Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nothing like the Paul Thomas hissy fit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nothing like the Paul Thomas hissy fit

    Nothing like a Paul Thomas hissy fit, with a demonstration of his adolescent
    vocabulary. Really answers the question on his position on the rights of
    individual citizen's with regard to fire arms. (sarcasm) Yep, good ol'
    Paul. Hey Paul, grow up and sober up.
    ----------------------------------------------
    " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
    with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
    (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

    ak



  • #2
    Andy the perpetual liar

    All you have to do Andy, is prove your statements to be true.


    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
    free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
    "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
    can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
    to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
    to be part of the National Guard."



    Just one cite.



    --
    "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
    none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
    Athens, Georgia
    taxman at negia.net


    Comment


    • #3
      Andy the perpetual liar

      All you have to do Andy, is prove your statements to be true.


      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
      free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
      "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


      On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
      can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


      On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
      "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
      to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
      to be part of the National Guard."



      Just one cite.



      --
      "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not,
      none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
      Athens, Georgia
      taxman at negia.net


      Comment


      • #4
        Andy the perpetual liar

        "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
        news:[email protected]
        ...... Seems that Paul Thomas Ivy (from Texas it seems) was responding to a Lee Harrison, where it seems, this Lee Harrison person thinks that belonging to the National Guard (the militia, as it were), . . .
        No little boy Paul! The "militia" called out in the US Constitution is not
        the government organization call the "National Guard." So maybe you really
        don't support the 2nd Amendment. Sure looks that way. Read carefully, little
        red-faced boy: "the term 'militia' to relate to every citizen capable of
        bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
        Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
        doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."

        ---------------------

        The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
        of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
        of the UNITED STATES SENATE

        NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

        Second Session February 1982

        Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

        " . . . .

        No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
        recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
        these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
        which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
        have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
        history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
        Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
        apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
        and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
        from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
        guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
        arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
        constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
        second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
        instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
        regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
        bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
        that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
        of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
        Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
        doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

        When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
        Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
        blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
        for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
        all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
        distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
        minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
        other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
        be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
        security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
        arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
        this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
        proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
        then trimmed in the interests of brevity.

        .. . . . "
        ----------------------------------------------
        " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
        with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
        (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

        ak


        Comment


        • #5
          Andy the perpetual liar

          "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]
          ...... Seems that Paul Thomas Ivy (from Texas it seems) was responding to a Lee Harrison, where it seems, this Lee Harrison person thinks that belonging to the National Guard (the militia, as it were), . . .
          No little boy Paul! The "militia" called out in the US Constitution is not
          the government organization call the "National Guard." So maybe you really
          don't support the 2nd Amendment. Sure looks that way. Read carefully, little
          red-faced boy: "the term 'militia' to relate to every citizen capable of
          bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
          Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
          doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."

          ---------------------

          The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
          of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
          of the UNITED STATES SENATE

          NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

          Second Session February 1982

          Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          " . . . .

          No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
          recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
          these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
          which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
          have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
          history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
          Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
          apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
          and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
          from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
          guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
          arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
          constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
          second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
          instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
          regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
          bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
          that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
          of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
          Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
          doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

          When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
          Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
          blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
          for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
          all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
          distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
          minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
          other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
          be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
          security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
          arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
          this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
          proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
          then trimmed in the interests of brevity.

          .. . . . "
          ----------------------------------------------
          " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
          with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
          (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

          ak


          Comment


          • #6
            Andy the perpetual liar


            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            Seems that Paul Thomas Ivy (from Texas it seems) was responding to a Lee Harrison, where it seems, this Lee Harrison person thinks that belonging to the National Guard (the militia, as it were), . . . No little boy Paul! The "militia" called out in the US Constitution is not the government organization call the "National Guard."

            Take it up with thte other guy Andy. You are a liar.


            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
            free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
            "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
            can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


            On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
            to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
            to be part of the National Guard."




            --
            Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
            ----------
            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
            Athens, Georgia
            taxman at negia.net


            Comment


            • #7
              Andy the perpetual liar


              "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              Seems that Paul Thomas Ivy (from Texas it seems) was responding to a Lee Harrison, where it seems, this Lee Harrison person thinks that belonging to the National Guard (the militia, as it were), . . . No little boy Paul! The "militia" called out in the US Constitution is not the government organization call the "National Guard."

              Take it up with thte other guy Andy. You are a liar.


              On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
              free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
              "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."


              On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
              can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."


              On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
              "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
              to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
              to be part of the National Guard."




              --
              Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
              ----------
              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
              Athens, Georgia
              taxman at negia.net


              Comment


              • #8
                Paul Thomas, CPA (?) - the perpetual liar

                Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect
                themselves from violence in their own homes - at least, not as far as using
                their constitutionally given right to "bear arms." The "militia" called out
                in the US Constitution is not the government organization called the
                "National Guard." So maybe you really don't support the 2nd Amendment. Sure
                looks that way. Read carefully, little red-faced boy: "the term 'militia' to
                relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has
                established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies,
                expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and
                arm the militia."
                ---------------------

                The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
                of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                of the UNITED STATES SENATE

                NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

                Second Session February 1982

                Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                " . . . .

                No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
                recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
                these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
                which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
                have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
                history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
                Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
                apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
                and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
                from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
                guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
                arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
                constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
                second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
                instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
                regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
                bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
                that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
                of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
                Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
                doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

                When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
                Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
                blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
                for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
                all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
                distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
                minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
                other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
                be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
                security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
                arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
                this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
                proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
                then trimmed in the interests of brevity.
                ----------------------------------------------
                " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                ak



                Comment


                • #9
                  Paul Thomas, CPA (?) - the perpetual liar

                  Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect
                  themselves from violence in their own homes - at least, not as far as using
                  their constitutionally given right to "bear arms." The "militia" called out
                  in the US Constitution is not the government organization called the
                  "National Guard." So maybe you really don't support the 2nd Amendment. Sure
                  looks that way. Read carefully, little red-faced boy: "the term 'militia' to
                  relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has
                  established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies,
                  expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and
                  arm the militia."
                  ---------------------

                  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
                  of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                  of the UNITED STATES SENATE

                  NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

                  Second Session February 1982

                  Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                  " . . . .

                  No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
                  recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
                  these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
                  which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
                  have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
                  history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
                  Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
                  apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
                  and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
                  from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
                  guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
                  arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
                  constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
                  second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
                  instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
                  regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
                  bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
                  that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
                  of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
                  Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
                  doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

                  When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
                  Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
                  blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
                  for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
                  all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
                  distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
                  minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
                  other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
                  be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
                  security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
                  arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
                  this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
                  proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
                  then trimmed in the interests of brevity.
                  ----------------------------------------------
                  " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                  with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                  (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                  ak



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Andy: a threat to our government?


                    "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect themselves from violence in their own homes

                    Andy, you made threats against government employees.


                    On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                    "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence

                    At least I can prove what you said.


                    --
                    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
                    Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992), Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"

                    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                    Athens, Georgia
                    taxman at negia.net


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Andy: a threat to our government?


                      "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                      Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect themselves from violence in their own homes

                      Andy, you made threats against government employees.


                      On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                      "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                      Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence

                      At least I can prove what you said.


                      --
                      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
                      Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992), Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"

                      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                      Athens, Georgia
                      taxman at negia.net


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thomas the lout

                        Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect themselves from violence in their own homes Andy, you made threats against government employees.

                        That's not a threat against government employees, you lying lout.

                        Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect
                        themselves from violence in their own homes - at least, not as far as using
                        their constitutionally given right to "bear arms." The "militia" called out
                        in the US Constitution is not the government organization called the
                        "National Guard." So maybe you really don't support the 2nd Amendment. Sure
                        looks that way. Read carefully, little red-faced boy: "the term 'militia' to
                        relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has
                        established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies,
                        expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and
                        arm the militia."
                        ---------------------

                        The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
                        of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                        of the UNITED STATES SENATE

                        NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

                        Second Session February 1982

                        Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                        " . . . .

                        No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
                        recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
                        these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
                        which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
                        have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
                        history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
                        Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
                        apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
                        and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
                        from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
                        guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
                        arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
                        constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
                        second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
                        instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
                        regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
                        bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
                        that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
                        of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
                        Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
                        doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

                        When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
                        Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
                        blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
                        for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
                        all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
                        distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
                        minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
                        other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
                        be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
                        security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
                        arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
                        this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
                        proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
                        then trimmed in the interests of brevity.
                        ----------------------------------------------
                        " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                        with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                        (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                        ak




                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thomas the lout

                          Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect themselves from violence in their own homes Andy, you made threats against government employees.

                          That's not a threat against government employees, you lying lout.

                          Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect
                          themselves from violence in their own homes - at least, not as far as using
                          their constitutionally given right to "bear arms." The "militia" called out
                          in the US Constitution is not the government organization called the
                          "National Guard." So maybe you really don't support the 2nd Amendment. Sure
                          looks that way. Read carefully, little red-faced boy: "the term 'militia' to
                          relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has
                          established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies,
                          expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and
                          arm the militia."
                          ---------------------

                          The Right to Keep and Bear Arms REPORT
                          of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
                          of the UNITED STATES SENATE

                          NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

                          Second Session February 1982

                          Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                          " . . . .

                          No fewer than twenty-one decisions by the courts of our states have
                          recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, and a majority of
                          these have not only recognized the right but invalidated laws or regulations
                          which abridged it. Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators
                          have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional
                          history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second
                          Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -
                          apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First
                          and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free
                          from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual
                          guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear
                          arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent
                          constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the
                          second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend
                          instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
                          regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and
                          bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
                          that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable
                          of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National
                          Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
                          doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

                          When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of
                          Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a
                          blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals
                          for a bill of rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating
                          all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not
                          distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania
                          minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among
                          other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
                          be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best
                          security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing
                          arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." In the House,
                          this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the
                          proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were
                          then trimmed in the interests of brevity.
                          ----------------------------------------------
                          " Income within the meaning of IRC 61a carries
                          with it a general requirement of 'realization' ''.
                          (Helvering v. Horst, 311 US 112,115-16)

                          ak




                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thomas the teller of the truth


                            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect themselves from violence in their own homes Andy, you made threats against government employees. That's not a threat against government employees, you lying lout.

                            These are your exact words:

                            On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence


                            Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect themselves from violence in their own homes - at least, not as far as using their constitutionally given right to "bear arms."

                            The Constitution doesn't give you the right to shoot a government employee.

                            And that IS what you menat when you posted these words:

                            On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence

                            Why are you so fearful of your own words?


                            --
                            Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
                            ----------
                            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                            Athens, Georgia
                            taxman at negia.net


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thomas the teller of the truth


                              "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                              Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect themselves from violence in their own homes Andy, you made threats against government employees. That's not a threat against government employees, you lying lout.

                              These are your exact words:

                              On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                              "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                              Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence


                              Paul! You have publicly stated that people have no right to protect themselves from violence in their own homes - at least, not as far as using their constitutionally given right to "bear arms."

                              The Constitution doesn't give you the right to shoot a government employee.

                              And that IS what you menat when you posted these words:

                              On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:03:32 GMT
                              "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                              Don't forget the importance of the 2nd Amendment in generating governmental restraint. I don't believe everyone should have a right to an AK-47 or a rocket launcher, but one good 12-gauge will keep most government operatives thinking about how really necessary it is when resorting to knocking down doors or grabbing assets without due diligence

                              Why are you so fearful of your own words?


                              --
                              Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
                              ----------
                              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                              Athens, Georgia
                              taxman at negia.net


                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X