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
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 12/1/22 7:51 AM, Nic wrote:
> On 12/1/22 12:48 AM, governor.swill@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 07:53:35 -0500, Nic wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/28/22 10:28 PM, Mike Colangelo wrote:
>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling morons want the
>>>> right to be unlimited, and they talk as if it is, even after having
>>>> disingenuously acknowledged that it isn't, but the simple fact is, the
>>>> right is *not* unlimited, and those limits include limitations on what
>>>> arms one may have.
>> Sounds lovely. Men will still read it a thousand years from now.
>>
>> Ok, back to practical reality.
>>
>>> When a law banning some kind of gun is upheld on
>>>> appeal, the appellate court is not "limiting" your right,
>> Of course it is. If he has a right to any and all arms, his right to
>> bear is being infringed by the courts. "CONGRESS shall not . . ."
>>
>>>> as Hartung
>>>> like to lie. No, the right already carries with it *inherent* limits,
>>>> and the court is finding that the ban is *within* the limits of the
>>>> right.
>> What are the inherent limits? It's been asked but not answered.
>>
>>>> You don't have a right
>> "You don't have the right" is not the same as "You can't have."
>>
>>> to just whatever arms you may wish to have.
>>>> This is a matter of text, history and judicial interpretation, and it
>>>> is settled. scooter, Francis Mark Hansen, Hartung, BlueGirl, kleine
>>>> klauschen "no-foreskin" Schittenkike — these right-wingnuts think the
>>>> right is to just whatever arms they might wish to have, and that is
>>>> false. If Congress were to pass a law prohibiting private ownership
>>>> ("keeping") of, say, shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles, that law would
>>>> be upheld. Such arms are outside the inherent limits of the right, so
>>>> banning them doesn't violate the right.
>>> You overlook the facts
>> No, I don't.
>>
>>> that when these documents were forged, the intent
>>> was to have arms to defend against the forces that sought to destroy the
>>> Americans for their rebellion against the monarchy. Having arms suitable
>>> to defend the American homeland was the intention.
>> They all had hunting rifles and perhaps other, sporty guns? Artillery?
>> Attack fighters? Bombers? Carriers?
>>
>>> see: 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.—
>> Lovely but I don't think those truths are "self evident", all men are
>> NOT created equal (but they should be entitled to equal opportunity
>> and treatment before the law) and rights aren't natural or
>> inalienable, they're human construct.
>>
>> The only right nature gives you is the right to survive long enough to
>> reproduce.
>>
>>> That to secure these rights,
>> Not just secure but define. The Declaration of the Rights of Man
>> contains the right to free health care. Do you agree with that right?
>>
>>> Governments are instituted
>>> among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—
>> Majority rule. You don't have the right to insist you got more votes
>> than the other guy unless you did.
>>
>>> That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
>>> it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
>>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
>>> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
>>> effect their Safety and Happiness.
>> Sounds lovely but . . .
>>
>> Swill
>
> Consider the fact that all those super arms are being controlled by
> people who first are governed by the Constitution of The US and secondly
> by the oaths taken by the military. So technically these people have the
> final control of how the arms will be used.
>
The President has the codes and the keys..... the rest are just symbols
of it being a process to unleash MASS DESTRUCTION.
We know it's a false process because general Milley and Nancy Pelosi
conspired to enagage in a Coup D`etat that seized control of the nuclear
weapons by undermining the President's top secret authority.
--
-Reality Matters-
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
