IN other words I used it quite deliberately like that. Would it have soothed your irritable feeling if I had said, this may make more than a few heads explode...
The point being is that most would go meh or at the most would think that's a tiny bit cool. The ones that would take offense need the irritation. When they realize that the founders were not the stalwart right wing fantasies that they are considered. Besides what is wrong with the word Reich. It fits. "Empire" is the correct translation of Reich. Das Erste Reich is the Holy Roman Empire Das Zweiter Reich is the German Empire of Wilhem I/II Das Dritte Reich is "Gross Deutschland" Greater Germany of the Hitler regime. The same folks I call reich wingers attempted to create an American Empire so the phrase fits. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: > prov·o·ca·tion > /ËprävÉËkÄSHÉn/ > Noun > Action or speech that provokes someone, esp. deliberately. > Action or speech held to be likely to prompt physical retaliation. > Synonyms > incitement - instigation - challenge > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> And there you go again with that reich wing crap. >> >> It does not help your argument, and makes you sound like a partisan asshat. >> >> Please stop with that. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> this is sure to get amore than a few reich wing heads to explode. >>> After King Philip's War in the 168o's through to the immediate pre >>> revolutionary era, many communities owned the rifles and large >>> equipment communally. So that everyone was fully equipped the same >>> regardless of wealth. >>> >>> Those darned colonial Socialists. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Eric Roberts >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > And 240 years ago, things were A LOT different than they were today. >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: LRS Scout [mailto:[email protected]] >>> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:33 PM >>> > To: cf-community >>> > Subject: Re: Possible Executive Action - Gun Control >>> > >>> > >>> > Exactly. The militia carried what they owned, down even to food and >>> ammo. >>> > If you wanted a cannon, some individual had to buy and maintain it. >>> > >>> > So this all comes down to the intent of the founders. The >>> constitutionality >>> > or legality of a gun law has nothing at all to do with polls or modern >>> crime >>> > statistics, and everything to do with the authors intent over 200 years >>> ago, >>> > as that is what was ratified and carries the power of law today. >>> > On Jan 10, 2013 4:28 PM, "Jerry Barnes" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> "I would say it means that in order to have a well regulated militia >>> >> (aka laws about the militia and it's use are constitutional) you need >>> >> an armed population, and therefore the right of the individual to own >>> >> and carry arms shall be in no way limited." >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> When the Constitution was written, how were militia formed? Who >>> >> provided the weapons? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> J >>> >> >>> >> - >>> >> >>> >> Fascism and Communism are merely variants of the same totalitarianism >>> >> which central control of economic activity tends to produce. - F. A. >>> >> Hayek >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:360020 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
