Comments on: ACLU Savors Latest Victory http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:22:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: RICHARD PRESTWICH http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-36848 RICHARD PRESTWICH Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:55:29 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/#comment-36848 To Gribbits: Richard E. Prestwich Prestwich and Assocites Advertising Copy Writers Market Position and Media Strategists Pray tell oh great print orator, How many votes are you worth? How many elections have your copy and strategy turned? How many Congressmen and Senators do not want you in a bad mood when they seek reelection? Have your efforts cost dishonest slurp at the public trough lawyers more or less than $670 million? Oil Slick Slade Gorton (R) WA chose to lose reelection to Maria Cantwell (D) Wa rather than investigate and discipline Federal Judge Alan McDonald, Spokane Wa. No Federal Judge will be impeached for this kind of ruling. Now do you want to take advantage of the only thing Senators and Congressmen fear or do you want to rant on your soap box and remain as effective as a rubber with a hole in it on election day? To Gribbits:

Richard E. Prestwich
Prestwich and Assocites
Advertising Copy Writers
Market Position and
Media Strategists

Pray tell oh great print orator,
How many votes are you worth?

How many elections have your copy and strategy turned?

How many Congressmen and Senators do not want you in a bad mood when they seek reelection?

Have your efforts cost dishonest slurp at the public trough lawyers more or less than $670 million?

Oil Slick Slade Gorton (R) WA chose to lose reelection to Maria Cantwell (D) Wa rather than investigate and discipline Federal Judge Alan McDonald, Spokane Wa.

No Federal Judge will be impeached for this kind of ruling.

Now do you want to take advantage of the only thing Senators and Congressmen fear or do you want to rant on your soap box and remain as effective as a rubber with a hole in it on election day?

]]> By: RICHARD PRESTWICH http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-36847 RICHARD PRESTWICH Sat, 01 Oct 2005 07:44:53 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/#comment-36847 Does the ACLU defend the second amendment? NO. The point is made. This is a public forum. I used it. Does the ACLU defend the second amendment?
NO. The point is made.
This is a public forum.
I used it.

]]> By: Jay http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-36846 Jay Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:32:06 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/#comment-36846 WTF? WTF?

]]> By: Gribbit http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-36845 Gribbit Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:11:35 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/#comment-36845 Upon a review of the information that you have presented, Richard the troll, you have cited a case that the 9th Circuit refused to hear, so it was appealed to the SCOTUS which also refused to hear the case. How you can construe that to mean that there is no individual right to bear arms is beyond me. By refusing to hear the case, it would seem to anyone who has half a brain that the burden of proof was insufficiant to base a case upon. In other words, the court refused to hear the case because the attorney filing the case was a moron like you. Next time try using a website of your own. Sending those who wish to counter your diluted viewpoint to the Narcotics Anonymous website is unacceptable. Upon a review of the information that you have presented, Richard the troll, you have cited a case that the 9th Circuit refused to hear, so it was appealed to the SCOTUS which also refused to hear the case. How you can construe that to mean that there is no individual right to bear arms is beyond me. By refusing to hear the case, it would seem to anyone who has half a brain that the burden of proof was insufficiant to base a case upon. In other words, the court refused to hear the case because the attorney filing the case was a moron like you.

Next time try using a website of your own. Sending those who wish to counter your diluted viewpoint to the Narcotics Anonymous website is unacceptable.

]]> By: Gribbit http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-36844 Gribbit Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:01:59 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/#comment-36844 What the @%#! has that got to do with the subject that I have written about?!? What the @%#! has that got to do with the subject that I have written about?!?

]]> By: RICHARD PRESTWICH http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/comment-page-1/#comment-36843 RICHARD PRESTWICH Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:07:02 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/09/30/aclu-savors-latest-victory/#comment-36843 SCOTUS Docket No 02-1412 Bird V Gray Davis et al June 23, 2003 The Second Amendment has had it's day in court. There is no individual right to keep and bear arms. 9th circuit ruling stands SCOTUS Docket No 02-1412
Bird V Gray Davis et al
June 23, 2003

The Second Amendment has had it’s day in court. There is no individual right to keep and bear arms.
9th circuit ruling stands

]]>