Discussion:
"A conservative case for an assault weapons ban"
(too old to reply)
Fred C. Dobbs
2012-12-20 20:23:25 UTC
Permalink
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.

I'm amused by Burns's first paragraph:

Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.

Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.
Sarah Ehrett
2012-12-20 20:41:36 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:23:25 -0800, "Fred C. Dobbs"
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
I can't be bothered looking up Arizona's penal code but these life
sentences + years sentences have to do with possible parole issues and
getting out for good behavior nonsense.

Now, since you've yet to write a sentence that shows you have the ability
for rational thought, you're going into the chum bin.
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
2012-12-20 21:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Sarah Ehrett
Post by Sarah Ehrett
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:23:25 -0800, "Fred C. Dobbs"
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-
ban-20121220,0,6774314.story
Post by Sarah Ehrett
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
I can't be bothered ...
That's the problem with LIBs,
they *JUST* can't be bothered with ANYTHING!
and they TRUST their Emminent Leaders with EVERYTHING!

Which is a problem when such Leadership is NOT JUST Mistaken, but Evil.
iow.

Why does OBAMA (and LIBs in general)
think Suicide Bombers Just can't Help themselves,
while Suicide Shooters can? and therefore should be disarmed
so that they graduate up to becoming Suicide Bombers, Suicide Jumpers, etc?


LIBs. What PRICE their Vision?
Loading Image...
Fred C. Dobbs
2012-12-20 22:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sarah Ehrett
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:23:25 -0800, "Fred C. Dobbs"
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
I can't be bothered looking up Arizona's penal code but these life
sentences + years sentences have to do with possible parole issues and
getting out for good behavior nonsense.
You're an idiot as well as a mackerel-crotch whore. Loughner was
sentenced in federal court for federal crimes - Arizona's penal code has
zero relevance.
--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.
jon_banquer
2012-12-20 22:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sarah Ehrett
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:23:25 -0800, "Fred C. Dobbs"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-we...
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge.  It's a well written opinion piece.
      Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
      life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
      rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
      twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years!  I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
I can't be bothered looking up Arizona's penal code but these life
sentences + years sentences have to do with possible parole issues and
getting out for good behavior nonsense.
Now, since you've yet to write a sentence that shows you have the ability
for rational thought, you're going into the chum bin.
That's where he belongs. Problem is he uses multiple posting names.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 00:49:27 UTC
Permalink
"Fred C. Dobbs" <***@sierramadre.con> wrote in news:***@giganews.com:

There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 00:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.

I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Scout
2012-12-21 01:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you just
want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.

So where is your rational for prohibiting such an exercise of rights?
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 01:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Scout
2012-12-21 01:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's that
simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.

So you have to establish a valid and overriding reason that justifies the
need to restrict his rights and then only as much as is absolutely
necessary.

See DC v Heller for a discussion on that.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 01:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second
amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams
tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.

You know it does, too.
Scout
2012-12-21 02:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and
bear *any* arms he wishes.
Really?

Please cite for me the specific text in the 2nd that you claim imposes such
a limitation.
You're simply wrong.
We'll see, but I bet I'm right.
The second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an
Abrams tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological
weapons.
Are they arms?

They certainly fulfill the definition of arms other than possibly the
chemical and/or biological.

Certainly I agree it could probably do with an update, but that's a long way
from claiming such a prohibition currently exists.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 04:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes.
Really?
Yep - guaranteed.
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You're simply wrong.
We'll see, but I bet I'm right.
You're wrong.
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
The second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use
an Abrams tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological
weapons.
Are they arms?
Yep - not in any dispute. And you can't have them - and there is not a
violation of the second amendment in prohibiting them to you. You also
may not lawfully own fully automatic guns, and there is no second
amendment violation in prohibiting them to you. You may not lawfully
own RPGs or bazookas, nor functioning artillery pieces, nor landmines.
all of that is prohibited to you, and there is no second amendment
violation in prohibiting them to you.
Post by Gray Guest
They certainly fulfill the definition of arms other than possibly the
chemical and/or biological.
Certainly I agree it could probably do with an update, but that's a long
way from claiming such a prohibition currently exists.
The prohibition exists, and has been upheld by the courts.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 16:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes.
Really?
Yep - guaranteed.
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You're simply wrong.
We'll see, but I bet I'm right.
You're wrong.
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
The second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use
an Abrams tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological
weapons.
Are they arms?
Yep - not in any dispute. And you can't have them -
BULLSHIT. It's just a matter of money.
Scout
2012-12-21 20:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes.
Really?
Yep - guaranteed.
Ok, so what exactly is your guarantee worth?

If I find that you're wrong are you going to send me $10,000?

$1,000?

$100?

You claim it's guaranteed....what what is your guarantee?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You're simply wrong.
We'll see, but I bet I'm right.
You're wrong.
Well, I'm not seeing anything to show that I'm wrong, and your simply making
unsupported assertions isn't going to do it.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
The second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use
an Abrams tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological
weapons.
Are they arms?
Yep - not in any dispute.
Then why aren't they protected by the 2nd?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And you can't have them - and there is not a violation of the second
amendment in prohibiting them to you.
Well, actually you can have some of them, and I still don't see where the
2nd would allow a prohibition on someone keeping and bearing them.

Maybe you should try some facts instead of just making assertions?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You also may not lawfully own fully automatic guns,
Since I already do, I know damn well you've got your head up your ass and
the only thing talking is your ignorance.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
and there is no second amendment violation in prohibiting them to you.
Based on exactly what facts?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You may not lawfully own RPGs or bazookas,
Hmm. A friend of mine owns a bazooka, and it's perfectly legal. You can
also buy an RPG. So looks like you again have no idea of what you're talking
about.

Heck, I can even tell you were you could buy one of your own.

http://www.keepshooting.com/israeli-bazooka.html
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
nor functioning artillery pieces,
Odd, people own them.

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/2/19/privately-owned-artillery-in-action-230851
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
nor landmines.
Hate to tell you but they are being sold as well. Granted they have been
rendered inert but you can still buy and own them.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
all of that is prohibited to you,
Odd, I can buy any of those, and it would be perfectly legal.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
and there is no second amendment violation in prohibiting them to you.
So you keep asserting but apparently your knowledge is utterly lacking on
the subject.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
They certainly fulfill the definition of arms other than possibly the
chemical and/or biological.
Certainly I agree it could probably do with an update, but that's a long
way from claiming such a prohibition currently exists.
The prohibition exists, and has been upheld by the courts.
Cite.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 20:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to
hell
with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes.
Really?
Yep - guaranteed.
Ok, so what exactly is your guarantee worth?
A certain amount of time in federal prison if you own or attempt to
acquire certain proscribed arms.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You're simply wrong.
We'll see, but I bet I'm right.
You're wrong.
Well, I'm not seeing anything to show that I'm wrong,
That's because you're willfully stupid and pigheaded.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
The second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use
an Abrams tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological
weapons.
Are they arms?
Yep - not in any dispute.
Then why aren't they protected by the 2nd?
Because the second amendment was never intended to recognize a right to
own just *any* arms that you might wish to own.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And you can't have them - and there is not a violation of the second
amendment in prohibiting them to you.
Well, actually you can have some of them, and I still don't see where
the 2nd would allow a prohibition on someone keeping and bearing them.
That's because you're stupid, not trained in the law, and a
knuckle-dragging ideologue. Nonetheless, the controlling interpretation
of the second amendment *IS* that the government may, entirely
constitutionally, prohibit certain arms from private ownership. It
doesn't matter if you "see" it or not, doesn't matter if you like it or
not - it's the law.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You also may not lawfully own fully automatic guns,
Since I already do,
Not legally.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
and there is no second amendment violation in prohibiting them to you.
Based on exactly what facts?
Court decisions.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You may not lawfully own RPGs or bazookas,
Hmm. A friend of mine owns a bazooka, and it's perfectly legal.
No. Your friend does not own a bazooka *and* the functioning
projectiles - not legally.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 06:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and
bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second amendment
does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams tank or
tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.
Go buy a tactical nuke. As for tanks there's several tank collectors who own
lots of tanks. All you need is lots of money and a good lawyer to help you
get what you want.
Stormin Mormon
2012-12-21 15:19:17 UTC
Permalink
The 2nd prohibits the govt from infringing the God given right.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <***@f�rbes.com> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...

Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second
amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams
tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.

You know it does, too.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 01:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second
amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams
tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.

You know it doesn't, too.
David R. Birch
2012-12-21 03:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second
amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams
tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.
You know it doesn't, too.
I've reread the 2nd Amendment, and I just can't see the clause that
amounts to "what Carol Kinsey Goman doesn't approve of" after "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd
doesn't restrict what those arms can be.

The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee or grant any rights, it recognizes
that people have certain rights that preexist government and that our
government has been set up to defend those rights.
I haven't yet had a need for tac nukes or other WMDs, but an Abrams M1A1
would be cool.

Although it wouldn't fit in my tiny backyard. Maybe a Sherman or T34/76
would.

David
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 05:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second
amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams
tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.
You know it doesn't, too.
I've reread the 2nd Amendment, and I just can't see the clause that
amounts to "what Carol Kinsey Goman doesn't approve of" after "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd
doesn't restrict what those arms can be.
Nonetheless, regardless of any absence of restrictions in the amendment
itself, it does not confer a right to have just *any* arm you wish to
have. That isn't simply my opinion - that's a matter of fact and law.
Post by David R. Birch
The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee or grant any rights, it recognizes
that people have certain rights that preexist government and that our
government has been set up to defend those rights.
No, that's not right. The Bill of Rights absolutely is a statement of
political rights, not basic human rights. Natural rights are what
precede any form of government; the rights recognized in the Bill of
Rights, which Madison and others thought superfluous, are not natural
rights.
Post by David R. Birch
I haven't yet had a need for tac nukes or other WMDs, but an Abrams M1A1
would be cool.
Although it wouldn't fit in my tiny backyard. Maybe a Sherman or T34/76
would.
Well, as someone corrected me, it isn't the tank /per se/ that would be
outlawed - it is the ammunition. You may not lawfully own a tank with
functioning guns and the ammunition for those guns - and there is no
second amendment violation in prohibiting you from owning those, nor in
prosecuting you if you come to own them.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 17:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second
amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams
tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.
You know it doesn't, too.
I've reread the 2nd Amendment, and I just can't see the clause that
amounts to "what Carol Kinsey Goman doesn't approve of" after "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd
doesn't restrict what those arms can be.
Nonetheless, regardless of any absence of restrictions in the amendment
itself, it does not confer a right to have just *any* arm you wish to
have. That isn't simply my opinion - that's a matter of fact and law.
Post by David R. Birch
The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee or grant any rights, it recognizes
that people have certain rights that preexist government and that our
government has been set up to defend those rights.
No, that's not right. The Bill of Rights absolutely is a statement of
political rights, not basic human rights. Natural rights are what precede
any form of government; the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights, which
Madison and others thought superfluous, are not natural rights.
TYhe Bill of Rights and the Constitution sets the limit on what government
can and cannot do and protects inalienable individual rights which
pre-existed it.
Scout
2012-12-21 20:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep
and bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second
amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams
tank or tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.
You know it doesn't, too.
I've reread the 2nd Amendment, and I just can't see the clause that
amounts to "what Carol Kinsey Goman doesn't approve of" after "the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 2nd
doesn't restrict what those arms can be.
Nonetheless, regardless of any absence of restrictions in the amendment
itself, it does not confer a right to have just *any* arm you wish to
have.
So even though the 2nd doesn't have such a limitation....you assert that one
exists anyway?

Interesting.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
That isn't simply my opinion - that's a matter of fact and law.
So you assert, but oddly fail to support with anything.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee or grant any rights, it recognizes
that people have certain rights that preexist government and that our
government has been set up to defend those rights.
No, that's not right. The Bill of Rights absolutely is a statement of
political rights, not basic human rights. Natural rights are what precede
any form of government; the rights recognized in the Bill of Rights, which
Madison and others thought superfluous, are not natural rights.
Excuse me, but where did he say the rights were natural?

Oh, and given man has been a tool user for a long time, and used some of
those tools as weapons since before recorded history, it seems pretty solid
evidence that it's a natural right. No one can stop you from using a tool as
a weapon.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
I haven't yet had a need for tac nukes or other WMDs, but an Abrams M1A1
would be cool.
Although it wouldn't fit in my tiny backyard. Maybe a Sherman or T34/76
would.
Well, as someone corrected me, it isn't the tank /per se/ that would be
outlawed - it is the ammunition.
And you would still be wrong.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You may not lawfully own a tank with functioning guns and the ammunition
for those guns
Actually, that's not true either. There is a fellow who wants to bring his
T-48 tank to Knob Creek and live fire it, but the access bridge won't
support the weight.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
- and there is no second amendment violation in prohibiting you from
owning those, nor in prosecuting you if you come to own them.
Have another cracker.

Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 06:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and
bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second amendment
does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams tank or
tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.
You can make chemical weapons from items you can buy at many retail stores.
Mix Amonia and Cholrine you get a version of mustad gas. Every year several
people die from mixing those two together in housecleaning. accidents. Every
year people trying to clean their pool tile mix Muratic Acid and Chorline
and die from the resulting gas.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 05:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and
bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second amendment
does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams tank or
tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.
You can make chemical weapons from items you can buy at many retail stores.
You might, but if you're found in possession of them after having
combined the ingredients to create prohibited arms, you will be
prosecuted, and you will *NOT* be able to avail yourself of a second
amendment defense. You will be convicted, and your conviction will be
upheld. Go ahead - try it.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 17:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Actually he does. 2nd Amendment.
Nope - the second amendment does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and
bear *any* arms he wishes. You're simply wrong. The second amendment
does not guarantee anyone a right to keep and use an Abrams tank or
tactical nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons.
You can make chemical weapons from items you can buy at many retail stores.
You might, but if you're found in possession of them after having combined
the ingredients to create prohibited arms, you will be prosecuted,
NOPE. You don't combine them and carry them around, dipshit. You need to
keep them isolasred from each other. You can carry Chlorine and Muratic acid
around all you want. Yo can even mix them in a lab. Same with Chlorine and
Amonia. Ebvery year ignoramouses like you mix those items to make what they
think will be better cleaning products and die.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 01:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 02:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
No comparable in the least.

You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Scout
2012-12-21 02:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
No comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some are
off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 05:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.

You really are far too stupid to be trying to argue this.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to
hell
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.
That's not how what works? I have a copy of the Constitution right here.
Mine has no asterisks. Does yours?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You really are far too stupid to be trying to argue this.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 17:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.
Actually, it is. There are no restrictions in the Second Amendment. If you
have a lot of money like a man named Littlefield, you can bjuy tanks and
tracked vehicles. If you have a lot of money, you can on a Jeep with a
vehicle mounted .50 or M-60 machine gun, or a minigun. If you have a lot of
money and don't mind blowing up your purchases, you can buy hand grenades by
the case, rocket launchers with rockets, large artilery pieces, gattling
guns, cannon, armed helicopters, armed armored vehicles. The only stumbling
blocks are money and availibility.

MORONS like you keep trying to make idiotic clims about nukes. Saddam had
hundreds of milions of dollars. He could not buy one. Bin Laden had tons of
money at his disposal. He couldn't buy one. Iran can't buy one. North Korea
can't buy one. But fucktards like yorself act like they're sold in the toy
department at Wamart.

You're an ignoramous.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 16:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.
Actually, it is.
No.
Post by Oglethorpe
There are no restrictions in the Second Amendment.
There are. The Supreme Court has held that there are. Therefore, there
are.
Scout
2012-12-21 20:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any
restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.
Actually, it is.
No.
Post by Oglethorpe
There are no restrictions in the Second Amendment.
There are. The Supreme Court has held that there are. Therefore, there
are.
Hmm...

First Cite that they have said this.

Second, is it your contention that the Supreme Court of the United States
has the legal authority to unilaterally alter the Constitution?

Seems to me the Constitution states that it can only be changed as set forth
in Article V of that document, and I see nothing about SCOTUS being involved
in any of those processes.

Oh, let me guess you're going to tell me that's not how the Constitution
works because you think it doesn't mean anything.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 22:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any
restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.
Actually, it is.
No.
So why did D.C, lose its gun ban?
Scout
2012-12-21 20:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.
That isn't how what works?

The Amendment?

The text you claim is there?

Or asking you to back up your BULLSHIT?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You really are far too stupid to be trying to argue this.
And yet, you're the one getting their ass kicked.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 20:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to
hell
with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Show me that in the 2nd.
That's not how it works.
That isn't how what works?
The Amendment?
Right.
David R. Birch
2012-12-21 04:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?

Who has defined this limit? The feds will want to collect fees and
taxes, etc, but if you pay the man, you can have what you want.

David
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 05:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?
No, I can't give you an exhaustive list, but I imagine BATF and your
state government can provide you with them. The key thing to understand
is, there is no second amendment violation in the prohibition of certain
arms to you.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?
No, I can't give you an exhaustive list, but I imagine BATF and your
state government can provide you with them. The key thing to understand
is, there is no second amendment violation in the prohibition of certain
arms to you.
So you are arguing for something and you don't even know the current law?
So freaking typical.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 16:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?
No, I can't give you an exhaustive list, but I imagine BATF and your
state government can provide you with them. The key thing to understand
is, there is no second amendment violation in the prohibition of certain
arms to you.
So you are arguing for something and you don't even know the current law?
I know that the prevailing interpretation of the second amendment is
that it does not recognize an unlimited right to keep and bear just
*any* arms you might wish. An enforced law prohibiting you from owning
a working .50 caliber machine gun or a working 20mm cannon or tactical
nuclear weapons would not be an infringement of your right to keep and
bear arms - and you *know* it, too.
Scout
2012-12-21 19:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?
No, I can't give you an exhaustive list, but I imagine BATF and your
state government can provide you with them. The key thing to understand
is, there is no second amendment violation in the prohibition of certain
arms to you.
So you are arguing for something and you don't even know the current law?
I know that the prevailing interpretation of the second amendment is that
it does not recognize an unlimited right to keep and bear just *any* arms
you might wish.
Cite.

Oh, and FYI "prevailing interpretation" doesn't mean squat. The 2nd says
what it says and can't be altered by 'interpretation'.
An enforced law prohibiting you from owning a working .50 caliber machine
gun or a working 20mm cannon or tactical nuclear weapons would not be an
infringement of your right to keep and bear arms - and you *know* it, too.
Actually I don't know that because I can't seem to find the restriction on
arms you claim exists in the 2nd.

Further people own working .50 caliber machine guns and 20 mm cannon. I
suppose if someone wanted to pony up the money they could even possibly buy
a tactical nuclear weapon.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 22:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?
No, I can't give you an exhaustive list, but I imagine BATF and your
state government can provide you with them. The key thing to understand
is, there is no second amendment violation in the prohibition of certain
arms to you.
So you are arguing for something and you don't even know the current law?
I know that the prevailing interpretation of the second amendment is that
it does not recognize an unlimited right to keep and bear just *any* arms
you might wish. An enforced law prohibiting you from owning a working .50
caliber machine gun or a working 20mm cannon or tactical nuclear weapons
would not be an infringement of your right to keep and bear arms - and you
*know* it, too.
Actually, libtard, many Americans own .50 machine guns, 20MM cannon and even
80MM field artillery.







http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=858_1353568213

Got the idea what a lying , ignorant dipshit you are?
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 17:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?
No, I can't give you an exhaustive list, but I imagine BATF
The BATFE is a criminal organization responsible for the murder of over 100
American citizens and hunddreds of Mexican citizens.
Scout
2012-12-21 19:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?
No, I can't give you an exhaustive list, but I imagine BATF and your state
government can provide you with them. The key thing to understand is,
there is no second amendment violation in the prohibition of certain arms
to you.
How exactly have you determined that?

Few if any of the current restrictions have even been challenged in court,
and SCOTUS has ruled on none of them.

So what exactly is your basis for claim there is no 2nd Amendment violation.

Oh, and see waiting for your cite that the 2nd Amendment imposes
restrictions on the arms you can keep and bear.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 20:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
Could you point me to where I can find a list of those that are "off limit"?
No, I can't give you an exhaustive list, but I imagine BATF and your
state government can provide you with them. The key thing to
understand is, there is no second amendment violation in the
prohibition of certain arms to you.
How exactly have you determined that?
Because certain arms *are* prohibited to you, and those prohibitions
have been upheld.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
No comparable in the least.
Yes they are dullard. it's called property.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
According to you r delusional mind. Perhaps you would explain why. Becuase
some lame ass progressive said so?

Here's my answer first.


The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.

Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
force.

Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to
1) execute the laws of the union,
2) suppress insurrections and
3) repel invasions.;

The Attorney General of the United States ruled in 1912 that the militia
could not be compelled to serve outside the United States except in the
most narrow of cases (hot pursuit of, or a "spoiling attack" upon,
invaders). "These three occasions, representing necessities of a strictly
domestic character, plainly indicate that the services of the militia can
be rendered only on the soil of the United States and it's territories".
Feb 17, 1912. Source 55 Congressional Record 3851 52.

Now, envision a military force, either regulars or volunteers, which would
be constituted to perform such tasks. Can you imagine such a force needing
nukes for these tasks? Absolutely not. I can imagine no scenario where one
would use nuclear weapons on home soil. Therefore no, nukes are not militia
weapons and are not protected under the 2A.

OTOH the variety of weapons that could be used in the militia mission and
therefore covered by the 2A and prohibited from regulation would give any
liberal permanent diarrhea.

Helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, automatic weapons,
RPGs, etc all meet the criteria of the militia mission.

Have a nice day.

Oops!
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 16:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need
to
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
rights.
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
Yes they are dullard. it's called property.
No. The prohibition on your keeping and bearing certain arms not only
is not an infringement of your right to keep and bear arms, it also is
not an infringement of your property rights. Property rights are not
unlimited. You may not own and store dynamite in your house; the
prohibition of it is not an infringement of your property rights.
That's a fact.
Post by Scout
You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep. Some
are off limit.
According to you r delusional mind.
Nope - according to prevailing interpretation of the second amendment.
Post by Scout
The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen,
Nope - there is nothing in in at all about what is "expected of the
armed citizen." Contrary to the old bromide, rights do *not* impose
responsibilities.
Post by Scout
it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia
No, it does not. Now you're just bullshitting - *way* out of your depth.
Post by Scout
and by incorporation theindividual as opposed to a national armed force.
Ok, so what is the militia's role.
We'll snip the rest of the garbage; it's evident you're neither a
historian nor a lawyer nor a political philosopher.

Anyway, it is very clear: you may not own just *any* arms you wish.
There are limits. These limitations are not an infringement of your
right to keep and bear arms, because the political and legal expression
of that right was never intended to recognize an unlimited right.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 22:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need
to
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
rights.
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control, ducky?
Not comparable in the least.
Yes they are dullard. it's called property.
No. The prohibition on your keeping and bearing certain arms not only is
not an infringement of your right to keep and bear arms, it also is not an
infringement of your property rights. Property rights are not unlimited.
You may not own and store dynamite in your house; the prohibition of it is
not an infringement of your property rights. That's a fact.
NOPE. Dynamite doesn't go off by itself.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 02:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long as I
don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions about my
life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.

You're right I don't need an AR-15 to go hunting. I have different guns for
that.

You know the one thing in the world tan a mass murderer? it's the
parasitical vermin that crawl out from under thier rocks, smears the blood
of innocents on thier shirt and then pulls out the same old discredited
arguments that have been demolished for the last 30 years as if the actions
of an evil man can somehow be controlled by attacking me.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 02:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long as I
don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions about my
life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Scout
2012-12-21 02:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long as I
don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions about my
life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
And other than you stomping your feet, exactly what support do you have for
that?

The 2nd?

If so, then show me.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
And where is your support for that claim?

Oh, and it's a long long way from an AR-15 to a nuclear weapon. So even if
by some chance you are correct with your example, that means NOTHING when
you are considering the other.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 05:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long as I
don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions about my
life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
And other than you stomping your feet, exactly what support do you have
for that?
The courts.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear
weapons. It's that simple.
And where is your support for that claim?
The courts.
Post by Scout
Oh, and it's a long long way from an AR-15 to a nuclear weapon.
Irrelevant. The simple point is, you do *NOT* have an unconditional
second amendment right to just *any* weapon you might fancy. It's that
simple. Despite the second amendment guaranteeing you the right to keep
and bear arms, it does *NOT* guarantee you the right to keep and bear
*any* arms you might wish to have. That's simply a fact.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
And other than you stomping your feet, exactly what support do you have
for that?
The courts.
So the courts make law? Fascinating.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear
weapons. It's that simple.
And where is your support for that claim?
The courts.
Honey we;ve been through this a couple opf times. Nukes do not actually fit
the defintion of a miltia weapon because of the nature of the miltia's
mission.

So if you will stop talking about nukes we'll stop talking abiut the wart
on the end of your nose.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Irrelevant. The simple point is, you do *NOT* have an unconditional
second amendment right to just *any* weapon you might fancy. It's that
simple. Despite the second amendment guaranteeing you the right to keep
and bear arms, it does *NOT* guarantee you the right to keep and bear
*any* arms you might wish to have. That's simply a fact.
Perhaps not "any" but any that meets the militia's mission requirements.

Again:

The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.

Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
force.

Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to
1) execute the laws of the union,
2) suppress insurrections and
3) repel invasions.;

The Attorney General of the United States ruled in 1912 that the militia
could not be compelled to serve outside the United States except in the
most narrow of cases (hot pursuit of, or a "spoiling attack" upon,
invaders). "These three occasions, representing necessities of a strictly
domestic character, plainly indicate that the services of the militia can
be rendered only on the soil of the United States and it's territories".
Feb 17, 1912. Source 55 Congressional Record 3851 52.

Now, envision a military force, either regulars or volunteers, which would
be constituted to perform such tasks. Can you imagine such a force needing
nukes for these tasks? Absolutely not. I can imagine no scenario where one
would use nuclear weapons on home soil. Therefore no, nukes are not militia
weapons and are not protected under the 2A.

OTOH the variety of weapons that could be used in the militia mission and
therefore covered by the 2A and prohibited from regulation would give any
liberal permanent diarrhea.

Helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, automatic weapons,
RPGs, etc all meet the criteria of the militia mission.

Have a nice day.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 17:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long as I
don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions about my
life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
And other than you stomping your feet, exactly what support do you have
for that?
The courts.
Heller v. D.C. says you're a deliberamous dipshit.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear
weapons. It's that simple.
And where is your support for that claim?
The courts.
Here's a task for you, libtard, buyor build a nuclear wea'pon. Surely your
ignorsnt asshole self is more capable thsn Iran and richer than Saddam so
you'll have no problem at all buying or building a nuke.
Scout
2012-12-21 20:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long as I
don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions about my
life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
And other than you stomping your feet, exactly what support do you have
for that?
The courts.
Care to cite the courts you think support your claim and the specific
rulings?

Then point out to me in the Constitution where the Courts are allowed to
alter the Constitution.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear
weapons. It's that simple.
And where is your support for that claim?
The courts.
So you're simply going to repeat yet another unsupported assertion?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Oh, and it's a long long way from an AR-15 to a nuclear weapon.
Irrelevant.
It certainly is relevant because as I pointed out, even if we assume one can
be regulated, does NOT mean that the other can be.

It's like saying because we ban child pornography that means we can ban
Bibles.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
The simple point is, you do *NOT* have an unconditional second amendment
right to just *any* weapon you might fancy.
And you can present actual evidence to back this up?

Because I hate to tell you this, just because SCOTUS says it does mean
that's what the Constitution and it's Amendments actually say.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
It's that simple. Despite the second amendment guaranteeing you the
right to keep and bear arms, it does *NOT* guarantee you the right to keep
and bear *any* arms you might wish to have. That's simply a fact.
Then you can show me where that exception is in the 2nd Amendment.
David R. Birch
2012-12-21 04:16:49 UTC
Permalink
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have. You
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?

Maybe a US govt list of approved vs naughty weapons?

Or is this something that you have wished so hard to be true that you
now believe it?

David
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 05:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David R. Birch
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have. You
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment does
not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have. I
suggest you start with Miller.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have. You
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment does
not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have. I
suggest you start with Miller.
I'm sorry but MY research suggest the exact oppostite of what you are
arguing.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 16:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
You
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment does
not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have. I
suggest you start with Miller.
I'm sorry but MY research
You have done none. Cut the shit.
Scout
2012-12-21 19:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
You
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment does
not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have. I
suggest you start with Miller.
I'm sorry but MY research
You have done none. Cut the shit.
Oddly enough, I know he has, and he's not alone in having researched the
issue and challenging you on your asserts.

So rather than trying to get him to do what you claim to already have done.

Why don't you simply present us with the results of your research showing
that what you claim is true?

May I suggest that you start first by showing the limitation in the 2nd
Amendment on arms that one can keep and bear as you claimed exists.

Should be pretty easy since it's only one sentence.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 20:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
You
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment does
not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have. I
suggest you start with Miller.
I'm sorry but MY research
You have done none. Cut the shit.
Oddly enough, I know he has, and
No, he hasn't. Looking at the web sites of irrational proto-Nazi gun
freaks does not constitute research. Sorry.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 22:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
You
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment does
not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have. I
suggest you start with Miller.
I'm sorry but MY research
You have done none. Cut the shit.
Miller doesn't say what you "think".
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 17:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have. You
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it.
Yet you can not support a word of yor crap.
Scout
2012-12-21 19:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have. You
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment does
not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have. I suggest
you start with Miller.
Milller....Miller... I don't recall any Miller in the 2nd Amendment.

So where exactly did I find the restriction you claim exists in the 2nd
Amendment?

Oh, and before you rest to much on Miller....given all the military weapons
you claim can be banned without violating the 2nd....you might want to
actually read the case.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 20:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have. You
have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Can you identify the basis for this fantasy of yours?
It's not a fantasy, and you know it. You can do your own research to
determine the sound basis for concluding that the second amendment
does not confer a right to own just *any* arm you might wish to have.
I suggest you start with Miller.
Milller....Miller... I don't recall any Miller in the 2nd Amendment.
There isn't any mention of Miller in the second amendment itself, of
course. The Miller decision of the SCOTUS supplies an interpretation -
controlling - that the second amendment does not preclude the government
limiting what arms you may own. In other words, the second amendment
does not recognize a "right" to own *any* arm you might wish to own.

That's the law.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need
to produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long
as I don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions
about my life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
You keep saying that. But you have yet to explain why. Because you said so
doesn't count.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Oh dear God, again with the nukes. Ok stupid:

The 2A refers to the militia and the individual citizen. It provides a
context as to what is expected of the armed citizen, it establishes the
sphere of responsibility for the militia and by incorporation the
individual as opposed to a national armed force.

Ok, so what is the militia's role. Clearly it is not as an expeditionary
force.

Article 2 Section 8 says: "calling forth the militia to
1) execute the laws of the union,
2) suppress insurrections and
3) repel invasions.;

The Attorney General of the United States ruled in 1912 that the militia
could not be compelled to serve outside the United States except in the
most narrow of cases (hot pursuit of, or a "spoiling attack" upon,
invaders). "These three occasions, representing necessities of a strictly
domestic character, plainly indicate that the services of the militia can
be rendered only on the soil of the United States and it's territories".
Feb 17, 1912. Source 55 Congressional Record 3851 52.

Now, envision a military force, either regulars or volunteers, which would
be constituted to perform such tasks. Can you imagine such a force needing
nukes for these tasks? Absolutely not. I can imagine no scenario where one
would use nuclear weapons on home soil. Therefore no, nukes are not militia
weapons and are not protected under the 2A.

OTOH the variety of weapons that could be used in the militia mission and
therefore covered by the 2A and prohibited from regulation would give any
liberal permanent diarrhea.

Helicopter gunships, tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, automatic weapons,
RPGs, etc all meet the criteria of the militia mission.

Have a nice day.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 16:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need
to produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long
as I don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions
about my life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
You keep saying that.
It's a fact. You *know* it's a fact, too.
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Oh dear God, again with the nukes.
They are arms. When the expression "arms control treaty" is used, for
example, it covers nuclear weapons (along with chemical and biological
weapons.) You may not possess any of those, and there is no
infringement of your rights.
Post by Gray Guest
The 2A refers to the militia and
You and other irrational far-right proto-Nazi extremists insist in
forums like this that the second amendment recognizes an *unlimited*
right to keep and bear arms. It does not - and you actually *know* it
does not.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 22:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need
to produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
To the contrary I have the right to live my life as I see fit. So long
as I don't harm another. You, in wanting toi intrude in my decuions
about my life need a damn good reason. You don't have one.
You do not have a right to just *any* weapon you might wish to have.
You keep saying that.
It's a fact. You *know* it's a fact, too.
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You have no right at all, for example, to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
It's that simple.
Oh dear God, again with the nukes.
They are arms.
Go BUY ONE, dipshit.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 06:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's that
simple.
Wrong. And you're a simpleton. Basically all that stands in tghe way is the
BATF and moneyj. With enough money you can own a field artillery piece.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 05:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's that
simple.
Wrong.
No, I'm right - and you know it, too.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 17:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's that
simple.
Wrong.
No, I'm right - and you know it, too.
Your're wrong and I know it.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need
to produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Wrong. And you're a simpleton. Basically all that stands in tghe way is
the BATF and moneyj. With enough money you can own a field artillery
piece.
While in Kentucky, for awhile I belonged to a reenactment group.They were
part of a much larger organization.

However the group I was with owned amongst them selves 5 yes FIVE WWII M5A1
Stuart Light tanks. Fully functional M5A1 Stuart light tanks. The 37mm
cannon was functional. The shells they made for it fired solid shot. Not
because of fedeal law, but because of the rules of the reneactment groups.
They fired the cannons in competitions and solid shot was a lot more useful
the an an AP or HE round. They also had all the .30 mgs hull mount, coax
with the cannon and the side turret mount AA mg. That's right dear fully
functioning .30 caliber air cooled MACHINE GUNS. I know becasue I helped
roll the blanks including loading the linked belts.

R=They had the turret for an M8 HMC. It was amodified open turret that
mounted ashort 75 mm howitzer and that fit dorectly on the turret ring of
the M5A1 hull. Same deal solid shit projectiels for the competitions not
because of the law.

They also had White Scout cars, half tracks and an artillery tractor. They
were trying to get thier hands on a 155mm cannon to restore and pull with
the tractor, but tey weren't going to fire that, simply because it was so
to old to do so safely, except with really minimal charges. Again, not the
law, common sense.

Within easy driving distance is the Coors collection of armored vehicles.
Like one the top 5 private collections in the world. I remember the first
time I drove up during a demonstration. I nearly drove off the road when 3,
yes 3 Centurions motored past me.

He chooses to slug his barrels becuase he has so many of these vehicles and
since he has no plans to fire them it reduces his liability. Again not the
law, his choice.

http://www.vgca.org/events/vavehicle.asp

14th armored
Loading Image...

Will there be anything else?

Now go away you silly person, lest you vex me some more.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need
to produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
Wrong. And you're a simpleton. Basically all that stands in tghe way is
the BATF and moneyj. With enough money you can own a field artillery
piece.
Oops that last one may go to you. It was meant for the fool.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you need to
produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his rights.
He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants. It's
that simple.
While in Kentucky, for awhile I belonged to a reenactment group.They were
part of a much larger organization.

However the group I was with owned amongst them selves 5 yes FIVE WWII M5A1
Stuart Light tanks. Fully functional M5A1 Stuart light tanks. The 37mm
cannon was functional. The shells they made for it fired solid shot. Not
because of fedeal law, but because of the rules of the reneactment groups.
They fired the cannons in competitions and solid shot was a lot more useful
the an an AP or HE round. They also had all the .30 mgs hull mount, coax
with the cannon and the side turret mount AA mg. That's right dear fully
functioning .30 caliber air cooled MACHINE GUNS. I know becasue I helped
roll the blanks including loading the linked belts.

R=They had the turret for an M8 HMC. It was amodified open turret that
mounted ashort 75 mm howitzer and that fit dorectly on the turret ring of
the M5A1 hull. Same deal solid shit projectiels for the competitions not
because of the law.

They also had White Scout cars, half tracks and an artillery tractor. They
were trying to get thier hands on a 155mm cannon to restore and pull with
the tractor, but tey weren't going to fire that, simply because it was so
to old to do so safely, except with really minimal charges. Again, not the
law, common sense.

Within easy driving distance is the Coors collection of armored vehicles.
Like one the top 5 private collections in the world. I remember the first
time I drove up during a demonstration. I nearly drove off the road when 3,
yes 3 Centurions motored past me.

He chooses to slug his barrels becuase he has so many of these vehicles and
since he has no plans to fire them it reduces his liability. Again not the
law, his choice.

http://www.vgca.org/events/vavehicle.asp

14th armored
http://cpatterburyww2ne.webs.com/photos/Attending-Units/14%20th%20AD.JPG

Will there be anything else?

Now go away you silly person, lest you vex me some more.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 01:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any
restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time. Your heros have been
documented as liars and hypocrites. There is no rational discussion with
the likes of you.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 02:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you might
wish to have is sound, and correct.

You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Scout
2012-12-21 02:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept of
rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you might wish
to have is sound, and correct.
Fine... So let's see you show us the text in the 2nd that supports your
claim.
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Well actually a number of people own tanks, and most keep them at their
homes. I've even heard that Tom Clancy owns an Abrams but I don't know if
that's true or not.

Oh, and stomping your feet because people don't agree with you isn't a good
debate tactic.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 05:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you
might wish to have is sound, and correct.
Fine... So let's see you show us the text in the 2nd that supports your
claim.
You really are monumentally stupid. That's not how any amendment works.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Well actually a number of people own tanks, and most keep them at their
homes.
I should have been a little more specific; my mistake. You may not keep
an Abrams tank with live shells for its 120mm main gun or its .50 or
7.62mm machine guns. No second amendment violation results from
prohibiting those to you. You also may not have an operable cruise
missiles with warheads, nor anti-aircraft guns with live ammunition for
them. As always, no second amendment violation results from such a
prohibition.

There are all kinds of arms that you are forbidden to own lawfully, and
there is no second amendment violation involved. That's just how it is.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
I should have been a little more specific; my mistake. You may not keep
an Abrams tank with live shells for its 120mm main gun or its .50 or
7.62mm machine guns. No second amendment violation results from
prohibiting those to you. You also may not have an operable cruise
missiles with warheads, nor anti-aircraft guns with live ammunition for
them. As always, no second amendment violation results from such a
prohibition.
You should have been more accurate. Yes you can. Live shells are covered as
destructive devices and subject to a tax for every shell. Well live shells
with explosive payloads are. If you are shooting blanks or using turned
metal slugs there is no tax.

And the .50 cal or 7.62 shells? Then explain to me how it is I have a belt
of (live) .50 in my ammo room. I only display of course. And 7.62? I have
an ammo can in there there say not only are you stupid, yer ugly, too.

Me thinks you would do better if you turned off the vibrator and RESEARCHED
what the FUCK you were talking about.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 16:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you
might wish to have is sound, and correct.
Fine... So let's see you show us the text in the 2nd that supports your
claim.
You really are monumentally stupid. That's not how any amendment works.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Well actually a number of people own tanks, and most keep them at their
homes.
I should have been a little more specific; my mistake. You may not keep
an Abrams tank with live shells for its 120mm main gun or its .50 or
7.62mm machine guns. No second amendment violation results from
prohibiting those to you. You also may not have an operable cruise
missiles with warheads, nor anti-aircraft guns with live ammunition for
them. As always, no second amendment violation results from such a
prohibition.
There are all kinds of arms that you are forbidden to own lawfully, and
there is no second amendment violation involved. That's just how it is.
You can buy a tank. You can buty M-60 and .50 machine guns. You can buy
artillery pieces. Well, sane people can - not insane people like you.

Sane people realize it'd be hard to come up with hundreds of millions of
dolars to buy crap they'll never use. Insane people like you believe they're
blue light specils at Kmart and they give away .50 BMGs at the checkout
counter as customer premiums.
Michael A. Terrell
2012-12-21 15:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
You can buy a tank. You can buty M-60 and .50 machine guns. You can buy
artillery pieces. Well, sane people can - not insane people like you.
Sane people realize it'd be hard to come up with hundreds of millions of
dolars to buy crap they'll never use. Insane people like you believe they're
blue light specils at Kmart and they give away .50 BMGs at the checkout
counter as customer premiums.
They do, but only at the 'Zero Liberals or less' register. ;-)
Scout
2012-12-21 20:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you
might wish to have is sound, and correct.
Fine... So let's see you show us the text in the 2nd that supports your
claim.
You really are monumentally stupid. That's not how any amendment works.
Hmmm... You make a claim about what's in the 2nd Amendment, I ask you to
show that text to me, instead you claim that's not how Amendments work, and
call me monumentally stupid?

Interesting.

So tell me, how do Amendment work then?

What do all those words in the Amendment do, if they aren't there to tell us
what the Amendment does?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Well actually a number of people own tanks, and most keep them at their
homes.
I should have been a little more specific; my mistake.
I think not only do you need to be more specific, but that you need to find
out what you're talking about.

Preparing for a massive backpedal
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You may not keep an Abrams tank with live shells for its 120mm main gun or
its .50 or 7.62mm machine guns.
Wow, from tanks to shells. With a backpedal like that I'm surprised you
don't have whiplash.

Well, actually shells for both the .50 and 7.62 machines guns are readily
available.

Would you like some sources so you can buy your own legal live rounds?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
No second amendment violation results from prohibiting those to you.
And yet support for that assertion is utterly lacking.

Tell me, do you believe that if you say it enough times that it will become
true?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You also may not have an operable cruise missiles with warheads,
Actually you can, but the warhead would have to be very small.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
nor anti-aircraft guns with live ammunition for them.
Actually, you're wrong yet again.



Some people will even take that sort of gun out in the desert and shot at
R/C planes with it.

http://www.break.com/index/rc-planes-versus-machine-gun-mob.html
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
As always, no second amendment violation results from such a prohibition.
Does Polly want a cracker?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
There are all kinds of arms that you are forbidden to own lawfully, and
there is no second amendment violation involved. That's just how it is.
And yet, most of what you claim are forbidden to lawfully own.... are
actually legal to own.

Plus you've presented absolutely NO support for your claim that these
restrictions don't violate the 2nd Amendment, much less that such a
restriction exists within the 2nd Amendment itself.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 20:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you
might wish to have is sound, and correct.
Fine... So let's see you show us the text in the 2nd that supports your
claim.
You really are monumentally stupid. That's not how any amendment works.
Hmmm... You make a claim about what's in the 2nd Amendment,
No, I didn't. The words that are in the second amendment are quite well
known. It's the *meaning* that is in dispute. You claim it means you
may own just *any* arms you wish to own. In fact, it does not mean
that, it *never* meant that, it *never* was intended by its authors to
mean that.

The second amendment did not and does not recognize an unlimited right
for you to own just *any* arms you might wish to own. You know that,
too, because you *know* that you may *NOT* own just *any* arms you wish
to own.

Here's a question for you, designed to fuck you up and make you fall on
your face. There are laws, both state and federal, that prohibit *all*
lawful gun ownership to convicted felons; similar laws do the same for
people adjudged mentally ill. These laws are not in violation of the
second amendment, yet there is no language in the amendment making
exceptions for felons of crazies. How are these laws not in violation
of the amendment? They are *not* in violation - that is perfectly
clear. So - how are they not? Heh heh heh...
David R. Birch
2012-12-21 04:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you might
wish to have is sound, and correct.
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Not quite the end, as I personally know of a number of tanks in private
hands, including one Abrams, although it's the older M1, not the newer M1A1.

Where did you get the idea that private citizens can't own tanks?

David
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 06:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept of
rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you might wish
to have is sound, and correct.
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
YOU can have a tank though. If you have enough money.
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you might
wish to have is sound, and correct.
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Really? What is to prevent me other than cost?

Be specific.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 16:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you might
wish to have is sound, and correct.
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Really? What is to prevent me other than cost?
See my clarification. It isn't the tank alone - you may not have a tank
along with the ammunition for its cannon and machine guns.

That's a fact, and you know it.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 22:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell
with the libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
No docuhebag. I've been arguing this for years. ALL of the antigun
arguments have been demolished time after time.
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you might
wish to have is sound, and correct.
You may not keep an Abrams tank at your house for defense. End Of Story.
Really? What is to prevent me other than cost?
See my clarification. It isn't the tank alone - you may not have a tank
along with the ammunition for its cannon and machine guns.
That's a fact, and you know it.
That's a lie and I know it.

Most powerfl machine gun you can
legally

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d1f_1256538463&comments=1&safe_mode=on
Everything you see is legally owned.

Same hee. Legally owned by
Americans.



Got the idea yeat, dipshit?
Gray Guest
2012-12-21 06:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Not so. The argument that the second amendment - or any other concept
of rights - does *NOT* guarantee you the right to *ANY* weapon you might
wish to have is sound, and correct.
And based on fantasy.
--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama
Alim Nassor
2012-12-21 15:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
2nd amendment isn't about self defense. When you get a clue, come
back and i'll tell you what it is about.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-21 16:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alim Nassor
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
2nd amendment isn't about self defense.
Heller says it is.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-21 22:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Alim Nassor
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Gray Guest
There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go to hell with the
libs.
So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for having
certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self defense; you
just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any restrictions.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment guarantees you.
2nd amendment isn't about self defense.
Heller says it is.
Heller says D.C. can't ban guns.
Neolibertarian
2012-12-21 01:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban
-20121220,0,6774314.story
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
Define "assault weapon" so that it actually makes sense.
--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Scout
2012-12-21 02:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neolibertarian
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban
-20121220,0,6774314.story
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
Define "assault weapon" so that it actually makes sense.
He will know it when he sees it?
Neolibertarian
2012-12-21 13:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Neolibertarian
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-
ban
-20121220,0,6774314.story
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
Define "assault weapon" so that it actually makes sense.
He will know it when he sees it?
By George, I think he's got it!
--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
David R. Birch
2012-12-21 04:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neolibertarian
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban
-20121220,0,6774314.story
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
Define "assault weapon" so that it actually makes sense.
OK, hand grenades might qualify, since they have no real defensive use.

Also car bombs, WMDs, IEDs, anything that has no specific target.

I have no assault weapons, although I have several personal defense
weapons. Some with large, but standard (for that arm), capacity.

David
Neolibertarian
2012-12-21 12:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David R. Birch
Post by Neolibertarian
Post by Fred C. Dobbs
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-
ban
-20121220,0,6774314.story
The author is the federal judge, Larry Alan Burns (appointed by George
W. Bush) who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner for the attack in Tucson that
wounded Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people, including another
federal district court judge. It's a well written opinion piece.
Last month, I sentenced Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive
life terms plus 140 years in federal prison for his shooting
rampage in Tucson. That tragedy left six people dead, more than
twice that number injured and a community shaken to its core.
Seven consecutive life terms *plus* another 140 years! I guess if it
had only been an additional 135 years, that would have made Burns a
handwringing bleeding heart liberal with a misplaced sense of leniency,
and he wouldn't have been able to write "A conservative case for an
assault weapons ban."
Define "assault weapon" so that it actually makes sense.
OK, hand grenades might qualify, since they have no real defensive use.
Well, there already is a complete ban on hand grenades, dynamite,
explosive devices larger than M-80s, etc.

However, you seem to be mistaken: I can think of several ways of using
them defensively.
Post by David R. Birch
Also car bombs, WMDs, IEDs, anything that has no specific target.
Already banned, and possession is a Class III to Class X felony.
Post by David R. Birch
I have no assault weapons, although I have several personal defense
weapons. Some with large, but standard (for that arm), capacity.
You're referring to the magazines?
--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Loading...