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 12/9/22 2:02 PM, David Hartung wrote:   
   > On every date, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode   
   > his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and   
   > lied:   
   >   
   >> On 12/9/22 12:18 PM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:   
   >>> On 12/9/2022 8:57 AM, !Jones wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 08:20:08 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Rudy Canoza   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 12/8/2022 10:19 PM, oozing scarlet red maxipad attempted - and   
   >>>>> *failed* - to   
   >>>>> bullshit:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> What 2A does is to block a state or local government from acting   
   >>>>>>> even   
   >>>>>>> if a majority of people want it to do so.  Since 2A is doing nothing   
   >>>>>>> positive,...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>> Plenty of documented cases of self-defense belie that claim.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Who is this?  Is that you, Headley?  I got tired of seeing your   
   >>>> vitriolic spewing, so I filtered you.  I'll remove the filter if you   
   >>>> can keep a civil tone of voice.  (I didn't say you had to agree with   
   >>>> me.)   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Please define the term: "documented".  If, by that, you mean something   
   >>>> copied and pasted from a newspaper's blog page, I'd call that weak.   
   >>>> If the formal police report unequivocally and explicitly called it   
   >>>> "self defense", I'd likely accept that; however, that never happens.   
   >>>> Besides, I'd prefer an ajudicated finding that rigorously tested the   
   >>>> claim of "self defense".   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What I mean is to set it up as hypothesis 1 = "This is/was proven self   
   >>>> defense." and the null hypothesis = "There is not enough evidence to   
   >>>> prove self defense."  Our judicial system is opposite: a person   
   >>>> affirms self defense and *that* becomes the null hypothesis (H-0).  I   
   >>>> suppose that H-0 should be "not guilty" in a test of guilt; however, I   
   >>>> won't let you count it as self defense unless that is tested... and   
   >>>> our system never does that.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It likely never will.  Note that no criminal court has *ever* proven a   
   >>>> defendant "innocent"... that doesn't happen because that's H-0 and you   
   >>>> never prove H-0... you must reject it in the scientific method.  (Have   
   >>>> you ever taken a class in logic, Headley?)   
   >>>   
   >>> A jury never returns a verdict of "innocent," but judges have   
   >>> declared defendants to be factually innocent before.  It doesn't   
   >>> happen too often, but often enough.   
   >>>   
   >>> I accept that there are frequent enough instances of use of firearms   
   >>> or other weapons in self defense.  The key point is that that was not   
   >>> the *motive* for the second amendment at all.   
   >>   
   >> The NATURAL RIGHT of self defense is certainly why the the RIGHT is a   
   >> RIGHT of the people, and NOT based entirely on a militia   
   >   
   > The right isn't based on the militia at all, you stupid brain-damaged   
   > fuck. It's the *amendment* that is based on the militia.  The militia,   
   > which only was used for slave patrolling and to suppress slave   
   > rebellions, is the sole reason for the amendment.  That's why the   
   > militia is mentioned in the amendment, but self defense is not.   
   >   
   Amendment V   
   *No person shall be* held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous   
   crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in   
   cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in   
   actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be   
   subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or   
   limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness   
   against himself, nor be *deprived of life, liberty, or property* ,   
   *without due process of law* ; nor shall private property be taken for   
   public use, without just compensation.   
      
   It seems that Amendment 5 suggests that self defense is your RIGHT and   
   that can't be breached without due process, which means NO LYNCH MOB can   
   hang you and you can hold off that mob with your gun.  And face due   
   process for you killing them in self defense.   
      
   And the obvious structure of Amendment II is a fail-over that is   
   protected against FEDERAL or STATES interference for that RIGHT of the   
   people to keep and bear arms.   
      
   The amendment is there to limit government NOT the people.   
   --   
   -Reality Matters-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)