XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption
XPost: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc
XPost: alt.politics.obama, alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.poli
ics.socialism.mao
XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy
XPost: alt.apocolypse, alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: alt.infowars, alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intellige
t-life.down-here, alt.politics.guns
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 11/28/22 6:08 PM, NoBody wrote:
> On 11/28/2022 11:09 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> governor.swill@gmail.com wrote in
>> news:itr0ohlc24jqkk78s61pic5k6kj1om25ri@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 03:20:07 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote in
>>>> news:XnsAF5853D16564Dnoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.56:
>>>>
>>>>> "Scout" wrote in
>>>>> news:tll99l$cpn8$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude"
>>>>>> wrote in message news:7j2snhh7368a8koj58boq6o832a8abu9jc@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 03:05:28 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you, like Hartung, believe that
>>>>>>>>>> everyone has a right to carry whatever
>>>>>>>>>> weaponry they want?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, "Scout"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, "Scout"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When are you going to prove this is what Hartung believes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, Mitch?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sometime before the sun goes nova, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, he posts an assertion then demands that I answer, and then
>>>>>> ASSUMES an answer when I don't respond to his stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a yes or no question, "Scout".
>>>>>
>>>>> Here, let me make it easy for you:
>>>>>
>>>>> ___Yes
>>>>>
>>>>> ___No
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, ""?
>>>
>>> Scout, you've been asked a hypothetical, "Do you, like Hartung,
>>> believe that everyone has a right to carry whatever weaponry they
>>> want?"
>>>
>>> It isn't necessary to qualify this or demand proof of premise or proof
>>> that Hartung said it. Answer straight up, do you believe that
>>> everyone has a right to carry whatever weaponry they want?
>>>
>>> Swill
>>
>>
>>
>> And "Scout" continues in full retreat.
>>
>
> scooter believes that everyone who has a right to keep and bear arms has
> a right to keep and bear just whatever arms he wishes.
What ever the Constitution says they can carry... The RIGHT of the
people is to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.
The Limitation is in the word arms. When it comes to "whatever" you want
to carry or keep. Yes you can keep and bear arms and your RIGHT is as
good as the U.S Government's power to issue arms to it's workers and
employees and civilian police and the Military and all the personal
security of all the Politicians trying to ban our RIGHT to keep and bear
the very same arms for protection that they demand we pay for them to
have guarding themselves by way of allowing their security team to keep
and bear those arms.
The RIGHT in the Constitution is a limitation on your even larger own
RIGHT keep and bear "anything" as being something that can't be
infringed for any reason the Governnment desires. And that 2nd Amendment
also protects that RIGHT to keep and bear arms as a RIGHT of the PEOPLE,
NOT as a list of neutered arms that Government politicians approve for
their serfs to have so they (the politicians) feel like they are safe or
to appease the serfs (when they really aren't because they have what
amounts to rocks and pitchforks and slingshots) and they aren't being
protected from the Government or the THUGS the politicians hire.
The premise of the question is a false narrative that you created and is
NOT fact or law or even reality. Join us in reality and then try to ask
a pertinent question.
/-[ *START QUOTE*
> Do you, like Hartung, believe that
> everyone has a right to carry whatever
> weaponry they want?
*END QUOTE* ]-/
You have replaced the word "ARMS" with "WEAPONRY" why?
Arms are what you and the Government already call arms and issue to
Government related persons and try to ban to Citizens as "firearms" and
"arms".... and using the euphemism "personal protection device". Any
euphemism for arms carried for self defense are still just "arms" and
notably the ones the U.S. Government has issued to it's own people is
what "arms" are.
Arms are NOT some list that you think you can pass as a ban or a law...
laws are not superior to the Constitution... so your laws that list what
"arms" are banned or parts for the arms are illegal are NOT
constitutional and I don't need the laws to be struck down by the
Supreme Court to know that this is true. It's NOT a question of law
it's a simple FACT.
Which means anyone banning guns or "ARMS" is attempting to undermine the
U.S. Constitution using the FALSE PREMISE THAT LAWS ARE SUPERIOR TO THE
CONSTITUTION and is committing TREASON by NOT trying to legally and
Constitutionally change the Constitution itself but instead trying
undermine it and weaken it. They need to be indicted for TREASON.
Ignorance is no excuse for violationg the law... isn't that correct?
That's what the Courts tell you. TREASON is when you attempt to displace
the U.S. Constitution by FRAUD and/or by FORCE.
--
-Reality Matters-
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
