KaskadskyjKozak

\ I think you need more help than that if you couldn't recognize an offer to oral.

I saw a bear do it at the zoo one time. Pretty funny.

and contortionists

Tell us how you really feel. Don't be shy!

yeah but it was Aid climbers not Crack climbers. scars are aid

I don't buy this. Unless people are gonna be allowed to buy M-1 tanks, RPG's, and shoulder-launched SAM's, the US populace has no hope in hell if the government actually decided to turn against its own people militarily. Even armed to the teeth with .357's and hunting rifles as we are, there'd be no prayer. As for self-defense and hunting - that's a different story of course.

it sure smells like ass

True enough. Partly due to Canuck accent.

Jeez….about time you come to that realization. We all did along time ago…. now you just have to admit your dumber than a bucket of snot, and all is well.

You've come to the right place! I'm consistently an ass!

Are you saying Mac demo's are staged in case something goes wrong?

I was just about to say something similar.

Well, she was raised in a conservative household and started out as a GOP supporter.

Bear Grylls or Les Stroud? Discuss.

And now this!

if it doesn't, try an extra wrap.

???? I think I replied with a basic variant of "I don't know how they would rule, didn't I? Is "I don't know" an acceptable answer? How would the Supreme court rule Peter? Here is the answer: The SC would not rule on this. They use a system of precedents and there are none for this (as far as I know--correct me if I am wrong here. Maybe Mattp can set me straight if I am totally missing the ball here). The Supreme Court is an appellate court as you indicate. A case has to come up through the court system for them to hear a case, and they choose whether to hear it or not. The Supreme Court does rule on precedent, but *can* reverse a precedent, although they are averse to doing so. If there is no precedent, they can establish one.

Yes, and it is my sincere hope that they, along with all the other people suffering under horrible gov'ts, are successful in securing their own rights. What about the Right of Self-Determination? If the people of Iraq want to secede, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Why should Sunnis be forced to live under Shia's or vice versa?

Steve Vai: The Attitude Song Satriani: Satch Boogie, Surfing with the Alien

I think it is a good thing to point out what the different branches of our gov't are responsible for b/c it sometimes seems as if there is a bit of confusion around their roles. Declaring martial law is under the Congress' responsibility, so asking if the SC can restrict people's rights during that time is a non-sensical question if you know that. Well, the SC does rule on the constitutionality of imposing martial law.

Funny....people usually say shit like that when they are on the loosing end of a discussion. Clear enough? Just what am I loosing, boner? My shirt collar?

I wouldn't know. The only guns I've ever fired are .22's.

Agreed.

The Supreme Court is deciding that one as we speak. Though appearances can be deceiving, the oral arguments seemed to imply that the justices were leaning more toward making machine-gun ownership legal than toward upholding the D.C. gun ban (which the Bush administration solicitor general spoke in favor of BTW). As a tangent, I would support a resumption on the ban on automatic weapons.

I'm not interested in engaging a nut like yourself in any debate yet alone associate with you. Clear enough?