"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:B5Gdna4q6pG3q0TNnZ2dnUVZ5g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 9:10 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:AradnQLpIfjssUTNnZ2dnUVZ5qednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 8:07 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:xsSdnZqP2qi0g0TNnZ2dnUVZ5jmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 7:07 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:MIydnX0_kbtKUUXNnZ2dnUVZ5s-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 1:40 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:A8KdnQGxvs-5B0XNnZ2dnUVZ5oKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 12:02 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:5O2dnaUyRPFmWUrNnZ2dnUVZ5u2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 5:21 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:CITE THEM from the Second Amendment.
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in
talk.politics.guns :
On 12/23/2012 12:15 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[snip the eunuch's evasive whimpering]
Here:
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]
[empty wheeze snipped]
You lose again. There is no right to keep and bear just *any* >>>>>>>>>>>> arms
whatsoever - there are limits
They're not in the amendment, stupid knuckle-dragging fuckwit - >>>>>>>>>> they're inherent in the right.
Ok, show it to us then.
You show them to us, fuckwit. You claim to accept that the
right is
not unlimited. Show us the limits.
So are you saying
I'm saying you can't show us the limits you claim exist.
Well, you can find out.
How can I find out the limits you claim exist if you can't identify
them?
I didn't say that,
But you *can't* identify them.
I can identify them
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such limitations existed within the 2nd.
Which they do not.
For example, they believe that a limitation on clip/magazine capacity
would be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it would not be.
Actually, it certainly could be given the current SCOTUS rulings on what things would be protected. High capacity magazines are most certainly
"any part of ordinary military equpiment" per your cited ruling of Miller.
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:2JGdnaK6pJL9KEXNnZ2dnUVZ5qadnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 12:01 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:Qd6dnfqNAa8GOUXNnZ2dnUVZ5tqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 10:51 AM, Derek Smalls wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" wrote in message
news:rLmdnYZrcZ5_GkXNnZ2dnUVZ5hqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 8:37 AM, Derek Smalls wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" wrote in message
news:-YidnYjX8_BeHEXNnZ2dnUVZ5qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 8:19 AM, Derek Smalls wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" wrote in message
news:LOudnRIdlIkW4UXNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 8:44 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:SNWdnWG3ouWqU0rNnZ2dnUVZ5vWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 7:29 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:SqmdnS_dCKqKVErNnZ2dnUVZ5tWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 6:41 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:SdOdnYwCVq0jIErNnZ2dnUVZ5t6dnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2012 4:36 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:bJqdnXpWdKADp0rNnZ2dnUVZ5rKdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 10:53 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:dbmdnQlxIrT18UvNnZ2dnUVZ5rOdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 4:14 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counts.
You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-poster.
Can't prove it by your posting history.
Of course I can!!! Not one post of mine has advocated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confiscating
all guns. That's what "gun grabber" means, and I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one -
and you
know it.
Na, just a nibble here, a nibble there, here a ban, there a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ban,
Nope. I'm not a gun grabber - not in any way.
And yet you tell us we can prohibit anything simply by >>>>>>>>>>>> claiming the
2nd
Amendment doesn't protect it.
No, not "anything" - nice straw man.
So what, specifically, can't be prohibited?
Where exactly is the limit between that which can be
prohibited and
that
which can not?
However, limitations *do* exist on the right that is
protected by
the
amendment.
BRAVO!
Just when I thought you were unable to learn
Oh, fuck off. But thanks for admitting you were only engaging in >>>>>>>>> some
really shitty sophistry - a sophistry you are incompetent to make >>>>>>>>> happen - all along.
IOW,
In other words, just engaging in lame, pointless sophistry that
had no
chance of succeeding.
Those limitations quite easily might be on the type and
capacity of
arms owned.
Based on what language in the Constitution?
Oh, I don't know - general welfare clause, maybe. Use your own >>>>>>>>> imagination.
So basically you have no idea
I do have quite a good idea.
Give it up, scooter: you're not a constitutional scholar, and in >>>>>>> fact
you're just in thrall to some web page crackpots who have said some >>>>>>> outlandish things you find pleasing to believe. You don't know what >>>>>>> you're talking about - you depend wholly on a bunch of unidentified >>>>>>> crackpots whose ideas are entirely bullshit. You couldn't form an >>>>>>> original thought on any of this if your life depended on it.
For example, a statutory limit on the magazine or clip capacity >>>>>>>>>>> might
be enacted, and the court might hold that such a limit is well >>>>>>>>>>> within
the limits of the right protected, and therefore does not >>>>>>>>>>> violate
the
Constitution.
Excuse me, but you do realize that the court has no authority to >>>>>>>>>> deny
the protections of the Constitution as enacted?
There is no right to have a magazine or clip of whatever capacity >>>>>>>>> you
might wish to have.
Based on what language in the Constitution?
Based on the inherent limits in the right recognized by the second >>>>>>> amendment.
^^^^Then please feel free to show those "limits" that you talk of in the >>>>>>> Second Amendment.
Please use English, the only language used in that Document.
We've already established that the limits are in the right itself, >>>>>> not
in the amendment. The amendment does not create or define the
right -
it recognizes it, and says that the state may not abridge it. The
right
recognized is not unlimited.
^^^^Excuse me. Was it you or somebody else that said: "
There is no right to have a magazine or clip of whatever capacity you >>>>>> might wish to have."....
"Based on the inherent limits in the right recognized by the second >>>>>> amendment."
Correct. The inherent limits are in the right recognized. They
aren't
in the recognition text itself.
So again, I ask (in English) ... Where is that right(or denial of
said
right) mentioned in the United STATES 2nd Amendment?
The limitations are in the right. The text addressing the right
didn't
need to spell them out - they were already understood.
^^^
So you lied yet again,
No, I didn't lie.
and you run away by NOT providing what I asked for?
What you asked for doesn't exist.
So there is no proof of your claims?
He asked for text in the amendment spelling out the limitations.
He said nothing about text.
That doesn't exist, and you know it doesn't
Well, if you
- and yet, you have stipulated that the right is *not* unlimited.
Yep, such limits can be external to the 2nd such as the limit imposed by
the 5th Amendment.
You have no need to see the limitations spelled out for you, scooter -
you accept that there are limitations on the right.
Yea, but the limits I see aren't the ones you claim exist.
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:komdnfnXat5780vNnZ2dnUVZ5sednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 8:30 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:WYydnfKPqeEvw0vNnZ2dnUVZ5gAAAAAA@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 2:12 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:gbidnVqwYfJ5sEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 1:58 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 12/22/2012 3:15 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
Hardly. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:
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]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of >>>>> arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
If they aren't explicitly found in the text....then they aren't *within*
the amendment
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:5O2dnaMyRPE9WkrNnZ2dnUVZ5u2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 6:39 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:SdOdnZICVq18IUrNnZ2dnUVZ5t6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 2:42 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:bJqdnXhWdKBypErNnZ2dnUVZ5rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 10:48 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:komdnf7Xat4D80vNnZ2dnUVZ5sednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 8:27 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:JcOdnTEGD4PkxkvNnZ2dnUVZ5gednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that >>>>>>>>>>> such
Carol Kinsey Goman<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in
talk.politics.guns :
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second >>>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own >>>>>>>>>>>> guns,
and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a >>>>>>>>>>>> whole lot
of money into it.
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe >>>>>>>>>>>> that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited. >>>>>>>>>>>
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They >>>>>>>>>> *have* to
exist "within" it,
CITE them - from the txt of he Second Amendment.
The second amendment *IS* what the SCOTUS says it is.
BBbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttttt
Sorry the 2nd Amendment is:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free >>>>>>> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be >>>>>>> infringed."
SCOTUS has no power to change, alter or modify that text by even the >>>>>>> least amount.
Nor have they!!!
So the 2nd isn't whatever SCOTUS says it is.
It certainly is!!!
Ah, so you're saying we're no longer a Constitutional republic but
rather a oligarchy?
Not in the least.
You certainly are.
Actually, I'm not entirely convinced we're any longer a
constitutional (not "Constitutional" [sic]) republic, but we're
certainly not an oligarchy.
We are if, as per your claims, SCOTUS gets to set all the rules.
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.
On 4/29/2023 12:00 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
There are inherent limits in the right to keep and bear arms. You know this. >> They are not spelled out in the second amendment or in other amendments - they
are inherent to the right itself.
Please give an example of what you mean by a limit to the
right that is inherent in the right itself.
There are inherent limits in the right to keep and bear arms. You know
this. They are not spelled out in the second amendment or in other
amendments - they are inherent to the right itself.
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years centuries even said the >right is an individual right.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even — said the
right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any consideration of militia.
On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman
<ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even
— said the right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any
consideration of militia.
*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
rights.
Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the
amendment announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not
condition having the right to being in the militia. Individual
persons have a right to arms whether or not there is a militia.
On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman
<ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even
— said the right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any
consideration of militia.
*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
rights.
Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no categorical group rights?
I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and Kamala first thing in the morning.
On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years centuries even said the >>> right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any consideration of militia.
*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group rights.
Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the amendment >announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not condition having the >right to being in the militia. Individual persons have a right to arms whether
or not there is a militia.
No need. They don't believe in group rights, either.
They believe there are
rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have been >systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.
On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman
<ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even
— said the right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any
consideration of militia.
*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
rights.
Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no categorical group rights? I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and
Kamala first thing in the morning.
Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the
amendment announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not
condition having the right to being in the militia. Individual
persons have a right to arms whether or not there is a militia.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:46:44 -0700, David Hartung <shitbag.hartung@shitbags.r.us> wrote:
No need. They don't believe in group rights, either.
It's not about "group rights". It's about classes of individuals who's rights have been
so long denied that they now must be spelled out.
They believe there are
rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have been >> systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.
David, I've warned you about the risks of talking to your mirror.
Swill
--
From Bill Maher: So Fox News, they put out a statement after the settlement was reached.
They said, "This settlement reflects the continuing commitment of Fox News
to the highest journalistic standards."
But I got to say, you know, which news outlets have, I think, even higher journalistic standards?
The ones who don’t have to pay three quarters of a billion dollars for being a fucking liar."
Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!
Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine! Putin is a condom!
Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief. <https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>
On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
On 12/22/2012 10:53 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:komdnfnXat5780vNnZ2dnUVZ5sednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 8:30 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:WYydnfKPqeEvw0vNnZ2dnUVZ5gAAAAAA@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 2:12 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:gbidnVqwYfJ5sEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 1:58 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 12/22/2012 3:15 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
Hardly. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:
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]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types >>>>>> of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
No, not in the least.
On 4/30/2023 5:19 PM, Al wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman
<ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even
— said the right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any
consideration of militia.
*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
rights.
Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
categorical group rights?
No one ever said there were "categorical" [sic] group rights. There are
no group rights.
I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and Kamala first thing in the
morning.
No need. They don't believe in group rights, either. They believe there
are rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have been systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.
On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> >> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even — said >>> the
right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any consideration
of militia.
*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
rights.
Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the
amendment announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not condition having the right to being in the militia. Individual persons have a right
to arms whether or not there is a militia.
On 4/30/2023 7:19 PM, Al wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman
<ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even
— said the right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any
consideration of militia.
*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
rights.
Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
categorical group rights? I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and
Kamala first thing in the morning.
You are a Moron. Those people do have individual rights. But they sure as Hell
do not preclude the rights of Normal every day citizens and they sure as Hell do
not have any right to Propagandize our School Children.
The Hat crime statutes should be stricken from out laws. All Crimes should be judged on their real value for punishment.
Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the
amendment announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not
condition having the right to being in the militia. Individual
persons have a right to arms whether or not there is a militia.
"David Hartung" <shitbag.hartung@shitbags.r.us> wrote in message news:9SE3M.1623758$t5W7.960828@fx13.iad...
On 4/30/2023 5:19 PM, Al wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman
<ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even >>>>>> — said the right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any
consideration of militia.
*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
rights.
Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
categorical group rights?
No one ever said there were "categorical" [sic] group rights. There are no >> group rights.
I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and Kamala first thing in the morning.
No need. They don't believe in group rights, either. They believe there are
rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have been >> systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.
And who as Al denied their rights?
Nunn v. State in which the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Georgia's ban on >> handguns was a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States.
That isn't saying the right is an individual right.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even — said the
right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any consideration of militia.
What the blue blazes are you babbling about now. Level the rights
for everyone. BS on raising one
PaxPerPoten wrote:
What the blue blazes are you babbling about now. Level the rights for
everyone. BS on raising one
So when you have evidence rights have been denied? Your answer is that
we can't do anything about it?
Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman
<ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even —
said the
right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any
consideration of militia.
What did Burger know?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren
Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
On 5/1/2023 4:49 AM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
news:X1c3M.377384$ZhSc.176572@fx38.iad...
On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote >>>>>
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Because you're not the Court and
Irrelevant. The court sees the limits, and they aren't expressly stated
in the text of the amendment. So where are the limits? They are, as I have instructed you, inherent to the right. They don't need to be
stated in the amendment, and they aren't.
On 5/1/2023 7:54 AM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
On 5/1/2023 4:49 AM, Scout wrote:Please give an example of what you mean by a limit to the
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
news:X1c3M.377384$ZhSc.176572@fx38.iad...
On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote >>>>>
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that >>>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such >>>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to exist
"within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Because you're not the Court and
Irrelevant. The court sees the limits, and they aren't expressly stated in >> the text of the amendment. So where are the limits? They are, as I have >> instructed you, inherent to the right. They don't need to be stated in the >> amendment, and they aren't.
right that is inherent in the right itself.
On 5/1/2023 7:54 AM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
On 5/1/2023 4:49 AM, Scout wrote:Please give an example of what you mean by a limit to the
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
news:X1c3M.377384$ZhSc.176572@fx38.iad...
On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote >>>>>
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that >>>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such >>>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Because you're not the Court and
Irrelevant. The court sees the limits, and they aren't expressly stated
in the text of the amendment. So where are the limits? They are, as I
have instructed you, inherent to the right. They don't need to be stated
in the amendment, and they aren't.
right that is inherent in the right itself.
Or at least explain what you mean, because your statement
makes no sense.
Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> >> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even — said >>> the
right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any consideration
of militia.
What did Burger know?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren
Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.
Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that
the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the
court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u2on66$8h06$2@dont-email.me...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
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.
Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even — said the
right is an individual right.
Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any consideration of
militia.
What did Burger know?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren
Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered
individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the
rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the
longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum. >>
Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not
only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly >> states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in
parks, in bars—even in churches.
Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the
Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, >> when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively
banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled >> previously, it had ruled otherwise.
Try again:
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
A case that hinged around the notion that a former black slave was not a citizen.. and among the items in the ruling which any citizen could do, we find
this.
"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of
citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from
the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own satiety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they
pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it
would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon
political affairs, and to keep and carry arms"
IOW.. if blacks were actually citizens they could "keep and carry arms".
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
Because for all intents
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose.
On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
That was one reason.
Because for all intents
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose.
So what?
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.lschen.@gmail.com> wrote in >message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
That was one reason.
Because for all intentsSo what?
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose. >>
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all >intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected >by the 2nd Amendment.
Why? Because the right doesn't depend on you being in the militia.. but as a >human being.
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
That was one reason.
Because for all intentsSo what?
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose. >>
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected by
the 2nd Amendment.
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.lschen.@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
That was one reason.
Because for all intentsSo what?
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose. >>>
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all >> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected by
the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some >guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
"Salty Stan" <wsjames123n@gmail.com> wrote in message news:QXZ3M.551546$Ldj8.251414@fx47.iad...
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in >>> message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
That was one reason.
Because for all intents
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that
purpose.
So what?
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
"all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the
right.
Perhaps, that's never really been put to the test.
Seems to me, that a lot of guns currently banned are banned Unconstitutionally.
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
That was one reason.
Because for all intents
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that
purpose.
So what?
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
"all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the
right.
On Mon, 1 May 2023 18:46:23 -0700, Salty Stan <wsjames123n@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.lschen.@gmail.com> wrote in >>> message
news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
That was one reason.
Because for all intents
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that
purpose.
So what?
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
"all
intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
protected by
the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. >>Some
guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
Expect him to argue this point and then claim he never said the right was unlimited.
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?
That's a new one.
"Salty Stan" <wsjames123n@gmail.com> wrote in message news:QXZ3M.551546$Ldj8.251414@fx47.iad...
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in >>> message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
That was one reason.
Because for all intents
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that
purpose.
So what?
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
"all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the
right.
Perhaps, that's never really been put to the test. Seems to me, that a lot
of guns currently banned are banned Unconstitutionally.
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been or is used
by the military would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
We don't take any lecture on reasonableness from a criminal gun idolator, scooter.
What's next- a fist fight challenge"Sure, why not? Meet me at the Jolly Kone hamburger shack in
I already have. It's legal, too. I even said he gets to pick theTrumpchev is such a vile bit of filth.Why don't you challenge him to a fist fight?
"Stand up" [to the NRA] does not say anything useful.Beating Wayne LaPierre within a millimeter of his life, Francis.
What specifically do you propose doing?
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all >>> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected
by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some >> guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
; Now, if you could state the
criteria by which we could tell which guns could be banned and
which ones can't, you might have something.
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
"all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and
be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
On 5/2/2023 11:12 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all >>>> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected
by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some
guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
It isn't, Francis.
Now, if you could state the
criteria by which we could tell which guns could be banned and
which ones can't, you might have something.
I can't state it, Francis, but legal scholars can. You can't.
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just
for "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist
and be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to
have. Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement
of the right.
It isn't.
Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have something.
I can't state it, but legal scholars can. You can't.
On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned.
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all
intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some
guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right. >>>>
It isn't.
Sure you can.Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tellI can't state it, but legal scholars can. You can't.
which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have something. >>
I'm interested only in establishing the
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
On 5/2/2023 12:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, scooter lied:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for >>>>>>> "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be >>>>>>> protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. >>>>>> Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned.It isn't.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested only in establishing the
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
OK, so go right ahead and do that.
and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say thatI would agree as a general proposition,
all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Sure you can.Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have something.
I can't state it, but legal scholars can. You can't.
No, I can't, nor can you.
Sure I can,
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just
for "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL
exist and be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to
have. Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement
of the right.
It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned.It isn't.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested only in establishing the
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say that
all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Sure you can.Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have
something.
I can't state it, but legal scholars can. You can't.
No, I can't, nor can you.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?
That's a new one.............
On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
"Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?
That's a new one.............
Which of those are guns?
Are they arms, scooter?
"Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?
That's a new one.............
Which of those are guns?
On 5/2/2023 12:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just >>>>>>> for "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist >>>>>>> and be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to
have. Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement >>>>>> of the right.
It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned.It isn't.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested only in establishing the
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
OK, so go right ahead and do that. You don't do it by making
a bare assertion, you actually have to identify some so that
your assertion can be evaluated as factually true or false.
and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say thatI would agree as a general proposition, but the devil is in the details.
all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Sure you can.Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have
something.
I can't state it, but legal scholars can. You can't.
No, I can't, nor can you.
Sure I can, and I did. You clipped it.
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
2. Heller says government cannot take arms that are in common
use for lawful purposes.
3. Bruen says that for government to restrict the right to keep
and bear arms, the government has the burden to prove the restriction
is consistent with the text, history, and tradition of 2A at the
time it was adopted.
I'm still looking forward to you identifying a gun that
constitutionally can be banned once these criteria are applied.
On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
"Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?
That's a new one.............
Which of those are guns?
Are they arms, scooter?
Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
Yes, scooter, you did:
"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."
"Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in message news:yte4M.50972$qjm2.35193@fx09.iad...
On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
"Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been >>>>> or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?
That's a new one.............
Which of those are guns?
Are they arms, scooter?
You tell me,
you made up the list
I will simply note they aren't guns.
Indeed I know of one [gun control law] right know that is part of federal law
that I believe it to be Constitutional.
"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
On 5/2/2023 12:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for >>>>>>>> "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. >>>>>>> Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested only in establishing theIt's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned. >>>It isn't.
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
OK, so go right ahead and do that. You don't do it by making
a bare assertion, you actually have to identify some so that
your assertion can be evaluated as factually true or false.
and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say thatI would agree as a general proposition, but the devil is in the details.
all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
Just Wondering wrote:
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Indeed I know of one [gun control law] right know that is part of federal law
that I believe it to be Constitutional.
That doesn't square with this, scooter:
"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."
On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:00:20 -0700, Rudy wrote:
Indeed I know of one [gun control law] right know that is part
of federal law that I believe it to be Constitutional.
That doesn't square with this, scooter:
"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."
Learn to read cunt flaps.
On 5/2/2023 5:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:00:20 -0700, Rudy wrote:Are you telling Rudy to learn braille?
Indeed I know of one [gun control law] right know that is part
of federal law that I believe it to be Constitutional.
That doesn't square with this, scooter:
"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."
Learn to read cunt flaps.
"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
On 5/2/2023 12:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not
just for "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would
STILL exist and be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to >>>>>>> have. Some guns could be banned, and there would be no
infringement of the right.
It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally beIt isn't.
banned.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested only in establishing the
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
OK, so go right ahead and do that. You don't do it by making
a bare assertion, you actually have to identify some so that
your assertion can be evaluated as factually true or false.
and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say thatI would agree as a general proposition, but the devil is in the details.
all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
Indeed I know of one right know that is part of federal law that I
believe it to be Constitutional. Further I bet you would as well.
Sure you can.Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have
something.
I can't state it, but legal scholars can. You can't.
No, I can't, nor can you.
Sure I can, and I did. You clipped it.
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
2. Heller says government cannot take arms that are in common
use for lawful purposes.
3. Bruen says that for government to restrict the right to keep
and bear arms, the government has the burden to prove the restriction
is consistent with the text, history, and tradition of 2A at the
time it was adopted.
I'm still looking forward to you identifying a gun that
constitutionally can be banned once these criteria are applied.
Me too. Rudy had to change the subject to arms... because apparently he
can't think of a single gun that would meet the criteria
Indeed, I question the need for them to be in common use.. as that could
be used to eliminate invention and innovation.
Just Wondering wrote:
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
On 5/2/2023 12:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for >>>>>>>> "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. >>>>>>> Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested only in establishing theIt's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned. >>>It isn't.
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
OK, so go right ahead and do that. You don't do it by making
a bare assertion, you actually have to identify some so that
your assertion can be evaluated as factually true or false.
and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say thatI would agree as a general proposition, but the devil is in the details.
all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
Sure you can.Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have something.
I can't state it, but legal scholars can. You can't.
No, I can't, nor can you.
Sure I can, and I did. You clipped it.
[snip wheeze from non-scholar]
I'm still looking forward to you identifying a gun that
constitutionally can be banned once these criteria are applied.
Me too. Rudy had to change the subject to arms
Indeed, I question the need for them to be in common use.
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from
taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to
resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
"Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?
That's a new one.............
Which of those are guns?
On 5/2/2023 1:45 PM, Scout wrote:
"Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in message
news:yte4M.50972$qjm2.35193@fx09.iad...
On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
"Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been >>>>>> or is used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?
That's a new one.............
Which of those are guns?
Are they arms, scooter?
You tell me,
No, scooter, you tell us. What does the second amendment say, scooter?
you made up the list
I made up no list, scooter.
I will simply note they aren't guns.
They are arms, scooter. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms >shall not be infringed." Do you have a "right" to any of those, scooter? No, >you don't, even though you say you do.
Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
You did say it, scooter.
"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."
On 5/2/2023 2:50 PM, Scout wrote:
It's not an either-or test. "Common use" just means that if a gun is
"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
On 5/2/2023 12:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:That's a pretty useless statement.
Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just >>>>>>>>> for "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL >>>>>>>>> exist and be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to >>>>>>>> have. Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement >>>>>>>> of the right.
It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally beIt isn't.
banned.
I'm not interested in that. I'm interested only in establishing the
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
OK, so go right ahead and do that. You don't do it by making
a bare assertion, you actually have to identify some so that
your assertion can be evaluated as factually true or false.
and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say thatI would agree as a general proposition, but the devil is in the details.
all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
Indeed I know of one right know that is part of federal law that I
believe it to be Constitutional. Further I bet you would as well.
Sure you can.Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have
something.
I can't state it, but legal scholars can. You can't.
No, I can't, nor can you.
Sure I can, and I did. You clipped it.
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
2. Heller says government cannot take arms that are in common
use for lawful purposes.
3. Bruen says that for government to restrict the right to keep
and bear arms, the government has the burden to prove the restriction
is consistent with the text, history, and tradition of 2A at the
time it was adopted.
I'm still looking forward to you identifying a gun that
constitutionally can be banned once these criteria are applied.
Me too. Rudy had to change the subject to arms... because apparently he
can't think of a single gun that would meet the criteria
Indeed, I question the need for them to be in common use.. as that could
be used to eliminate invention and innovation.
in common use for lawful purposes, the Constitution protects it.
The inverse is not true. The "common use" test does not mean that
if a gun is not in common use, the government can ban it for that
reason alone.
On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:11:55 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Shoot the HIMARS operators while they're still in bed.
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking >>>>> from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist >>>>> and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction >>> against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to 'forcibly >> overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to
'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such limitations existed within the 2nd.
For example, they believe that a limitation on clip/magazine capacity
would be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it would not be.
Actually, it certainly could be given the current SCOTUS rulings on what things would be protected.
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:bJqdnXlWdKD5pErNnZ2dnUVZ5rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 10:46 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:JcOdnTEGD4PkxkvNnZ2dnUVZ5gednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns : >>>>>>>
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, >>>>>> and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot >>>>>> of money into it.
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that >>>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such >>>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to >>>> exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
I guess you're not familiar with the text of the amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Certainly,
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about, >>> so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Then your assertion it's in the 2nd
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:1OudnQPr5c0x2krNnZ2dnUVZ5uqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 9:10 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
On 12/22/2012 10:46 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:JcOdnTEGD4PkxkvNnZ2dnUVZ5gednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such >>>>>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns : >>>>>>>>>
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second >>>>>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own
guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a
whole lot
of money into it.
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that >>>>>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited. >>>>>>>
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They
*have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which
the
court saw such limitations.
I guess you're not familiar with the text of the amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a >>>> free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall >>>> not be infringed.
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert
about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't >>>> you make up your minds?
How tall is your straw man
I haven't committed any straw man fallacy. Scooter *is* back to
arguing that the right protected by the amendment is unlimited. You
know he is, too.
Well, if I'm always saying it,
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message news:rLmdnYZrcZ5_GkXNnZ2dnUVZ5hqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 8:37 AM, Derek Smalls wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" wrote in message
news:-YidnYjX8_BeHEXNnZ2dnUVZ5qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/24/2012 8:19 AM, Derek Smalls wrote:
"Carol Kinsey Goman" wrote in message
news:LOudnRIdlIkW4UXNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 8:44 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:SNWdnWG3ouWqU0rNnZ2dnUVZ5vWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 7:29 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:SqmdnS_dCKqKVErNnZ2dnUVZ5tWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 6:41 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:SdOdnYwCVq0jIErNnZ2dnUVZ5t6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/23/2012 4:36 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in messageNope. I'm not a gun grabber - not in any way.
news:bJqdnXpWdKADp0rNnZ2dnUVZ5rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
On 12/22/2012 10:53 PM, scooter lied:
"Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:dbmdnQlxIrT18UvNnZ2dnUVZ5rOdnZ2d@giganews.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 4:14 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged >>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-poster.
Can't prove it by your posting history.
Of course I can!!! Not one post of mine has advocated >>>>>>>>>>>> confiscating
all guns. That's what "gun grabber" means, and I'm not one - >>>>>>>>>>>> and you
know it.
Na, just a nibble here, a nibble there, here a ban, there a ban, >>>>>>>>>>
And yet you tell us we can prohibit anything simply by claiming >>>>>>>>> the
2nd
Amendment doesn't protect it.
No, not "anything" - nice straw man.
So what, specifically, can't be prohibited?
Where exactly is the limit between that which can be prohibited and >>>>>>> that
which can not?
However, limitations *do* exist on the right that is protected by >>>>>>>> the
amendment.
BRAVO!
Just when I thought you were unable to learn
Oh, fuck off. But thanks for admitting you were only engaging in
some
really shitty sophistry - a sophistry you are incompetent to make
happen - all along.
IOW,
In other words, just engaging in lame, pointless sophistry that had no >>>> chance of succeeding.
Those limitations quite easily might be on the type and capacity of >>>>>>>> arms owned.
Based on what language in the Constitution?
Oh, I don't know - general welfare clause, maybe. Use your own
imagination.
So basically you have no idea
I do have quite a good idea.
Give it up, scooter: you're not a constitutional scholar, and in fact >>>> you're just in thrall to some web page crackpots who have said some
outlandish things you find pleasing to believe. You don't know what
you're talking about - you depend wholly on a bunch of unidentified
crackpots whose ideas are entirely bullshit. You couldn't form an
original thought on any of this if your life depended on it.
For example, a statutory limit on the magazine or clip capacity >>>>>>>> might
be enacted, and the court might hold that such a limit is well >>>>>>>> within
the limits of the right protected, and therefore does not
violate the
Constitution.
Excuse me, but you do realize that the court has no authority to >>>>>>> deny
the protections of the Constitution as enacted?
There is no right to have a magazine or clip of whatever capacity you >>>>>> might wish to have.
Based on what language in the Constitution?
Based on the inherent limits in the right recognized by the second
amendment.
^^^^Then please feel free to show those "limits" that you talk of in the
Second Amendment.
Please use English, the only language used in that Document.
We've already established that the limits are in the right itself, not
in the amendment. The amendment does not create or define the right -
it recognizes it, and says that the state may not abridge it. The right >>> recognized is not unlimited.
^^^^Excuse me. Was it you or somebody else that said: "
There is no right to have a magazine or clip of whatever capacity you
might wish to have."....
"Based on the inherent limits in the right recognized by the second
amendment."
Correct. The inherent limits are in the right recognized. They
aren't in the recognition text itself.
And your proof of that assertion, is where exactly?
So again, I ask (in English) ... Where is that right(or denial of said
right) mentioned in the United STATES 2nd Amendment?
The limitations are in the right. The text addressing the right
didn't need to spell them out - they were already understood.
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from
taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need
to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
is not
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need
to 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons
then.. and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:ja635i5iqumt1mng9miq9m116ik8j6j1kg@Schadenfreude.com...
On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:11:55 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from
taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to
resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Shoot the HIMARS operators while they're still in bed.
Actually, given the percentage of the military that are
conservatives...... probably not necessary
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking >>>>>> from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist >>>>>> and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to
'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons then..
and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not >>>>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction >>>>> against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking >>>>>>> from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist >>>>>>> and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to 'forcibly
overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons then.. and
certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would have to man and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as valid.. then the people should certainly have access to even more powerful weapons....
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government
from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need
to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
military is not
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we
need to 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such
weapons then.. and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would
have to man and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as
valid.. then the people should certainly have access to even more
powerful weapons.... particularly those 'designed for the
battlefield;'
As such the more you talk.. the more you tear down your own
arguments for banning guns particularly those you assert are
"military grade"
So go ahead, continue to explain to us exactly how an assault
weapons ban would be bad......
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not >>>>>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking >>>>>>>> from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to >>>>>>>> resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to
'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons
then.. and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would have to
man and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as valid..
then the people should certainly have access to even more powerful
weapons.... particularly those 'designed for the battlefield;'
As such the more you talk.. the more you tear down your own arguments for
banning guns particularly those you assert are "military grade"
So go ahead, continue to explain to us exactly how an assault weapons ban
would be bad......
'1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking from
its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.'
So what else in your shopping cart? At point are you sure to 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.'
Do note that merely zerg rushing 'a tyrannical government' withmachine guns.....
More than three million men fought in the battle, of whom one million were either wounded or killed, making it one of the deadliest battles in all of human history.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme>
On 5/4/2023 5:14 AM, Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not >>>>>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking >>>>>>>> from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to >>>>>>>> resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to
'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons
then.. and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would have to
man and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as valid..
then the people should certainly have access to even more powerful
weapons....
The right to arms is not a right to just whatever arms you wish to have.
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u30hk9$1sevn$1@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not >>>>>>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking >>>>>>>>> from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist >>>>>>>>> and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government. >>>>>>>>What do you want to deter HIMARS?
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to >>>>>> 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons then.. >>>>> and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would have to man
and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as valid.. then
the people should certainly have access to even more powerful weapons.... >>> particularly those 'designed for the battlefield;'
As such the more you talk.. the more you tear down your own arguments for >>> banning guns particularly those you assert are "military grade"
So go ahead, continue to explain to us exactly how an assault weapons ban >>> would be bad......
'1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking from its
citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist and, if
necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.'
So what else in your shopping cart? At point are you sure to 'forcibly
overthrow a tyrannical government.'
You tell me.
Do note that merely zerg rushing 'a tyrannical government' withmachine guns.....
More than three million men fought in the battle, of whom one million were >> either wounded or killed, making it one of the deadliest battles in all of >> human history.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme>
So what you're saying is
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u30hk9$1sevn$1@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government
from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would
need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical
government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
military is not
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of
mass destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we
need to 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such
weapons then.. and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone
would have to man and operate that equipment and they are
vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument
as valid.. then the people should certainly have access to even
more powerful weapons.... particularly those 'designed for the
battlefield;'
As such the more you talk.. the more you tear down your own
arguments for banning guns particularly those you assert are
"military grade"
So go ahead, continue to explain to us exactly how an assault
weapons ban would be bad......
'1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from
taking from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would
need to resist and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a
tyrannical government.'
So what else in your shopping cart? At point are you sure to
'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.'
You tell me.. you're the one trying to limit what I could have in
my shopping cart.
Do note that merely zerg rushing 'a tyrannical government' withmachine guns.....
More than three million men fought in the battle, of whom one
million were either wounded or killed, making it one of the
deadliest battles in all of human history.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme>
So what you're saying is that machine guns should be legal to own?
"Allahu Snackbar" <camel-jockey@97virgins.com> wrote in message news:dCO4M.3143669$GNG9.1206694@fx18.iad...
On 5/4/2023 5:14 AM, Scout wrote:
The right to arms is not a right to just whatever arms you wish to have.
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not >>>>>>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking >>>>>>>>> from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist >>>>>>>>> and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government. >>>>>>>>What do you want to deter HIMARS?
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to >>>>>> 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons then.. >>>>> and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would have to man
and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as valid.. then
the people should certainly have access to even more powerful weapons.... >>
Where do you see that written?
On 5/4/2023 11:22 AM, Scout wrote:
"Allahu Snackbar" <camel-jockey@97virgins.com> wrote in message
news:dCO4M.3143669$GNG9.1206694@fx18.iad...
On 5/4/2023 5:14 AM, Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is >>>>>>>> not
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from >>>>>>>>>> takingWhat do you want to deter HIMARS?
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to >>>>>>>>>> resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government. >>>>>>>>>
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to >>>>>>> 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons
then.. and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would have >>>> to man and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as
valid.. then the people should certainly have access to even more
powerful weapons....
The right to arms is not a right to just whatever arms you wish to have.
Where do you see that written?
Heller decision, scooter.
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u30hk9$1sevn$1@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is >>>>>>>> not
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from >>>>>>>>>> takingWhat do you want to deter HIMARS?
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to >>>>>>>>>> resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government. >>>>>>>>>
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to >>>>>>> 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons
then.. and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would have >>>> to man and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as
valid.. then the people should certainly have access to even more
powerful weapons.... particularly those 'designed for the battlefield;' >>>>
As such the more you talk.. the more you tear down your own arguments
for banning guns particularly those you assert are "military grade"
So go ahead, continue to explain to us exactly how an assault weapons
ban would be bad......
'1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.'
So what else in your shopping cart? At point are you sure to 'forcibly
overthrow a tyrannical government.'
You tell me.. you're the one trying to limit what I could have in my
shopping cart.
Do note that merely zerg rushing 'a tyrannical government' withmachine guns.....
More than three million men fought in the battle, of whom one million
were either wounded or killed, making it one of the deadliest battles in >>> all of human history.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme>
So what you're saying is that machine guns should be legal to own?
Do they fire over the horizon at those HIMARS?
"Michael A Terrell" <mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut> wrote in message news:Mb05M.2726239$9sn9.2517659@fx17.iad...
On 5/4/2023 11:22 AM, Scout wrote:
"Allahu Snackbar" <camel-jockey@97virgins.com> wrote in message
news:dCO4M.3143669$GNG9.1206694@fx18.iad...
On 5/4/2023 5:14 AM, Scout wrote:Where do you see that written?
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not >>>>>>>>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from takingWhat do you want to deter HIMARS?
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government. >>>>>>>>>>
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to >>>>>>>> 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons then..
and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone would have to >>>>> man and operate that equipment and they are vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument as valid.. >>>>> then the people should certainly have access to even more powerful weapons....
The right to arms is not a right to just whatever arms you wish to have. >>>
Heller decision, scooter.
So you now like the Heller decision
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u3168t$1vnga$2@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u30hk9$1sevn$1@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2uvda$1gm3q$4@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
Just Wondering wrote:
On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US
1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government >>>>>>>>>>> from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would
need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical
government.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
military is not
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of
mass destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we
need to 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such
weapons then.. and certainly any gun out there...
And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.
What do you want to deter HIMARS?
Not much could be done.. as it stands now, but then someone
would have to man and operate that equipment and they are
vulnerable.
However, I will note that is you truly accepted your argument
as valid.. then the people should certainly have access to
even more powerful weapons.... particularly those 'designed
for the battlefield;'
As such the more you talk.. the more you tear down your own
arguments for banning guns particularly those you assert are
"military grade"
So go ahead, continue to explain to us exactly how an assault
weapons ban would be bad......
'1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from
taking from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would
need to resist and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a
tyrannical government.'
So what else in your shopping cart? At point are you sure to
'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.'
You tell me.. you're the one trying to limit what I could have
in my shopping cart.
Do note that merely zerg rushing 'a tyrannical government' withmachine guns.....
More than three million men fought in the battle, of whom one
million were either wounded or killed, making it one of the
deadliest battles in all of human history.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Somme>
So what you're saying is that machine guns should be legal to own?
Do they fire over the horizon at those HIMARS?
Who cares, unless you're suggesting that people should own missile
defense systems. Are you?
If not all, you are doing is showing a greater need for actual
military weapons..
The same magical missile defence system the Kremlin uses?
Do they fire over the horizon at those HIMARS?
are you sure to 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.'
Rudy Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> wrote:
I note it's time for a refresher.
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller >> decision:
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]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text,
history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed
far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to that >> fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.
Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned, under the case that you cited. Only extreme guns (like full-auto M16s) can
be reasonably banned by this case. I acknowledge that this case supports regulation for obtaining firearms, but nevertheless requires them to be accessible to good-health non-felon Americans.
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm-
ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." (Page 56)
This paragraph protects handguns, but easily protects also shotguns and rifles, as they're also commonly used by Americans for self-defense (and other purposes). The same idea can be extended to them.
Rudy Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> wrote:
I note it's time for a refresher.
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller >> decision:
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]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text,
history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed
far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to that >> fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.
Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned, under the case that you cited.
Only extreme guns (like full-auto M16s) can
be reasonably banned by this case. I acknowledge that this case supports regulation for obtaining firearms, but nevertheless requires them to be accessible to good-health non-felon Americans.
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm-
ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." (Page 56)
This paragraph protects handguns, but easily protects also shotguns and rifles, as they're also commonly used by Americans for self-defense (and other purposes). The same idea can be extended to them.
On 9/30/2024 12:54 PM, Grimble Crumble wrote:
Rudy Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> wrote:
I note it's time for a refresher.
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is >>> clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller >>> decision:
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]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text, >>> history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed >>> far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to that >>> fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.
Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned, >> under the case that you cited. Only extreme guns (like full-auto M16s) can >> be reasonably banned by this case. I acknowledge that this case supports
regulation for obtaining firearms, but nevertheless requires them to be
accessible to good-health non-felon Americans.
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm-
ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." (Page 56)
This paragraph protects handguns, but easily protects also shotguns and
rifles, as they're also commonly used by Americans for self-defense (and
other purposes). The same idea can be extended to them.
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense restrictions. The
Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
I note it's time for a refresher.
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:
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]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed far- right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to that fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:58:04 -0700, don <donhasheider@linuxmail.org> wrote:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the >>population so they can force their nutty agendas without fear of opposition.
Lie.
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping arms for self-defense.
I note it's time for a refresher.
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:
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]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns
you wish to have.
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping
arms for self-defense.
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentter.@gmail.com> wrote:
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> typed:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The
Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population
That's a lie.
That's a fact, "Cunt Flaps."
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:58:04 -0700, don <donhasheider@linuxmail.org>
wrote:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the >>population so they can force their nutty agendas without fear of >>opposition.
Lie.
Rudy Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> wrote:
On 9/30/2024 12:54 PM, Grimble Crumble wrote:
Rudy Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> wrote:
I note it's time for a refresher.
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment >>>> is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
Heller
decision:
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]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text,
history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and
crazed
far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to >>>> that
fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.
Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not
banned,
under the case that you cited.
The key point is that, contrary to what the right-wingnut gun fondlers
claim,
*not* all guns (and other arms) are protected. And note that *no* ban on
assault
weapons has ever been overturned by a circuit court of appeals.
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping arms
for self-defense.
"Peter Fairbrother" wrote in message news:vdfab9$2divu$1@dont-email.me...
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a
militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping
arms for self-defense.
Peter Fairbrother
You can disagree with that, but the supreme court case cited disagrees.
The
opinion of the court has long supported the 2nd amendment's connection to
the right of self-defense.
"Peter Fairbrother" <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote in message news:vdfab9$2divu$1@dont-email.me...
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Based on what facts?
"Jim Wilkins" <muratlanne@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vdfdtv$2e68s$1@dont-email.me...
"Peter Fairbrother" wrote in message news:vdfab9$2divu$1@dont-email.me... >>
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
So "the right of the people" is NOT a right of the people?
Please note the 2nd does not speak of the right of the militia, but the right of
the people.
"Grimble Crumble" <grimblecrumble870@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1434789197.749433562.235899.grimblecrumble870-gmail.com@news.newsdemon.com...
Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long >>> established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a >>> militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping
arms for self-defense.
Peter Fairbrother
You can disagree with that, but the supreme court case cited disagrees. The >> opinion of the court has long supported the 2nd amendment's connection to
the right of self-defense.
yep, one can hardly defend another until they can first defend themselves.
On 9/30/2024 12:01 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
I note it's time for a refresher.That is obiter dicta and
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller >> decision:
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]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text,
history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed
far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to that >> fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.
You pulled that out of your ass, as always, scooter.
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
you *fake* lawyer.
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
Scalia also said that the prefatory clause
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
On the *fact* that
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
Project 2025, eh Farquar?
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
That's a lie.
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
So, my conclusion is, to date, validated:
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
[Default] Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude >><klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentter.@gmail.com> wrote:
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> typed:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The
Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population
That's a lie.
That's a fact, "Cunt Flaps."
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
It's a fact, shit-for-brains.
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> typed:
On 9/30/2024 3:56 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long >>> established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a >>> militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping
arms for
self-defense.
In Heller, Scalia said it does protect keeping arms for self defense.
Thanks for admitting that the 2nd covers AR-15's and there's nothing
you can do about it, "Cunt Flaps."
KKKlaun "Cunt Flaps" SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew and cocksucking dwarf, lied:
[Default] Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, KKKlaun "Cunt Flaps" SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew and cocksucking dwarf, lied:
[Default] Rudy Canoza, the intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and physical superior to KKKlaun SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew, *wrote*:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The
Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population
That's a lie.
That's a fact,
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
It's a fact,
Now, now, if Rudy is saying that our having guns is fine
On 10/3/2024 6:52 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
KKKlaun "Cunt Flaps" SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew
and cocksucking dwarf, lied:
[Default] Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, KKKlaun "Cunt Flaps"
SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew and cocksucking
dwarf, lied:
[Default] Rudy Canoza, the intellectual, moral, professional, social, >>>>> literary and physical superior to KKKlaun SchittenPantzen, impotent
and harmless Nazi fake Jew, *wrote*:
Yep! That certainly is the default, all right! *HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA*!
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The
Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population
That's a lie.
That's a fact,
No, it's a lie, KKKlaun Schittenpantzen
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
It's a fact,
No, it's a lie, KKKlaun Schittenpantzen
Now, now, if Rudy is saying that our having guns is fine
You may not have just whatever guns you wish to have, scooter.
Some guns may be prohibited to you, scooter,
and there is no violation of the right to arms.
The right to arms is not unlimited, scooter, despite your shrill,
juvenile — and wrong — insistence that it is.
On 10/3/2024 6:52 AM, My nemesis, Scout, Typed::
Klaus bitch-slapped Rudy when he typed:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The
Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population
That's a lie.
That's a fact,
No, it's a lie, Klaus.
[Default] "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> typed:
and there is no violation of the right to arms.
And despite your insistence of the Courts disagrees with you.
This is the part that drives poor "Cunt Flaps" Canoza [more] crazy.
LOL
On 10/3/2024 10:20 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA> wrote in
message news:vdmh9d$3pd0u$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/3/2024 6:52 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
KKKlaun "Cunt Flaps" SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake
Jew and cocksucking dwarf, lied:
[Default] Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, KKKlaun "Cunt Flaps"
SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew and cocksucking >>>>>> dwarf, lied:
[Default] Rudy Canoza, the intellectual, moral, professional,
social, literary and physical superior to KKKlaun SchittenPantzen, >>>>>>> impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew, *wrote*:
Yep! That certainly is the default, all right! *HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA*!
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense >>>>>>>>> restrictions. The
Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population
That's a lie.
That's a fact,
No, it's a lie, KKKlaun Schittenpantzen
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
It's a fact,
No, it's a lie, KKKlaun Schittenpantzen
Now, now, if Rudy is saying that our having guns is fine
You may not have just whatever guns you wish to have, scooter.
Sure I can.
No, scooter, you may not. This is settled, scooter.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentter.@gmail.com> wrote:
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> typed:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense restrictions. >>>> The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population
That's a lie.
That's a fact, "Cunt Flaps."
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message news:27bofj55g3efr8veh3hjptn3p3hjmv2ph8@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> typed:
On 9/30/2024 3:56 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
On 30/09/2024 20:54, Grimble Crumble wrote:
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.
Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long >>>> established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a >>>> militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping
arms for self-defense.
In Heller, Scalia said it does protect keeping arms for self defense.
Thanks for admitting that the 2nd covers AR-15's and there's nothing
you can do about it, "Cunt Flaps."
Heck, we should be about to buy M4.. you know the updated select fire types used by the military in war..
I mean if we are to keep and bear arms as a militia seems to me the arms of our military would certainly be among the first to be protected.
proof of anything.
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:37:42 -0700, "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote:
In news:n7onfjh6doc0v8s3bgins6jsm95drbc4po@4ax.com, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentter.@gmail.com> wrote:
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> typed:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the
population
That's a lie.
That's a fact, "Cunt Flaps."
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05/17/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns-2/
Posting a liar's blog isn't proof of anything.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:24:10 -0700, "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote:
In news:a13jgjl564bnh8naau95ej21bdccq3sk8l@4ax.com, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:37:42 -0700, "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
wrote:
In news:n7onfjh6doc0v8s3bgins6jsm95drbc4po@4ax.com, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentter.@gmail.com> wrote:
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> typed:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the >>>>>>>> population
That's a lie.
That's a fact, "Cunt Flaps."
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05/17/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns-2/
Posting a liar's blog isn't proof of anything.
It terrifies you.
Not really....
... All I feel is sadness for the dupes who are going to accept it without question.
a liar's blog
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
In news:0viogjlclt41bj3kphh6okvgqkhc7bs09q@4ax.com, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:24:10 -0700, "max headroom"
<maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
wrote:
In news:a13jgjl564bnh8naau95ej21bdccq3sk8l@4ax.com, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 06:37:42 -0700, "max headroom"
<maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
wrote:
In news:n7onfjh6doc0v8s3bgins6jsm95drbc4po@4ax.com, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentter.@gmail.com> wrote:
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con> typed:
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense >>>>>>>>> restrictions. The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the >>>>>>>>> population
That's a lie.
That's a fact, "Cunt Flaps."
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05/17/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns-2/
Posting a liar's blog isn't proof of anything.
It terrifies you.
Not really....
Yeah, really. You're afraid that some unconvinced folks might click the
link and read the scores and scores of calls for gun confiscation.
... All I feel is sadness for the dupes who are going to accept it
without question.
Which specific quotes do you question?
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:vem99o$1prdu$1@dont-email.me:
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
On every date, oozing scarlet red maxipad, whose mouth waters at the thought of his mommy's warm mackerel-reeking snatch, tried — and *failed* — to bullshit:
In news:0viogjlclt41bj3kphh6okvgqkhc7bs09q@4ax.com, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On every date, oozing scarlet red maxipad, whose mouth waters at the thought of his mommy's warm mackerel-reeking snatch, tried — and *failed* — to bullshit:
In news:a13jgjl564bnh8naau95ej21bdccq3sk8l@4ax.com, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On every date, oozing scarlet red maxipad, whose mouth waters at the thought of his mommy's warm mackerel-reeking snatch, tried — and *failed* — to bullshit:
In news:n7onfjh6doc0v8s3bgins6jsm95drbc4po@4ax.com, Governor Swill >>>>>> <governor.swill@gmail.com> typed:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 15:14:26 -0700, KKKlaun "Cunt Flaps" SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew and cocksucking dwarf, lied:
[Default] Rudy Canoza, the intellectual, moral, professional, social, literary and physical superior to KKKlaun SchittenPantzen, impotent and harmless Nazi fake Jew, *wrote*:
No one is telling you you can't have *some* kind of gun, scooter. What we're telling you, and we're right, is that you can't have just whatever guns you want. Some guns, scooter, are off limits.
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense >>>>>>>>>> restrictions. The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the >>>>>>>>>> population
That's a lie.
That's a fact, Prof. Canoza.
It's a lie, Schittenpantzen.
https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05/17/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns-2/
Posting a liar's blog isn't proof of anything.
It terrifies you.
Not really....
Yeah, really. You're afraid that some unconvinced folks might click the link >> and read the scores and scores of calls for gun confiscation.
If you don't want a gun.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
guns, scooter, are off limits.
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
you can't have just whatever guns you want
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people tothrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently
is an important step to getting there.
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:vem99o$1prdu$1@dont-email.me:
If you don't want to murder,.then don't..
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:02:36 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
Mirrors the First Amendment. You have the right to free speech, but you don't
have the right to force me to listen to you.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:02:36 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
Mirrors the First Amendment. You have the right to free speech, but you don't
have the right to force me to listen to you.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:02:36 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
Mirrors the First Amendment. You have the right to free speech, but
you don't have the right to force me to listen to you.
You say an abortion is good at any time... even up to being partially
born..
So if I were to slug her in the belly, killing the baby... is that
murder or merely aggravated assault.
If you're going to impose the standard that it's not a person... then
that standard could be applied CONSISTENTLY throughout the law.
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message news:urmvgj9hsn4gqu29nts6mpe27pim9kvh9t@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:02:36 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
Mirrors the First Amendment. You have the right to free speech, but you
don't
have the right to force me to listen to you.
Ah, but that's the problem.. you are FORCING your decision on another.
On 10/16/2024 10:06 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message news:urmvgj9hsn4gqu29nts6mpe27pim9kvh9t@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:02:36 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
Mirrors the First Amendment. You have the right to free speech, but you >> don't
have the right to force me to listen to you.
Ah, but that's the problem.. you are FORCING your decision on another.
No, scooter. The inherent limits of the right to arms are being enforced on you.
As we know, you don't have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have. Some
guns may be prohibited, and that will entail no violation of your rights.
In article <IcaQO.268844$kxD8.48832@fx11.iad>, rudy@phil.hendrie.con
says...
On 10/16/2024 10:06 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:urmvgj9hsn4gqu29nts6mpe27pim9kvh9t@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:02:36 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
Mirrors the First Amendment. You have the right to free speech, but
you
don't
have the right to force me to listen to you.
Ah, but that's the problem.. you are FORCING your decision on another.
No, scooter. The inherent limits of the right to arms are being enforced
on you.
As we know, you don't have a right to just whatever guns you wish to
have.
Some
guns may be prohibited,
and that will entail no violation of your rights.
So?
Some guns may be prohibited,
So, Rudy pulls out some ridiculous example
Please get an education, .
On 10/17/2024 9:23 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester
and another fucking do-nothing, posted another content-free batch of
lies:
In article <IcaQO.268844$kxD8.48832@fx11.iad>, rudy@phil.hendrie.con
says...
On 10/16/2024 10:06 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:urmvgj9hsn4gqu29nts6mpe27pim9kvh9t@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:02:36 +0000, Mitchell Holman
<noemail@aol.com>
wrote:
"Scout" wrote
If you don't want an abortion.. then don't have one.
You don't get to tell me that I can't
Fixed that for you.
Mirrors the First Amendment. You have the right to free speech, but >>>> >> >> you
don't
have the right to force me to listen to you.
Ah, but that's the problem.. you are FORCING your decision on
another.
No, scooter. The inherent limits of the right to arms are being
enforced on you.
Please explain what you believe an "inherent limit" is.
Please get an education, scooter.
As we know, you don't have a right to just whatever guns you wish to
have.
We don't know that.
We do know it, scooter. Scalia expressly stated it in Heller.
Some
guns may be prohibited,
Maybe, maybe not
There is no "maybe" about it, scooter.
that depends if you can establish some sort of "inherent limit" you claim
to know about actually exists beyond your imagination.
Scalia addresses the inherent limits in Heller, scooter. Read it. Get some help, as I know you can't read it for comprehension on your own.
and that will entail no violation of your rights.
That remains to be seen,
No, scooter, it doesn't.
as you've yet to establish a case for such an "inherent limit".
Wrong, scooter. When Scalia wrote "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," scooter, he was writing about inherent
limits.
So, Rudy pulls out some ridiculous example, say a 16" Naval [sic] gun
No, scooter, there are no such ridiculous examples. Remember the wording
of the amendment, scooter. It addresses a right to *arms*. A 16" *naval*
(not "Naval", scooter) gun is an arm
Here is another category of scooterism
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 85:04:23 |
| Calls: | 8,091 |
| Files: | 13,069 |
| Messages: | 5,849,016 |