Re: NOTICE TO THE Supreme Court

"Craig Chilton -- Help to make the USA Bigotry-FREE!" <xanadu222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

wrote in message news:30ro541me991mgi7mk31qgqnn0d8aort59@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:40:10 GMT,
> "Scout" <me4guns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>  Craig Chilton -- Help to make the USA
>>  Bigotry-FREE! <xanadu222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  wrote:
>>> "Scout" <me4guns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>  Craig Chilton -- Help to make the USA
>>>>  Bigotry-FREE! <xanadu222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>> "Scout" wrote:
>>>>>>  "Craig Chilton <xanadu222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>  "Craig Chilton <xanadu222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  Herb Martin <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  Craig Chilton <xanadu222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>  Herb Martin <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Craig Chilton -- Help to make the USA Bigotry-
>>>>>>>>>>>>  FREE! <xanadu222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     And isn't it INTERESTING how NO one ever seems to be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> capable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of presenting so much as even one FACT that sup****ts their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHINING about social liberals?  (LOL!! -- That's a MAJOR 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indict-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ment of those who shamefully call themselves
"conservatives.")
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Social liberals, especially the liberal, politicans are
far
>>>>>>>>>>>> more likely to oppose the 2nd Amendment and the Right
>>>>>>>>>>>> to Keep and Bears Arms which it enumerates and protects.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>    Not THIS social liberal.  I think that *either* defending
or
>>>>>>>>>>> opposing  it would be a monumental waste of time better spent
>>>>>>>>>>> playing Monopoly or watching TV.  Or just about anything else.
>
>>>>>>>>>>    There are exceptions -- which is the reason I used the
phrase
>>>>>>>>>> "far more likely".  It might be argued that even Senator Webb
>>>>>>>>>> of Virgiania (who has a CHL) understands the RKBA (mostly).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     In what most essential ways are you a "social liberal" in
the
>>>>>>>>>> sense that the Democratic party would espouse?
>
>>>>>>>>>      PRO-freedom of all SENSIBLE speech and press.  That which
>>>>>>>>> poses no overt threat to people.
>
>>>>>>>>     Please explain what exactly is "sensible" speech and press
and
>>>>>>>> who exactly makes that determination.
>
>>>>>>>     That which does NOT overtly denigrate any person or group on
the
>>>>>>> BASIS of ethnicity, ***ual orientation, race, or disability.
>
>>>>>>     Please explain exactly what "overtly denigrates" any yada,
yada,
>>>>>> yada.
>
>>>>>     If any person or group were to be denigrated badly enough for it

>>>>> to
>>>>> be an issue, it would be OBVIOUS.
>
>>>>     Once again, a matter of interpretation. Please explain, 
>>>> objectively,
>>>> when exactly we can determine whether it is "an issue" or nor. What
is
>>>> your specific criteria?
>
>>>>    See, I keep asking you for objective specifics and you keep giving

>>>> me
>>>> vague generalities which are subjective.
>
>>>      I leave that to the people who WRITE the laws.
>
>>    Oh, then in that case I don't need to listen to you.
>
>     Very true.  You've already made it quite plain that you
> and common sense are mutually exclusive.

on the contrary, my common sense tells me that we need clear cut objective

standards and all you're giving me is vague subjective generalities which 
could easily be subject to abuse, and when I try to pin you down on your 
opinions you claim that it's up to someone else to determine the
particulars 
of what you claim you want. If you don't know what it is you're asking
for, 
then who would?