"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:ae2dnYfN--eI_krNnZ2dnUVZ5oudnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 11:50 AM, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:18:08 -0800, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> >>> wrote:
On 12/21/2012 9:10 AM, Oglethorpe wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:wvydnSJgkOPXcE7NnZ2dnUVZ5vqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 6:56 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:hsqdnWtvzrXCWE7NnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 5:55 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in
news:rbidnRg2JdA6Kk7NnZ2dnUVZ5vKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 12/20/2012 5:05 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:0-ednUvxLebfLk7NnZ2dnUVZ5g6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 4:49 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
"Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in
news:6bOdned9xK4i7k7NnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go >>>>>>>>>>>>> to hell
with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for >>>>>>>>>>>> having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self >>>>>>>>>>>> defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any >>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment
guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you >>>>>>>>>>> need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his >>>>>>>>>>> rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. >>>>>>>>>> It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, >>>>>>>>> ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. >>>>>>>> Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.
Actually, it is.
No.
There are no restrictions in the Second Amendment.
There are. The Supreme Court has held that there are.
Then cite the ruling from the Supreme Court.
I have done. Here it is again:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
That's taken directly from the majority opinion. The right is not
unlimited. Specifically, "the right [is] not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever."
Seems to me there is a bit of a difference between saying a right is not unlimited and claiming that restrictions exist in the 2nd Amendment.
On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:
Seems to me there is a bit of a difference between saying a right is not
unlimited and claiming that restrictions exist in the 2nd Amendment.
No one used the word restrictions until now.
The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the limitations exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble understanding that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor
do they have the same meaning. The limitations are not "in" the
amendment, but they most definitely, with 100% assurance, are *within*
the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the right protected
by the amendment.
No one used the word restrictions until now.
The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the limitations
exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble understanding
that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same meaning.
The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with 100%
assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the
right protected by the amendment.
That's how it works.
No one used the word restrictions until now.
The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the limitations
exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble understanding
that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same meaning.
The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with 100%
assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the
right protected by the amendment.
That's how it works.
On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:...
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 08:54:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Carol Kinsey
Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:
No one used the word restrictions until now.
The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the >>limitations
exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble >>understanding
that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same >>meaning.
The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with >>100%
assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are >>*within* the
right protected by the amendment.
That's how it works.
The first noun phrase
On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message >news:e5b3M.637819$PXw7.374311@fx45.iad...
On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:
Rudy is behind that he's answering posts from over a decade ago.
The first noun phrase followed by the progressive participle would, to
an eighteenth-century reader, have been a clear reference to slavery.
The only use for a militia was to put down slave revolts and the use
of the term "free state" had the connotation of meaning the non-slaves
in a state that practiced slavery. It was eighteenth-century double
speak.
The reason the second amendment is so torturously ambiguous is because
Mr. Madison was trying to say: "This is about *slavery*" without
actually using the word "slavery". 2A was the compromise between the
slave states and non-slave states that allowed ratification of the
1787 constitution.
I bet they were certainly aware that the opening nominative absolute clause >was not a noun phrase.
"!Jones" <x@y.com> wrote in message news:gbhr4il08u3g3iu157rvo43t9msar9uoov@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 08:54:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Carol Kinsey
Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:
No one used the word restrictions until now.
The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the limitations
exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble understanding
that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same meaning.
The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with 100%
assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the
right protected by the amendment.
That's how it works.
The first noun phrase followed by the progressive participle would, to
an eighteenth-century reader, have been a clear reference to slavery.
The only use for a militia was to put down slave revolts and the use
of the term "free state" had the connotation of meaning the non-slaves
in a state that practiced slavery. It was eighteenth-century double
speak.
The reason the second amendment is so torturously ambiguous is because
Mr. Madison was trying to say: "This is about *slavery*" without
actually using the word "slavery". 2A was the compromise between the
slave states and non-slave states that allowed ratification of the
1787 constitution.
I bet they were certainly aware
On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:22:26 -0500, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message >>news:e5b3M.637819$PXw7.374311@fx45.iad...
On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:
Rudy is behind that he's answering posts from over a decade ago.
Apparently you aren't kicking his ass enough.
LOL
On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:24:43 "Scout" wrote:
The first noun phrase followed by the progressive participle would, to
an eighteenth-century reader, have been a clear reference to slavery.
The only use for a militia was to put down slave revolts and the use
of the term "free state" had the connotation of meaning the non-slaves
in a state that practiced slavery. It was eighteenth-century double
speak.
The reason the second amendment is so torturously ambiguous is because
Mr. Madison was trying to say: "This is about *slavery*" without
actually using the word "slavery". 2A was the compromise between the
slave states and non-slave states that allowed ratification of the
1787 constitution.
I bet they were certainly aware that the opening nominative absolute clause >> was not a noun phrase.
Why, it most certainly *is*, sir!
A "nominative" is a noun or a phrase used as a noun. "A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
is an absolute noun *phrase*, not a clause. The sentence is an
example of a "dangling participle" in that the "being necessary..." participle could modify either noun phrase. I.e.: it could also be
read:
"Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people... [yaba yaba]" (IOW, the participle modifies the second noun phrase.)
Saying something is a "nominative absolute clause" doesn't make sense.
If it's "nominative", it's used as a noun. If it's a "clause", then
it's a complete sentence in and of itself.
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:hsqdnWpvzrVJWE7NnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 6:00 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in
news:rbidnRg2JdA6Kk7NnZ2dnUVZ5vKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 12/20/2012 5:05 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:0-ednUvxLebfLk7NnZ2dnUVZ5g6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 4:49 PM, Gray Guest wrote:Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you
"Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in
news:6bOdned9xK4i7k7NnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell >>>>>>> with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having >>>>>> certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you >>>>>> just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any
restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you. >>>>>
need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So
long as I
don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions about my
life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
And other than you stomping your feet, exactly what support do you have
for that?
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear
weapons. It's that simple.
And where is your support for that claim?
Oh, and it's a long long way from an AR-15 to a nuclear weapon.
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:hsqdnWhvzrWEWE7NnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 5:54 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in
news:0-ednUvxLebfLk7NnZ2dnUVZ5g6dnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 12/20/2012 4:49 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
"Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in
news:6bOdned9xK4i7k7NnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any
restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you
might wish to have is sound, and correct.
Fine... So let's see you show us the text in the 2nd that supports your claim.
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Well actually a number of people own tanks, and
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:wvydnSNgkOORcE7NnZ2dnUVZ5vqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 6:55 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:hsqdnWhvzrWEWE7NnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 5:54 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in
news:0-ednUvxLebfLk7NnZ2dnUVZ5g6dnZ2d@giganews.com:
On 12/20/2012 4:49 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
"Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in
news:6bOdned9xK4i7k7NnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell >>>>>>> with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having >>>>>> certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you >>>>>> just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any
restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you. >>>>>>
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you
might wish to have is sound, and correct.
Fine... So let's see you show us the text in the 2nd that supports your
claim.
You really are monumentally stupid. That's not how any amendment works.
Hmmm... You make a claim about what's in the 2nd Amendment,
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:SPOdnXP4iMPaWUnNnZ2dnUVZ5s-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/21/2012 11:41 AM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:auWdnTtCLvr3b07NnZ2dnUVZ5q-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 8:16 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 12/20/2012 8:13 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have. >>>>>> You
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons. >>>>>> It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment
does not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have.
I suggest you start with Miller.
Milller....Miller... I don't recall any Miller in the 2nd Amendment.
There isn't any mention of Miller in the second amendment itself, of
course.
Then it doesn't govern what the 2nd Amendment says.
The Miller decision of the SCOTUS supplies an interpretation -
controlling - that the second amendment does not preclude the
government limiting what arms you may own.
Well, that's nice, but I'm missing the part of the Constitution where it
says the government gets to decide what portions, if any, of the
Constitution it will obey.
In other words, the second amendment does not recognize a "right" to
own *any* arm you might wish to own.
Wrong.
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:wvydnV1gkONvcE7NnZ2dnUVZ5vqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/20/2012 6:58 PM, Scout wrote:
Oh, and it's a long long way from an AR-15 to a nuclear weapon.
Irrelevant.
It certainly is relevant because
It's like saying because we ban child pornography that means we can ban Bibles.
The simple point is, you do *NOT* have an unconditional second
amendment right to just *any* weapon you might fancy.
And you can present actual evidence to back this up?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 433 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 63:08:06 |
| Calls: | 9,092 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,412 |
| Messages: | 6,025,560 |