Discussion:
"[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
(too old to reply)
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-22 21:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
Heller decision:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]


You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and
crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-22 21:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Some limitation [..]
Another gun grabber straw man.

No right is "unlimited."
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-22 22:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot of
money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited. For
example, they believe that a limitation on clip/magazine capacity would
be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it would not be.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-22 22:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man. Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.

Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.

[chuckle]
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't. You're lying.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-22 22:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man. Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
knock >
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
[chuckle]
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't. You're lying.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 01:07:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-23 11:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.

[chuckle]

How many of them have stated that felons in jail should have access to
firearms?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you, so you don't continue to make
yourself look stupid.

If that's possible.

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is
a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on
misrepresentation of an opponent's position

How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. UK: Continuum
International Publishing Group. pp. 155-157.

You people have been screeching about "There's no unlimited right" for
years now. It's not working.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL

Anyone can look stuff up on the internet.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.

Waiting for those message ID's.....
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 17:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited. He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them. The P229 and the Remington I bought in late 2008, because I
was afraid that gun-grabber Obama was going to make it too hard to get
one. The 1934 was brought back from Italy by my father in 1945. He
also brought a nifty little Steyr .25 that my sister kept.

You're a twat. I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-23 19:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep- straw man all the way. Textbook.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim, but you've refused to post any cite showing where he
thinks felons in jail should have "assault weapons."

So that makes you a liar until you do.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did. Then see above.

I'm still waiting.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves that YOU don't now what it is.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do. And I discovered a cure for cancer while orbiting
Pluto in my Time Machine.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You're a twat. I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not.
Which is why you took the time to get on the internet and look up some
model numbers and post them.

[chuckle]
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them. But of course, since you choose not to post any
message ID's where they claim jailed felons have the right to own
guns, we'll just assume you're lying.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 19:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep-
Nope. You know it isn't, too. Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim,
So he has shown.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did.
I already did.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves
It proves you don't know your pimply face from your flabby doughy ass.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-23 20:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep-
Nope. You know it isn't, too.
Yep, and you know it is. That's why you have CONTINUOUSLY REFUSED to
provide the message ID's.

You're scared.

You've been exposed.

It's getting close to the part where you run away......
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Provide the message ID's
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim,
So he has shown.
So you claim. Yet you're unable to prove it.

Or unwilling. Which is it?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did.
I already did.
I mean in THIS lifetime.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves that YOU don't now what it is.
It proves you [..]
like rubbing your nose in the fact that you don't have any idea, even
after I gave you the definition.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do. And I discovered a cure for cancer while orbiting
Pluto in my Time Machine.
Yep.
Good. Then we agree you're just a posturing, lying sack of shit when
you claim you own guns. Moving on..............
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
So now you know what I think. You people always perceived yourselves
as mind readers and fortune tellers.

Come up with those message ID's yet?

[tick]

[tock]


[tick]

[tock]


[tick]

[tock]

[chuckle]
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 20:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep-
Nope. You know it isn't, too.
Yep, and
Nope. You know it isn't, too.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Provide the message ID's
No need. You've seen the posts yourself. You've even responded to some
of them.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim,
So he has shown.
So you claim.
So he has shown.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did.
I already did.
I mean in THIS lifetime.
I already did. You replied to the post, too.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves that YOU don't now what it is.
It proves you don't know your pimply face from your flabby doughy ass.
like rubbing
No one asked for any details of your homosexual activity. Keep that to
yourself.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
Good.
Yes - good.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
So now you know what I think.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I also know what you know. You know
who gray gutless and scooter are. Cut the bullshit, brucie.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-23 20:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep-
Nope. You know it isn't, too.
Yep, and
Nope. You know
That you're lying.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Provide the message ID's
No need. You've seen the posts yourself.
ROFLMAO

Didn't think you would. My prediction that you're a lying sack of shit
has just been proven true.

No surprise there.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim,
So he has shown.
So you claim.
So he has shown.
So you claim, but cannot prove. But we both know you can't.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did.
I already did.
I mean in THIS lifetime.
I already did. You replied to the post, too.
Then provide the message ID.

We both know you won't.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves that YOU don't now what it is.
It proves you don't know your pimply face from your flabby doughy ass.
like rubbing your face in it
No one asked
Every knows you don't know what a straw man is. But you're good at
using them.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
Good. Then we agree you're just a posturing, lying sack of shit when
you claim you own guns. Moving on..............
Yes - good.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
So now you know what I think.
Yes, as a matter of fact [..]
You have no facts.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 20:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep-
Nope. You know it isn't, too.
Yep, and
Nope. You know it isn't, too.
That
You know it isn't a straw man.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Provide the message ID's
No need. You've seen the posts yourself.
ROFLMAO
If you wish. Nonetheless, you've seen the posts. You've even replied
to some of them. Your shrill, bitchy girly demand for "Cites!" is just
an attempt to waste time, and to try to avoid acknowledging that you
know it isn't a straw man, even though you *do* know it, and we know you
know it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim,
So he has shown.
So you claim.
So he has shown.
So you claim, but cannot prove.
I don't need to "prove" anything - he has admitted that he believes the
right is unlimited, and you've seen it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did.
I already did.
I mean in THIS lifetime.
I already did. You replied to the post, too.
Then provide the message ID.
Fuck off. You've already seen the message. Look up the ID yourself if
you wish.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves that YOU don't now what it is.
It proves you don't know your pimply face from your flabby doughy ass.
like rubbing your face in it
No one asked for any details of your homosexual activity. Keep that to yourself.
Every knows
"Every knows"? LOL. Everyone knows you're a queer, but that doesn't
matter.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
Good.
Yes - good.
LOL!
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
So now you know what I think.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I also know what you know. You know who
gray gutless and scooter are. Cut the bullshit, brucie.
You have
I have won.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-23 20:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
You know
You're lying when you claim
Post by Scout
it isn't a straw man.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Provide the message ID's
No need. You've seen the posts yourself.
ROFLMAO
If you wish. Nonetheless, you've seen the posts.
Show me the message ID's of the posts where these people claim even
jailed convicts have the right to keep and near arms in prison.

STILL waiting...........................................
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
So you claim, but cannot prove.
I don't need to "prove" anything
Good thing, too- since you can't.
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Then provide the message ID.
Fuck off.
ROFLMAO

Thanks for proving you're out of your depth
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
Good.
Yes - good.
LOL!
LOL? Were you playing with your imaginary guns?
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
So now you know what I think.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I also know what you know. You know who
gray gutless and scooter are. Cut the bullshit, brucie.
You have lost
I have [..]
Lost.

But then, we knew the outcome from the very beginning. All you had to
cling to was your man of straw.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 21:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You know it isn't a straw man.
[emptiness]
You know it isn't a straw man.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Provide the message ID's
No need. You've seen the posts yourself.
ROFLMAO
If you wish. Nonetheless, you've seen the posts.
Show me the message ID's
You've seen the posts.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
So you claim, but cannot prove.
I don't need to "prove" anything - he has admitted that he believes the right is unlimited, and you've seen it.
Good thing
I suppose so.

You've seen the posts.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Then provide the message ID.
Fuck off.
ROFLMAO
Ha ha ha ha ha! You lose.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
Good.
Yes - good.
LOL!
LOL?
LOL!!!
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
So now you know what I think.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I also know what you know. You know who
gray gutless and scooter are. Cut the bullshit, brucie.
You have
I have won.
Won.
Yes.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-24 01:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You know it isn't a straw man.
[emptiness]
You know [..]
That it's a straw man. You've been outed.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Provide the message ID's
No need. You've seen the posts yourself.
ROFLMAO
If you wish. Nonetheless, you've seen the posts.
Show me the message ID's
You've seen the posts.
Thanks for admitting no such posts exist.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
So you claim, but cannot prove.
I don't need to "prove" anything - he has admitted that he believes the right is unlimited, and you've seen it.
Good thing
I suppose so.
You've seen the posts.
The second time you've lied.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Then provide the message ID.
Fuck off.
ROFLMAO
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Still looking for the message eh?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
Good.
Yes - good.
LOL!
LOL?
LOL!!!
Still dreaming about your imaginary guns?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
So now you know what I think.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I also know what you know. You know who
gray gutless and scooter are. Cut the bullshit, brucie.
You have
I have won.
Won.
Y[..]
ou know that you can't find those posts. Better luck next time.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:56:18 UTC
Permalink
[empty wheeze]
No straw man. You know it, too, bitch.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 21:31:28 UTC
Permalink
[snip the eunuch's evasive whimpering]
Here:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]


Clearly the second amendment permits limits on the type and capacity of
arms you might be permitted to keep and bear.

Clearly.
Scout
2012-12-24 00:47:03 UTC
Permalink
[snip the eunuch's evasive whimpering]
Translation: Pull my skirts over my head and try to hide from facts I can't
refute and claims I can't support.

<snip Carol's mindless mantra>
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
[snip the eunuch's evasive whimpering]
Translation
No translation needed. The eunuch only engaged in evasive whimpering.

The simple fact is, "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited", which *necessarily* means that the limitation is *within*
the amendment, even if it is not *in* the text.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-24 01:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
[snip the eunuch's evasive whimpering]
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
...Carols' posting history, that she cannot come up with the message
ID's of any message posted in tpg which state that the poster thinks
felons in prison should have guns.

You lose again.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
[snip the eunuch's evasive whimpering]
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
[empty wheeze snipped]
You lose again. There is no right to keep and bear just *any* arms
whatsoever - there are limits to what is protected under the amendment.
That's a fact.
Scout
2012-12-24 00:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep-
Nope. You know it isn't, too. Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis have
said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Then post the cites. Quotes and message IDs will do quite nicely.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim,
So he has shown.
Cite?

Let me guess, you don't do cites for your claims.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did.
I already did.
Hmmm.. the only cite I've seen from you shows me says something drastically
different than what you are asserting I said.

Tell me, how are your reading comprehension scores?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves
It proves you don't know your pimply face from your flabby doughy ass.
Then prove it.

Oh, that's right, you don't do proof either.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
If I had a dollar for every anti-gun nut that claimed to own guns, but
didn't, I would have a nice American 180 right now.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
The cite messages from people with these handles.

Oh, you can't do that, can you?
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep-
Nope. You know it isn't, too. Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis
have said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Then post the cites.
Quit wasting time.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim,
So he has shown.
Cite?
Every time you say there is no limitation in the text.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did.
I already did.
Hmmm.. the only cite I've seen from you shows me says something
drastically different
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves
It proves you don't know your pimply face from your flabby doughy ass.
Then prove it.
*SHE* proves it, every time she posts.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do.
Yep.
If I had a dollar for every anti-gun nut that claimed to own guns,
I'm not an anti-gun nut.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them.
Yes, you have.
The cite messages from people with these handles.
He knows that you're scooter, and that the slimy prickcheese comically
making threats under the nym "Gray Ghost" is actually Gray Gutless. He
already knows it.
Scout
2012-12-24 03:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep-
Nope. You know it isn't, too. Your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis
have said exactly what I claimed they have. No straw man.
Then post the cites.
Quit wasting time.
So you're saying you won't post cites to back up your claims and asking you
to do so is a waste of time?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim,
So he has shown.
Cite?
Every time you say there is no limitation in the text.
Which doesn't mean the right is unlimited.
Scout
2012-12-24 00:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep- straw man all the way. Textbook.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim, but you've refused to post any cite showing where he
thinks felons in jail should have "assault weapons."
So that makes you a liar until you do.
Heck, I've called her on that one since the first day she made that
assertion. How hard could it be to check my posts? I mean how many are there
in this thread? A few dozen?
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did. Then see above.
I'm still waiting.
As am I.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves that YOU don't now what it is.
Hell, she can quote the 2nd Amendment, but she can identify the text that
imposes the limitation she claims is within the 2nd.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do. And I discovered a cure for cancer while orbiting
Pluto in my Time Machine.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You're a twat. I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not.
Which is why you took the time to get on the internet and look up some
model numbers and post them.
[chuckle]
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them. But of course, since you choose not to post any
message ID's where they claim jailed felons have the right to own
guns, we'll just assume you're lying.
I don' think you need to assume, I think you can pretty much go ahead. But I
suppose you're trying to be kind. Though based on her attitude, I doubt she
would understand it.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep- straw man
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this
newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim, but you've refused to post any cite showing where she
thinks felons in jail should have "assault weapons."
I never claimed she did say that.
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
So that makes you a liar until you do.
Heck, I've called her on that one
No, you haven't.
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
He's a
greasy little prick, and now he's trying to claim he never "wrote" that
it's unlimited (even though he did), but clearly he believes it is.
Provide a cite where he did. Then see above.
I'm still waiting.
As am I.
You say it every time you say there is no limitation contained in the
text.
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Maybe you're too stupid to know what a straw man is.
I know exactly what it is, and did so before you even entered junior
high school. In fact, you wrote one above.
I guess I better define it for you,
Being able to look up and post a book definition of it doesn't mean you
know what it is, nor can you recognize one. That's why
But it sure proves that YOU don't now what it is.
Hell, she can quote the 2nd Amendment, but she can identify the text
that imposes the limitation she claims is within the 2nd.
No one ever said the limitation is contained in the text...and *yet*,
the limitation is contained *within* the amendment. Mr. Scalia,
Blackstone and the founders all saw it.
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns
Of COURSE you do.
Yep. SigSauer P229 .40, a Beretta 1934 .380, and a Remington 870 Express.
LOL
I own them.
Of COURSE you do. And I discovered a cure for cancer while orbiting
Pluto in my Time Machine.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
You're a twat. I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not.
Which is why you took the time to get on the internet and look up some
model numbers and post them.
[chuckle]
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do. Gray Gutless and Scooter do.
Whoever they are.
Pals of yours - fellow lying greasy fuckwits.
Never heard of them. But of course, since you choose not to post any
message ID's where they claim jailed felons have the right to own
guns, we'll just assume you're lying.
I don' think you need to assume
You're scooter.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-24 02:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
So you claim, but you've refused to post any cite showing where she
thinks felons in jail should have "assault weapons."
I never claimed she did say that.
Then there has been no claim for unlimited rights.

Thanks for playing!

"Johnny! What do we have for our loser?"

"We have the all new Beretta Px4i Storm Special Duty in .45ACP!

"The "i" stands for "imaginary!" It's fun to pretend to own, pretend
to shoot, and pretend to clean and put in your pretend gun safe!"
Scout
2012-12-24 02:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
No, it's not a straw man.
Yeah, it's a straw man.
Nope - not a straw man in the least.
Yep- straw man
No.
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Make up the claim "Gun owners want UNLIMITED
RIGHTS!" and then skillfully know it down.
But I never made such a claim. What I said, and it is amply supported
by the posts of your fellow gun-crazed proto-Nazis in this newsgroup, is
that they *believe* the rights are unlimited.
Of COURSE it is.
Nope. Scooter, for example, believes the right is unlimited.
So you claim, but you've refused to post any cite showing where she
thinks felons in jail should have "assault weapons."
I never claimed she did say that.
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
So that makes you a liar until you do.
Heck, I've called her on that one
No, you haven't.
From: "Scout"
Subject: Re: "A conservative case for an assault weapons ban"
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:22:44 -0500
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
What part of "the right secured by the Second Amendment is *not
unlimited*" is not clear to you, you moron?
Who said it was?
You.
Cite.

***************end proof**************

U.S. Marshal Erin Poole: "Care to revise your statement, sir?"
Old Guard: "What?"
Gerard: "Do you want to change your bullshit story, sir?"

<snip at first lie>
Scout
2012-12-22 22:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot of
money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.

Which they do not.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
For example, they believe that a limitation on clip/magazine capacity
would be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it would not be.
Actually, it certainly could be given the current SCOTUS rulings on what
things would be protected. High capacity magazines are most certainly "any
part of ordinary military equpiment" per your cited ruling of Miller.

So once again we see the disconnect between what you claim and what was
actually said.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 01:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Post by Scout
Which they do not.
They do - *necessarily*, they do.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
For example, they believe that a limitation on clip/magazine capacity
would be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it would not be.
Actually, it certainly could be given the current SCOTUS rulings on what
things would be protected. High capacity magazines are most certainly
"any part of ordinary military equpiment" per your cited ruling of Miller.
The assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, which included a limitation
on ammunition feeding device capacity, was never successfully challenged
and overturned on second amendment grounds. Almost certainly, a new
limitation on such devices would be upheld. All decent and thinking
people would hope it would be.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-23 04:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it,
CITE them - from the txt of he Second Amendment.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 02:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it,
CITE them - from the txt of he Second Amendment.
The second amendment *IS* what the SCOTUS says it is. What the SCOTUS
has said is that the gun rights recognized by the amendment are *NOT*
unlimited. Therefore, the second amendment contains limitations, even
though the limitations are not spelled out in the text of the amendment
itself. The court says those limitations were always there, and still
are there. That's how it works.

One such conceivable limitation is that you might not be able to claim
second amendment protection for your wish to own a 30 round magazine or
clip.
Scout
2012-12-23 06:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it,
CITE them - from the txt of he Second Amendment.
The second amendment *IS* what the SCOTUS says it is.
BBbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttttt


Sorry the 2nd Amendment is:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

SCOTUS has no power to change, alter or modify that text by even the least
amount.

So, once again, can you show us the text in the 2nd Amendment you claim
imposes the limitation on arms?
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
What the SCOTUS has said is that the gun rights recognized by the amendment
are *NOT* unlimited.
Fine, so what text did they see in the 2nd to support that assertion?
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 17:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it,
CITE them - from the txt of he Second Amendment.
The second amendment *IS* what the SCOTUS says it is.
BBbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttttt
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
SCOTUS has no power to change, alter or modify that text by even the
least amount.
Nor have they!!!
Post by Scout
So, once again, can you show us the text in the 2nd Amendment you claim
imposes the limitation on arms?
And yet...and YET...they're there.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]


You have admitted it. How do you square that with your bitchy whining?
Scout
2012-12-23 22:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it,
CITE them - from the txt of he Second Amendment.
The second amendment *IS* what the SCOTUS says it is.
BBbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttttt
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
SCOTUS has no power to change, alter or modify that text by even the
least amount.
Nor have they!!!
So the 2nd isn't whatever SCOTUS says it is. The 2nd is what it says it is.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
So, once again, can you show us the text in the 2nd Amendment you claim
imposes the limitation on arms?
And yet...and YET...they're there.
And yet you can't show me that in the text of the 2nd.

So clearly they aren't there.
M.I.Wakefield
2012-12-23 23:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
So the 2nd isn't whatever SCOTUS says it is. The 2nd is what it says it is.
If SCOTUS can carve exceptions out of this, they can do it to the 2nd:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Scout
2012-12-24 02:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
So the 2nd isn't whatever SCOTUS says it is. The 2nd is what it says it is.
You seem to assume that if SCOTUS does so they are acting legitimately.

I hate to tell you this, but SCOTUS is as bound by the Constitution, in
theory, as any other part of the federal government, and they have no more
power to say banning guns is Constitution than Congress has to pass such
legislation, or the President to enforce it.

The ONLY legitimate way to alter the Constitution is via Article V.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 03:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Scout
So the 2nd isn't whatever SCOTUS says it is. The 2nd is what it says it is.
You seem to assume that if SCOTUS does so they are acting legitimately.
Ha ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

"legitimately" = "what scooter likes"

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it,
CITE them - from the txt of he Second Amendment.
The second amendment *IS* what the SCOTUS says it is.
BBbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttttt
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
SCOTUS has no power to change, alter or modify that text by even the
least amount.
Nor have they!!!
So the 2nd isn't whatever SCOTUS says it is.
It certainly is!!! Among other things, it is a *limited* right to arms.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
So, once again, can you show us the text in the 2nd Amendment you claim
imposes the limitation on arms?
And yet...and YET...they're there.
And yet you can't show me that in the text of the 2nd.
But they're there all the same...and you know it, or at least you claim
to know it, because you claim to know that the right is not unlimited,
even though the text of the amendment doesn't spell out any limitations.

You are too stupid to see how comically you're contradicting yourself.
You claim to know that the right is not unlimited, but when I say that
it is not unlimited, you start shrieking that the text doesn't contain
any limitations, which means you believe the right *is* unlimited.

The right recognized by the second amendment is limited. In the words
of Mr. Scalia, the right "...not a right to keep and carry any weapon
whatsoever." That's a fact - there is no right in the second amendment
for you to keep and bear just *any* arm whatsoever. The limitation on
the right is *within* the amendment, even if it isn't in the text of the
amendment. That's a fact.
Scout
2012-12-24 02:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it,
CITE them - from the txt of he Second Amendment.
The second amendment *IS* what the SCOTUS says it is.
BBbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttttttttttttttttttt
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
SCOTUS has no power to change, alter or modify that text by even the
least amount.
Nor have they!!!
So the 2nd isn't whatever SCOTUS says it is.
It certainly is!!!
Ah, so you're saying we're no longer a Constitutional republic but rather a
oligarchy?

Please cite where the Constitution gives SCOTUS any power to deny any
portion of the protections enacted within the Amendments.
Scout
2012-12-23 06:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.

I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about, so
where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?

Note, if you can't present such text, then the whole basis of your argument
as well as any support SCOTUS might provide is eliminated. After all, if
you're seeing something that isn't there...then the problem is with your eye
sight.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 17:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
I guess you're not familiar with the text of the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.

Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't
you make up your minds?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-23 17:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't
you make up your minds?
How tall is your straw man now?

"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
©Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 18:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't
you make up your minds?
How tall is your straw man
I haven't committed any straw man fallacy. Scooter *is* back to arguing
that the right protected by the amendment is unlimited. You know he is,
too.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-23 19:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't
you make up your minds?
How tall is your straw man
I haven't committed any straw man fallacy.
Yeah, you have.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Scooter *is* back to arguing
that the right protected by the amendment is unlimited. You know he is,
too.
I don't know who "scooter" even is. But since you don't seem to be
able to provide a message ID, I'll just assume you're another lying
leftist sack of shit, if you don't mind.
Scout
2012-12-23 22:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't
you make up your minds?
How tall is your straw man
I haven't committed any straw man fallacy. Scooter *is* back to arguing
that the right protected by the amendment is unlimited. You know he is,
too.
Well, if I'm always saying it, then you should be able to cite me doing so.

Oh, that's right the text of what I say doesn't actually say that....you
simply "interpret" to mean whatever you want to claim.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't
you make up your minds?
How tall is your straw man
I haven't committed any straw man fallacy. Scooter *is* back to
arguing that the right protected by the amendment is unlimited. You
know he is, too.
Well, if I'm always saying it,
You are. You're too stupid to realize you are, but you are.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-24 02:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
I haven't committed any straw man fallacy. Scooter *is* back to
arguing that the right protected by the amendment is unlimited. You
know he is, too.
Well, if I'm always saying it,
You are. You're too stupid to realize you are, but you are.
Then you should be able to provide the message ID.

We both know you won't.

[chuckle]
Scout
2012-12-24 02:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't
you make up your minds?
How tall is your straw man
I haven't committed any straw man fallacy. Scooter *is* back to
arguing that the right protected by the amendment is unlimited. You
know he is, too.
Well, if I'm always saying it,
You are. You're too stupid to realize you are, but you are.
And yet you can't show where I've said it....EVER.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 03:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Anyway, you're back to arguing that it's an unlimited right. Why can't
you make up your minds?
How tall is your straw man
I haven't committed any straw man fallacy. Scooter *is* back to
arguing that the right protected by the amendment is unlimited. You
know he is, too.
Well, if I'm always saying it,
You are. You're too stupid to realize you are, but you are.
And yet you can't show where I've said it
Yes, I can show it, and I *have* shown it.
Scout
2012-12-23 22:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Certainly, and you're just wasting time.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Then your assertion it's in the 2nd is total and utter crap.

Well, I will just say, you can quote the 2nd, but you don't understand it
and you sure has heck can't show us where it says what you claim.

FYI....this means your claim is rejected.
Gunner
2012-12-24 01:20:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:40:01 -0500, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Certainly, and you're just wasting time.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Then your assertion it's in the 2nd is total and utter crap.
Well, I will just say, you can quote the 2nd, but you don't understand it
and you sure has heck can't show us where it says what you claim.
FYI....this means your claim is rejected.
Will the female contestant please exit to the left of the stage, where
she will be given a consolation prize of a years supply of KY Jelly
and a pacifier for her long sad ride home to her lesbian lover and
cats.

Will the next contestant please step up to the wall......




The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Certainly,
You're not.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Then your assertion it's in the 2nd is total and utter crap.
It's the assertion of Mr. Justice Scalia that it's in there. He's right.
Scout
2012-12-24 03:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
amendment is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
of money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
limitations existed within the 2nd.
Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
court saw such limitations.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed.
Certainly,
You're not.
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
I mean, you claim it's there, and you assert to be such an expert about,
so where's the text in the 2nd that imposes that limit?
No, I'm citing the court opinion, written by an expert.
Then your assertion it's in the 2nd is total and utter crap.
It's the assertion of Mr. Justice Scalia that it's in there. He's right.
1) An assertion doesn't alter the 2nd Amendment
2) I see no assertion by Mr Scalia anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.
3) Mr Scalia wasn't even alive when the 2nd Amendment was ratified.
Stormin Mormon
2012-12-23 00:14:53 UTC
Permalink
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts.
You're a gun grabber.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot of
money into it.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
No right is "unlimited."
Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that the
gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited. For
example, they believe that a limitation on clip/magazine capacity would
be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it would not be.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 02:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts.
You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged top-poster. Why the
fuck can't you learn how to post properly?

You do not have a right to own just *any* arms whatsoever. It's that
simple.
Scout
2012-12-23 06:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Stormin Mormon
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts.
You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged top-poster.
Can't prove it by your posting history.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 17:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Stormin Mormon
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts.
You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged top-poster.
Can't prove it by your posting history.
Of course I can!!! Not one post of mine has advocated confiscating all
guns. That's what "gun grabber" means, and I'm not one - and you know it.
Scout
2012-12-24 00:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Stormin Mormon
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts.
You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged top-poster.
Can't prove it by your posting history.
Of course I can!!! Not one post of mine has advocated confiscating all
guns. That's what "gun grabber" means, and I'm not one - and you know it.
Na, just a nibble here, a nibble there, here a ban, there a ban, everywhere
an infringement. Piece by piece by piece all under the assertion of
Constitutionality because the 2nd really doesn't mean anything it's all
subject to 'interpretation'. And who does this 'interpretation'? That's
right the very government the 2nd exists to prohibit making such
'interpretations' legal.

Indeed, I've yet to see any restriction, ban or violation you have said
would be too much, even when the ones you call for per SCOTUS are exactly
the sort of weapons and items that would be protected under the 2nd
Amendment. Really, if you're going to cite SCOTUS as the basis for your
argument, then you shouldn't pitch them in the gutter when they deny the
Constitutionality of what you propose.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Stormin Mormon
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts.
You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged top-poster.
Can't prove it by your posting history.
Of course I can!!! Not one post of mine has advocated confiscating
all guns. That's what "gun grabber" means, and I'm not one - and you
know it.
Na, just a nibble here, a nibble there, here a ban, there a ban,
Nope. I'm not a gun grabber - not in any way. Quite simply, I
recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is not an unlimited
right, and the limits quite easily can be on type and capacity and still
be well within the scope of the amendment.

If laws were passed limiting magazines and clips and all other feeding
mechanisms to 10 rounds, your right to keep and bear arms would not be
infringed. You would have arms: exactly what the amendment is intended
to protect.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2012-12-24 02:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Nope. I'm not a gun grabber - not in any way.
LOL

You're lying to yourself, but why not? You lie to everyone else.
Scout
2012-12-24 02:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Stormin Mormon
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts.
You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged top-poster.
Can't prove it by your posting history.
Of course I can!!! Not one post of mine has advocated confiscating
all guns. That's what "gun grabber" means, and I'm not one - and you
know it.
Na, just a nibble here, a nibble there, here a ban, there a ban,
Nope. I'm not a gun grabber - not in any way.
And yet you tell us we can prohibit anything simply by claiming the 2nd
Amendment doesn't protect it.

Sorry, but I fail to see any difference between you and the typical gun
grabber.
Stormin Mormon
2012-12-23 22:06:14 UTC
Permalink
She also proves her crude manners. Is such
an insulting and combattive person the right
one to write law and affect the future of our
Republic?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Stormin Mormon
When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that counts.
You're a gun grabber.
I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged top-poster.
Can't prove it by your posting history.
Chrissy Degeer
2012-12-23 22:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
She also proves her crude manners. Is such
an insulting and combattive person the right
one to write law and affect the future of our
Republic?
Why don't you stop top-posting, cocksucker?
Oglethorpe
2012-12-23 03:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You habe no concept of what is
legal to own.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 02:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the
scope of the amendment.
Another gun grabber straw man.
Not a straw man at all.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
I have an excellent idea of it - far, far superior to your shitty
understanding of the issue.
Ron
2012-12-22 22:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation [..]
Another gun grabber straw man.
No right is "unlimited."
Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?
Scout
2012-12-22 22:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation [..]
Another gun grabber straw man.
No right is "unlimited."
Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?
Doesn't need to be. It is enough he is part of the People. You know? Those
that have the right?
Michael A. Terrell
2012-12-22 23:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?
Would you prefer a constipated militia?
SaPeIsMa
2012-12-22 23:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Ron
Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?
Would you prefer a constipated militia?
That's the gun-controllers, isn't it ?
Michael A. Terrell
2012-12-23 00:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SaPeIsMa
Post by Michael A. Terrell
Post by Ron
Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?
Would you prefer a constipated militia?
That's the gun-controllers, isn't it ?
Some of them could pass a grenade...
Stormin Mormon
2012-12-23 01:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Have a reality check!

TinyURL was created!

The following URL:
http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-
very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-t
he-second-amendment?fb_action_ids=433872
6779523&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb
_source=other_multiline&action_object_ma
p={%224338726779523%22%3A128255484000536
}&action_type_map={%224338726779523%22%3
A%22og.recommends%22}&action_ref_map=[]

has a length of 319 characters and resulted in the following TinyURL which
has a length of 26 characters:
http://tinyurl.com/blcpl36
[Open in new window]
SaPeIsMa
2012-12-22 23:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation [..]
Another gun grabber straw man.
No right is "unlimited."
#
# Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?
#

Hmmmm.
Better read what USC has as definitions of the types of militia
Stormin Mormon
2012-12-23 00:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Me, no, I'm over 40.
Do we have emeritus status?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Sorry, meant to write 45 years old.

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

"Ron" <***@att.net> wrote in message news:a9bff35c-3772-4a40-a098-***@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 01:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation [..]
Another gun grabber straw man.
No right is "unlimited."
Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?
Private gun ownership protected by the second amendment does not require
anyone to be a member of anything. That purpose is just *one* such
purpose, and happens to be the only one enumerated in the text of the
amendment. That does not preclude others. By way of analogy, when the
Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness

the three unalienable rights cited are *not* presumed to be an
exhaustive list - there are others.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-23 04:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Some limitation [..]
Another gun grabber straw man.
No right is "unlimited."
Hmmm.......are you a member of "A well regulated militia"?


==========================

No militia requirement exists.
David R. Birch
2012-12-22 21:58:55 UTC
Permalink
On 12/22/2012 3:15 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:

... a lot of uninformed nonsense.

Seriously, why waste any more time with this poster?

"She" doesn't know the basics about what weapons citizens can and can't
own. And DO own.

"She" doesn't understand the meaning of SCOTUS rulings like Miller and
Heller.

"She" won't accept facts that refute her unsupported assertions.

Just another sad little troll with more time than sense.

Why waste any more time with this poster?

David
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-22 22:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
Hardly. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]


Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not precluded
by the second amendment.
Scout
2012-12-22 22:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not precluded
by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of arms
is indicated.
George Plimpton
2012-12-23 01:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated, which is why you
gun-crazed proto-Nazis think the rights are unlimited in the first
place. Yet, despite the absence of any language spelling out limits, we
*know* beyond doubt that the rights recognized in the amendment are not
unlimited. Knowing that the rights are *not* unlimited, then a
limitation of the types or capacities, or both, of arms *clearly* cannot
be said to be ruled out by the text of the amendment.

More to the point: you gun-crazed proto-Nazis clearly don't know of any
conceivable interpretation of the amendment that would preclude limits
as to type or capacity.

So, to summarize: despite the absence of any explicit language in the
amendment spelling out limitations on the right to keep and bear arms,
we *know* with absolute certainty that the right protected is *NOT*
unlimited! That is, you do not have "...a right to keep and carry *any
weapon whatsoever*..."

So, we're in agreement: the government just might be able to limit the
types (and capacities) of the arms that are protected under the right
recognized by the second amendment, and no violation of the amendment
would ensue. You *DO* agree with that, even though you're going to
pretend to argue with it.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-23 04:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE then from the text of the Second Amendment.
Scout
2012-12-23 06:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated, which is why you gun-crazed
proto-Nazis think the rights are unlimited in the first place. Yet,
despite the absence of any language spelling out limits, we *know* beyond
doubt that the rights recognized in the amendment are not unlimited.
Excuse me, but where did I say the right was unlimited?

I asked where the limitations on the types of arms was indicated.

So when you can deal with what's being asked, you can try it again.

<snip>
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 01:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated, which is why you
gun-crazed proto-Nazis think the rights are unlimited in the first
place. Yet, despite the absence of any language spelling out limits, we
*know* beyond doubt that the rights recognized in the amendment are not
unlimited. Knowing that the rights are *not* unlimited, then a
limitation of the types or capacities, or both, of arms *clearly* cannot
be said to be ruled out by the text of the amendment.

More to the point: you gun-crazed proto-Nazis clearly don't know of any
conceivable interpretation of the amendment that would preclude limits
as to type or capacity.

So, to summarize: despite the absence of any explicit language in the
amendment spelling out limitations on the right to keep and bear arms,
we *know* with absolute certainty that the right protected is *NOT*
unlimited! That is, you do not have "...a right to keep and carry *any
weapon whatsoever*..."

So, we're in agreement: the government just might be able to limit the
types (and capacities) of the arms that are protected under the right
recognized by the second amendment, and no violation of the amendment
would ensue. You *DO* agree with that, even though you're going to
pretend to argue with it.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-23 04:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 02:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they are
*within* the amendment. Imagine that!
Scout
2012-12-23 06:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they are
*within* the amendment. Imagine that!
IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.

If they aren't explicitly found in the text....then they aren't *within* the
amendment no matter how much you assert they are.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 17:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
No, not in the least.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]

Mr. Justice Scalia isn't pulling them out of /his/ ass, either. Nor was
Blackstone. The right is is "not a right to keep and carry *any weapon
whatsoever*...", and it never was.
Post by Scout
If they aren't explicitly found in the text....then they aren't *within*
the amendment
They are. They have to be.
Scout
2012-12-23 22:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
No, not in the least.
There seems to us
Sorry, not interested in opinions, I want facts. Such as the actual text
from the 2nd you claim says what you claim.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-24 02:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
No, not in the least.
There seems to us
Sorry, not interested in opinions,
The opinion *IS* the meaning of the amendment. The amendment recognizes
a limited right...or are you back to saying it is unlimited? Ha ha ha
ha ha!
Scout
2012-12-24 02:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
precluded by the second amendment.
Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
arms is indicated.
*No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
No, not in the least.
There seems to us
Sorry, not interested in opinions,
The opinion *IS* the meaning of the amendment.
No, the opinion is an opinion. The meaning of the Amendment has absolute no
dependence upon any opinions.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-23 04:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
is one Justice out of nine.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 02:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Post by David R. Birch
... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
is one Justice out of nine.
He wrote the decision, you fuckwit. He spoke for the entire court.
What he said in the decision *IS* the Constitution on the issue. The US
Constitution now explicitly says the gun rights recognized by the second
amendment are not unlimited.
Scout
2012-12-22 22:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of text,
history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed
far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate themselves to
that fact.
Well you got 2 of the 3 right, history and interpretation, the text on the
other hand is cut and dried without any limitations at all.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 01:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact,
and crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact.
Well you got 2 of the 3 right, history and interpretation, the text on
the other hand is cut and dried without any limitations at all.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history..."

Why don't you write a short and polite note to Justice Scalia stating
your disagreement. Be so kind as to let us know what he replies.
Scout
2012-12-23 03:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact,
and crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact.
Well you got 2 of the 3 right, history and interpretation, the text on
the other hand is cut and dried without any limitations at all.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history..."
Why don't you write a short and polite note to Justice Scalia stating your
disagreement. Be so kind as to let us know what he replies.
Why? Are you unable to discuss the issue without asking him for help?

I mean, it's only one sentence. Yet you can't seem to understand it without
aid.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 05:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Post by Scout
Post by Carol Kinsey Goman
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]
You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact,
and crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact.
Well you got 2 of the 3 right, history and interpretation, the text on
the other hand is cut and dried without any limitations at all.
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history..."
Why don't you write a short and polite note to Justice Scalia stating
your disagreement. Be so kind as to let us know what he replies.
Why? Are you unable to discuss the issue without asking him for help?
The text, properly understood, recognizes a *limited* right to keep and
bear arms.
Oglethorpe
2012-12-23 03:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
He's one of nine Justices.
Carol Kinsey Goman
2012-12-23 02:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oglethorpe
Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia in the
He's one of nine Justices.
He wrote the decision of the court, you plodding knuckle-dragging
mentally defective fuckwit.
Loading...