, and even the
year is wrong. So you appear to be correct here, proving once again that
even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And you prove once again that you're shallow enough to take a
meaningless statement as deep wisdom. What an intellectual dick.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:56:59 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

"The Third Amendment has been cited in passing in other cases, most
notably opinions arguing that there is a constitutional right to
privacy, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).

Which is as arrogant an example of legislating from the bench as you
can find. Griswold was about the right of a married couple to
practice contraception, which was then against Connecticut state law.
(It was a nonsensical law and practically unenforceable anyway.)

If it had not been enforceable, it would not have resulted in a law
suit; the law suit happened because it was enforced.

Too bad you weren't there to explain that to Justice Black, who observed in
his dissent that "As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable,
except in the oblique context of the present case."

He didn't need anyone other than the other seven
constitutional scholars on his bench explained to him.

As for enforcement, there is also the corollary that if it's
illegal to use, then its use can be prevented by criminalizing the
transportation, sale or possession of the devices necessary to its
use. Think pot laws. OK, have someone with a brain think pot laws for
you.




Supreme Court then "discovered" something in the Constitution which
no one who reads plain English can find the a "right to marital
privacy."

OK, so you do not believe in the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment
is there for anyone who reads plain English; therefore you do not read
plain English.

You are repeating what the fellow before you wrote, so I'll ask you the same
question: What do you think the Ninth Amendment means?

I don't want you to strain yourself, so let me help you out he Do you
think it means *any* right *not* enumerated must exist?

Of course not, you shallow dip**** -- it means _what it says_
-- that the enumeration is not a limit in what may be taken as a
right.

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:08:23 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

OK, so you do not believe in the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth
Amendment is there for anyone who reads plain English; therefore
you do not read plain English.

You are repeating what the fellow before you wrote, so I'll ask you
the same question: What do you think the Ninth Amendment means?

I don't want you to strain yourself, so let me help you out he Do
you think it means *any* right *not* enumerated must exist?

Only those rights that can be supported by other parts of the
constitution, such as the right to privacy.

There is no general "right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution.

But you agree below that it's not necessary to qppear there to
be a real right. So do us all a favor and shut up about non-inclusion
having anything to do with whether a right can exist.




My turn to ask you a question: What rights do you believe are included
in the Ninth Amendment?

There are no rights "included in the Ninth Amendment."

The Amendment simply says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."

Some framers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of Rights at all,
because they were afraid that listing only certain rights might disparage
others. That was the reason for the Ninth Amendment: to make it clear that
the rights of the people were not *limited* to only those enumerated.

The Ninth Amendment can't be used to just make up any "rights" you like, as
you are trying to do.



Nice going, idiot. For all your ranting about rights not
explicitly found in the Constitution, you've finally come across to
the correct interpretation that a right doesn't have to be explicitly
enumerated. I'll bet you didn't even notice you'd switched sides.
That's what happens when you try to drool out of both sides of your
mouth.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:03:52 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

[ . . . ]
With almost every message in which you mention Jews, you
demonstrate more and more clearly your antipathy towards Jews.

So you keep saying. If I'd demonstrated anything like the "antipathy
towards Jews" that you have repeatedly towards Christians, you would
have a point.

Keep repeating that lie; if you repeat it often enough, you may actually
begin to believe it. I have not shown any antipathy towards Christians
or Christianity.

Allow me to restore the part of that paragraph you cringed away from:

So you keep saying. If I'd demonstrated anything like the "antipathy towards
Jews" that you have repeatedly towards Christians, you would have a point. I
have not. If you think I have, please cite it. If you can't cite it, stop
lying.

You've disparaged the story of Moses, a central belief of
three of the great religions of the world.



Well?

Your choices are (a) make the cite, (b) stop lying, or (c) keep ducking,
dodging and lying.


And he's supposed to choose among options supplied by an
intellectual flyweight like you?

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:23:50 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

With almost every message in which you mention Jews, you
demonstrate more and more clearly your antipathy towards Jews.

So you keep saying. If I'd demonstrated anything like the
"antipathy towards Jews" that you have repeatedly towards
Christians, you would have a point.

Keep repeating that lie; if you repeat it often enough, you may
actually begin to believe it. I have not shown any antipathy
towards Christians or Christianity.

Allow me to restore the part of that paragraph you cringed away from:

So you keep saying. If I'd demonstrated anything like the "antipathy
towards Jews" that you have repeatedly towards Christians, you would
have a point. I have not. If you think I have, please cite it. If you
can't cite it, stop lying.

Well, since I haven't shown any antipathy towards Christians, I can't
show where you have shown antipathy towards Jews that I have shown
towards Christians.

I can, and have, shown your antipathy towards Jews,

No, you have not. And you cannot, since I have no "antipathy towards Jews"
per se.


When in doubt, insert a phrase like "per se" to further cloud
the issue.


and there's no need
for me to do so repeatedly since you reject it.

I haven't asked you to do it "repeatedly." Just once would be sufficient.

Disingenuous jerk. Twist the word to suit the context you
like.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:

Which is as arrogant an example of legislating from the bench as you can
find. Griswold was about the right of a married couple to practice
contraception, which was then against Connecticut state law. (It was a
nonsensical law and practically unenforceable anyway.) The very
left-leaning
Supreme Court then "discovered" something in the Constitution which no one
who reads plain English can find the a "right to marital privacy."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated
4th Amendment

Which makes no mention of any "right to marital privacy."

Yes it does.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment

And you think that means what?

"right to marital privacy."

I always wonder at supposedly conservative people arguing on favor of
a fascist state where the government is free to impose any number of
dictates upon people.

Leftist-"liberals" seem to have this strange love for the word "fascist,"

Fascists hate liberalism.

which they routinely apply to anyone and everyone who thinks the

Let's look up a definition of "fascism". The source is the
Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from
each other, they had many characteristics in common, including
extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy
and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social
hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a
Volksgemeinschaft (German: "people's community"), in which
individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the
nation.

"militaristic nationalism"
"contempt for electoral democracy"
"contempt for ... liberalism"
"natural social hierarchy"
"rule of elites"
"individual interests would be subordinated"

Sounds just like Republican conservatives.

--
Ray Fischer

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Nikon User" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Neil Harrington" wrote:

The unfortunate fact is that the Bill of Rights is violated regularly
by government at all levels, and government at all levels gets away
with those violations. The Second Amendment is probably the most
prominent example of this,

I'd say that the first amendment is the most prominent example. I agree
that there have been second-amendment violations, though.

but the Tenth Amendment has been thoroughly undermined as well.

Not really, well not until the Bush administration started to undermine
it.

GUFFAW!

Then show me where the Constituton provides for the federal government to
prevent property owners from developing their own property, on the grounds
that doing so might make some "protected species" snail or slug too
nervous
to reproduce. Or to prevent lumbering for similar reasons.

Show us where the Constitution protects the "King in his castle" concept
of "Private Property" in the destruction of everyone's environment by
property "owners"?

So the property owner who wants to develop his property, and believes he has
more right to do so than some gaggle of self-important bureaucrats do to
prevent him, is demonstrating a "King in his castle" concept?! Astonishing.

In many and probably most cases the owner bought the property expressly for
that purpose, not to keep the land a safe amd secure haven for any of the
thousands of species of snails, slugs, bugs, rats, etc. that the bloated
corps of bureaucrats decide are "endangered species." No one really cares
about them anyway, except that selfsame lot of bureaucrats whose continued
(and increasing) feeding at the public trough requires such devotion.


That nonsense was going on (and steadily increasing) since long before the
Bush administration. Scores of other examples too, all since long before
the
Bush administration. By and large, the work of leftist-"liberal" loonies,
the very people who, like you, hate conservatives in general and Bush in
particular.

Ever the ultimate "conservative", you insist on *simple*
solutions to every problem, no matter how complex the situation,
and without regard to how ineffective the "solution" might
actually be.

You are discussing Property Law above; but even though US
Property Law is extremely crude, you complain about the
complexity of even minor evolution towards something
sophisticated enough to be functional. What has been "going on
(and steadily increasing)" is the advent of what is currently
called "Environmental Law" as it becomes more developed and
converges with our existing Property Law concepts.

It is very interesting to compare the derivations of those
concepts, because historically US Property Law is very much the
product of Western culture itself, and is based on English
Common Law, while Environmental Law in America is thousands of
years old! Almost every, though not quite all, Native American
culture had existing sophisticated systems of Property Law
based on what we are now calling Environmental Law long before
English Common Law came to America.

And you actually *believe* all that utter nonsense?

You are talking about primitive and savage people who never got out of the
Stone Age before Europeans came here (and who were glad enough to seize the
better technology that Europeans brought). You are talking about people who
never discovered the wheel, though they had needed it for thousands of years
(instead, they dragged their goods over the ground). You are talking about
people who regularly practiced slavery, rape, torture and mutilation of
captives, and evidently had done so for centuries if not millennia. And you
seriously believe that those aborigines "had existing sophisticated systems
of Property Law based on what we are now calling Environmental Law"?!

I suppose you think they had the bureaucracy to go with it too? (Heh. If
they had, they wouldn't have lasted even into the 19th century.)



At the current rate of convergence, the US in perhaps 200 to 500
years might catch up to where Americans were 2500 years ago...

GUFFAW! If the leftist-"liberals" have their way they might very well put
us back that far, at that.

Neil

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote:
But if you have to go back 60 years or so to find a case in
wartime which *might* have resulted in a violation of the Third
Amendment ... that is not much of a demonstration of the
importance of the Amendment.

If you have to go back more than 200 years to find abuses, it
would seem the significant difference occurred approximately 200
years ago.

_Obviously_ the reason we do not suffer those abuses is because
it was written into our Constitution, and (at least to the
degree that we have not yet violated that particular clause) our
Constitution has indeed been effective.

That's like saying the fact that there are no problems with roaming
rhinoceroses here in my apartment house is proof that the sign on my
door
prohibiting roaming rhinoceroses "has indeed been effective."

Your analogy is so trivially *wrong* as to be just silly. There
never were rhinos in your apartment, but there clearly was
a problem with government quartering soldiers in homes.

Not since the colonies became the United States.

Strange timing eh? That just happens to be... when the
Constitution was written. Coincidental, or causation?

Actually, it "just happens to be" when we stopped being British subjects.
Ergo, no more British soldiers quartered in private homes without the
consent of the owners.(Duh.)



Can't you get *anything* even half right?

The Amendment is there because the British practice of forcing colonists
to
accept the quartering of soldiers in their homes had been common and was
extremely onerous, and a guarantee against the new government doing the
same
thing was wanted.

Exactly. There were "rhinos"... and now there are none.

With or without the Third Amendment. Are you really afraid that if the
Amendment were repealed today, the Army would start billeting troops in
private homes tomorrow (or any other time)? It's completely a non-issue.

It is a non-issue *only* because of the Third Amendment.

Yes, if it were repealed we would *immediately* have troops
billeting in private homes.

You must be smoking some really strange stuff up there, Floyd. You need to
get back in touch with civilization and what's actually been going on in the
world, get rid of those paranoid fantasies.

Neil

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
Neil Harrington wrote:

Which is as arrogant an example of legislating from the bench as you can
find. Griswold was about the right of a married couple to practice
contraception, which was then against Connecticut state law. (It was a
nonsensical law and practically unenforceable anyway.) The very
left-leaning
Supreme Court then "discovered" something in the Constitution which no
one
who reads plain English can find the a "right to marital privacy."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated
4th Amendment

Which makes no mention of any "right to marital privacy."

Yes it does.

It does not. Read it from beginning to end and you will find no such thing
as a "right to marital privacy."

You've been hornswoggled. Keep listening to "liberal" Democrats and you'll
never get anything right.



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
9th Amendment

And you think that means what?

"right to marital privacy."

I always wonder at supposedly conservative people arguing on favor of
a fascist state where the government is free to impose any number of
dictates upon people.

Leftist-"liberals" seem to have this strange love for the word "fascist,"

Fascists hate liberalism.

Sure, but no more than leftist-"liberals" do, if you take liberalism in its
classical sense. Anyone who wants to deprive people of their constitutional
( = what it actually says in the Constitution, such as the right to keep and
bear arms) rights is no real liberal. Did you really think liberalism is
about *depriving* people of their rights?

You've been bamboozled. You should be ****ed at the people who've deceived
you, not the other side.

Neil