XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns, alt.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 11/30/22 10:36 AM, Paul Jackson wrote:
> On 11/30/2022 6:30 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> "Scout" wrote in
>> news:tm7idu$2hfdr$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Michael A Terrell" wrote in message
>>> news:rUqhL.9565$pem1.972@fx10.iad...
>>>> On 11/29/2022 6:25 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude"
>>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:4622oh9lm0sc4tjmhvsojtsg1p0mghhlb5@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 10:15:42 -0800, Rudy "Shitbag" Canoza
>>>>>> <"because_\\shitbag\\_was_taken"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Arms" means "weapons," of any kind. Right-wingnuts in the USA
>>>>>>> insist -
>>>>>>> incorrectly, of course - that the second amendment, which
>>>>>>> addresses the "right to keep and bear arms," means *any* arms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong,
>>>>
>>>> No, right. You crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling
>>>> morons believe, incorrectly, that the right means *any* arms you may
>>>> wish to have.
>>>
>>> I think as an expert in what I believe, I can't help but feel I know
>>> that far better than you ever could.
>>
>>
>> OK, tell what you believe about
>> the constitutionality of gun laws.
>
> scooter believes any gun laws that restrict his access to guns he wishes
> to have are unconstitutional.
the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The RIGHT is denied to the States, and no power is delegated to the
United States in that clause...
What delegated power are you using to justify a Federal law or
regulation to limit the types of arms? Would it include the FACT that
the United States issues arms/firearms regulated by the BATF that
regulates firearms and teh United States (issues those "firearms") to
Government employees at the FBI/CIA IRS/CBP or secret service and that
all those firearms are arms?
It sort of makes all those "arms" issued and called arms and firearms
and personal protection and defense devices or equipment, part of the
list of arms by Precedence doesn't it, it makes them also fall under
the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. It doesn't limit what
"arms" are it simply confirms that those arms being issued to pacify the
public are also included in the right of the people to keep and bear
equally to Government people. We are all just people and the equal
protection clause says that all persons have to be treated equally by
the law.
Someone working for the Government would be banned from owning and or
using an AR-15 if the public were able to be banned. Those people be
they working for the government or NOT wouldn't have the RIGHT to use an
AR-15 that's true of the Military as well And no special laws can be
written to allow it if the Constitution is banning them. You know like
banning torture, to get a confession... Government can't abuse or
assault you. It's the law and it has to be enforced equally, police
can't kill you because they decide you're guilty they have to follow the
laws.
Remember that if you can impose gay marriage and gays in the military
under the same clause then you would also be banning M-16 and AR-15 from
the military personnel just as you mandated gays and gay marriage RIGHTS
for those same personnel. It can't work in opposite ways forcing us all
to be equal in marriage but not in the use of arms, it either is equal
or it isn't equal this clause can't do both at the same time. And there
can only be a carve out to allow different outcomes if there is another
Amendment that says that the Military can only be unequal when it comes
to the RIGHTS limiting arms they can use... but NOT sexual or marriage
RIGHTS.
But I don't see that other amendment or clause making it legal for the
Military personnel to use M-16 or AR-15 while the same people are forced
being to accept gay and gay marriage for their Military personnel.
The DEMOCRAT logic doesn't work... it's contradicting and won't satisfy
that equal protection clause that Democrats use to force stuff like gay
marriage on the PRIVATE SECTOR.
*Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*
--
-Reality Matters-
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
