Nobody needs an AR-15, dammit!!!

[Scout]

On 6/10/2022 8:38 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his
scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 6/9/22 10:39 PM, Jane Playne wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:57:48 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2022 4:24 PM, BlueGirl, the does-as-she's-told sheep, bawled:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:20:28 -0400, Yak <***@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/22 4:13 PM, ***@post.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:03:14 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 14:46, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 12:06 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 10:08, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 7:54 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ktvu.com/news/pregnant-florida-woman-uses-ar-15-to-fend-off-burglars-attacking-her-family
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except this woman.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pregnant Florida woman uses AR-15 to fend off burglars attacking her
>>>>>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A 9mm pistol would have worked just as well or better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not your call.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Society's call. You don't have a right to an AR-15.
>>>>>>> Not according to the Constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Constitution says absolutely nothing about any right to an AR-15,
>>>>
>>>> The ar15 is a rifle. They had rifles back when they
>>> You do not have a right to just any arms you wish to have, BlueGirl. This is
>>> settled, bitch.
>> .
>>
>
> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes. And you don't have a right to just any arms you want, so if ones that are
not covered by the right are banned, no infringement of the right has occurred.

You clearly don't know what the right is, so you are unable to recognize an
infringement of it. You think the right is something that it is not. Hartung
and BlueGirl and Gak and not-jane and oozing scarlet red maxipad and all the
other gun-fondling right-wingnuts are in exactly the same position: they don't
know what the right is, so they are unable reliably to perceive any infringement
of it.

You don't have a right to just any arms you wish, and that includes an AR-15.
Right now you can get an AR-15, but in future you might not be able to get one,
and ones you already have will be confiscated, and there will be *no*
infringement of the right if that comes to pass. This is settled.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

On 6/10/2022 9:48 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his
scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 6/10/22 11:55 AM, Scout wrote:
>> On 6/10/2022 8:38 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>>
>>> On 6/9/22 10:39 PM, Jane Playne wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:57:48 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2022 4:24 PM, BlueGirl, the does-as-she's-told sheep, bawled:
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:20:28 -0400, Yak <***@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 4:13 PM, ***@post.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:03:14 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 14:46, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 12:06 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 10:08, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 7:54 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ktvu.com/news/pregnant-florida-woman-uses-ar-15-to-fend-off-burglars-attacking-her-family
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except this woman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pregnant Florida woman uses AR-15 to fend off burglars
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacking her
>>>>>>>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A 9mm pistol would have worked just as well or better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not your call.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Society's call. You don't have a right to an AR-15.
>>>>>>>>> Not according to the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Constitution says absolutely nothing about any right to an
>>>>>>>> AR-15,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ar15 is a rifle. They had rifles back when they
>>>>> You do not have a right to just any arms you wish to have, BlueGirl.
>>>>> This is
>>>>> settled, bitch.
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>
>> Yes.  And you don't have a right to just any arms you want, so if ones
>> that are not covered by the right are banned, no infringement of the
>> right has occurred.
>
> All "arms" are covered

No, *not* all arms are covered.

"[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]


What part of "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" are you
unable to comprehend? The right has *always* been understood by judges and
legal commentators and *the law* as not covering any and all arms. You don't
know what the right is. You think it's one thing, but you are wrong.

That is simply a fact: not all arms are covered by the right. Some are, some
aren't, and your opinion will not be consulted by those who make the decisions.

You do not have a right to just whatever arms you wish to have. This is settled.

[Just Wondering]

On 6/10/2022 11:00 AM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
>
> You do not have a right to just whatever arms you wish to have.
> This is settled.
>
Heller settled that, at a minimum, you have a right to the
kinds of firearms that are in common use. There is arguably
no single firearm more in common use today than the AR-15.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/10/2022 12:04 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <***@comcast.net>, sleazy
rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 6/10/2022 11:00 AM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
>>
>> You do not have a right to just whatever arms you wish to have.  This is settled.
>>
> Heller settled that, at a minimum, you have a right to the
> kinds of firearms that are in common use.

Not all of them, Francis, you pro-polygamy gun-fondling fuckwit.

[Just Wondering]

On 6/10/2022 9:55 AM, Scout wrote:
> On 6/10/2022 8:38 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>> On 6/9/22 10:39 PM, Jane Playne wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:57:48 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2022 4:24 PM, BlueGirl, the does-as-she's-told sheep, bawled:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:20:28 -0400, Yak <***@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/9/22 4:13 PM, ***@post.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:03:14 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 14:46, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 12:06 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 10:08, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 7:54 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ktvu.com/news/pregnant-florida-woman-uses-ar-15-to-fend-off-burglars-attacking-her-family
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except this woman.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pregnant Florida woman uses AR-15 to fend off burglars
>>>>>>>>>>>> attacking her
>>>>>>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A 9mm pistol would have worked just as well or better.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not your call.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Society's call. You don't have a right to an AR-15.
>>>>>>>> Not according to the Constitution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Constitution says absolutely nothing about any right to an
>>>>>>> AR-15,
>>>>>
>>>>> The ar15 is a rifle. They had rifles back when they
>>>> You do not have a right to just any arms you wish to have, BlueGirl.
>>>> This is
>>>> settled, bitch.
>>> .
>>>
>>
>> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> Yes.  And you don't have a right to just any arms you want, so if ones
> that are not covered by the right are banned, no infringement of the
> right has occurred.
>
> You clearly don't know what the right is, so you are unable to recognize
> an infringement of it.  You think the right is something that it is
> not.  Hartung and BlueGirl and Gak and not-jane and oozing scarlet red
> maxipad and all the other gun-fondling right-wingnuts are in exactly the
> same position:  they don't know what the right is, so they are unable
> reliably to perceive any infringement of it.
>
> You don't have a right to just any arms you wish, and that includes an
> AR-15. Right now you can get an AR-15, but in future you might not be
> able to get one, and ones you already have will be confiscated, and
> there will be *no* infringement of the right if that comes to pass.
> This is settled.

The Heller decision made clear that the RKBA at least extends to
firearms that are in common use. Semiautomatic rifles have been
in common use for over a century. AR-15s have been in common use
for over 50 years, and there are now 20 million or more of them.
In fact, they are arguably more in common use than is any other
rifle.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/10/2022 12:02 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <***@comcast.net>, sleazy
rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 6/10/2022 9:55 AM, Scout wrote:
>> On 6/10/2022 8:38 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode
>> his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
>>
>>> On 6/9/22 10:39 PM, Jane Playne wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 8:57:48 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2022 4:24 PM, BlueGirl, the does-as-she's-told sheep, bawled:
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 16:20:28 -0400, Yak <***@inbox.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 4:13 PM, ***@post.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 4:03:14 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 14:46, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 12:06 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/22 10:08, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2022 7:54 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ktvu.com/news/pregnant-florida-woman-uses-ar-15-to-fend-off-burglars-attacking-her-family
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except this woman.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pregnant Florida woman uses AR-15 to fend off burglars attacking her
>>>>>>>>>>>>> family
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A 9mm pistol would have worked just as well or better.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not your call.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Society's call. You don't have a right to an AR-15.
>>>>>>>>> Not according to the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Constitution says absolutely nothing about any right to an AR-15,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ar15 is a rifle. They had rifles back when they
>>>>> You do not have a right to just any arms you wish to have, BlueGirl. This is
>>>>> settled, bitch.
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>>
>> Yes.  And you don't have a right to just any arms you want, so if ones that
>> are not covered by the right are banned, no infringement of the right has
>> occurred.
>>
>> You clearly don't know what the right is, so you are unable to recognize an
>> infringement of it.  You think the right is something that it is not.  Hartung
>> and BlueGirl and Gak and not-jane and oozing scarlet red maxipad and all the
>> other gun-fondling right-wingnuts are in exactly the same position:  they
>> don't know what the right is, so they are unable reliably to perceive any
>> infringement of it.
>>
>> You don't have a right to just any arms you wish, and that includes an AR-15.
>> Right now you can get an AR-15, but in future you might not be able to get
>> one, and ones you already have will be confiscated, and there will be *no*
>> infringement of the right if that comes to pass. This is settled.
>
> The Heller decision made clear that the RKBA at least extends to
> firearms that are in common use.

Not all of them, Francis, you pro-polygamy gun-crazed fuckwit.

[Daily Delaware Biden]

In article <slq03r$d2f$***@news.dns-netz.com>
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>

State prosecutors called Richard Haines the "textbook definition
of a monster."

Almost four months ago, the 52-year-old man from Magnolia was
convicted of 77 felonies related to the continuous sexual abuse
of two girls as someone in a position of trust. On Wednesday,
Haines was given a maximum sentence of over 1,300 years in
prison.

Deputy Attorney General Erik Towne said that Haines shows a
"complete and utter lack of remorse" for his actions and has
continued to deny any wrongdoing since his arrest in December
2020. These claims made the girls he abused hesitant to come to
testify, Towne said, as well as to disclose the abuse in the
first place. And even now that the trial has ended, that fear of
not being believed has lingered.

It's not unfounded anxiety.

RELATED:How a former school board member used his 'position of
trust' to access and abuse kids

"It's hard for people to want to accept that (child sexual
abuse) happens because it's so horrible to believe," said
Abigail Rodgers, director of the Delaware Department of
Justice's Family Division.

About 25% of girls and 8% of boys in the U.S. experience child
sexual abuse, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. In 91% of these cases, the abuse is carried out by
someone that the child or their family trusts.

“The abuse these children suffered is unconscionable," Delaware
Attorney General Kathy Jennings said in a statement following
Haines' initial conviction. "They and their mother were betrayed
in the worst way by someone close to them and none of us can
begin to imagine the long road ahead of them as they try to
recover from the trauma they have suffered."

CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN DELAWAREThere's more child sexual abuse
material online than ever before. How it's affecting Delaware

The current guardian of one of the girls abused by Haines said
she's already seen the damaging effects of what was once almost
daily abuse.

"It has been a long, hard road," she wrote in her victim impact
statement.

While Judge Reneta L. Green-Streett acknowledged Wednesday that
"the justice system is not a particularly helpful tool for
healing trauma," she said she hopes Haines' sentencing will
provide some closure.

As part of her ruling, Green-Streett said Haines has to complete
sex disorder treatment in prison, as well as any other mental
health programs that the Department of Correction recommends.
Even if Haines meets the requirements to have his sentences
shortened to the mandatory minimum, he will still serve over 500
consecutive years behind bars.

Haines' attorney said his client plans to appeal his case. No
further court dates have been scheduled yet.

How to get help
National Suicide Hotline: [phone]; en español 800-273-8255

Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741 for crisis support

National Sexual Assault Hotline: [phone]

National Child Abuse Hotline: [phone]

Anyone who suspects child sexual or physical abuse or neglect is
asked to call the Division of Family Services hotline at 800-292-
9582.

Send story tips or ideas to Hannah Edelman at
***@delawareonline.com. For more reporting, follow them on
Twitter at @h_edelman.

This article originally appeared on Delaware News Journal:
Delaware child sex abuse case ends with over 1300 years of jail
time

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sexually-abused-2-girls-7-
085540060.html