Re: A truly outstanding (good) "ruling"
RichTravsky
What's the matter Trudy? Too stupid to know how to use followups? HAHAHHAHHAHA
> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Larry Hewitt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:e4997d31-6c19-4c31...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 27, 11:08 am, "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Crans...@penumbra.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Supreme Court today threw out the Washington DC handgun ban.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is excellent news for all lovers of liberty and Constitutional
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency. Only the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge specific rights, and *all* of the other seven of those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are undeniably individual, not collective, rights; no group
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affiliation, apart from being an American, is stated as an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eligibility test. It is inconceivable that the second amendment
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could have been seen any differently either by the authors of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill of Rights, or by those voting for ratification.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read closer:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4016/83/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You read closer. The key holding - that the second amendment refers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an individual, not a collective, right, is the key. The court held
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms was not in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any way contingent on being a member of the National Guard or any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other state-organized militia. No matter what silver lining the anti-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gun fascists want to read into the decision, that one holding absolute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucks them over but good, and that's good for liberty and for America.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Court singled out restrictions on concealed carry, bans for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> felons and the mentally ill, law banning in places such as schools
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and government buildings, and prohibitions on "carrying of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous and unusual weapons" as acceptable. ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It almost looks as nothing has changed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plenty changed. The DC gun ban was tossed out, and others like it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be as well. The court held that the state may not prohibit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens from taking reasonable measures toward self defense. That is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> huge. The left-fascists lost huge on this, and that's great - great
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for liberty, great for America.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, the court said that the right is not absolute, meaning that current
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> registration laws will remain in effect. Nothing changed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's wrong Lamont. What changed was the ability of state and local
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> govts to preclude individuals from defending themselves with guns in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their homes. Yes, there can still be regulation, but it must be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest or be tossed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, DC can no longer make a law that makes a blanket
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preclusion of having a gun in ones home. Not only did it change, it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is huge.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- Actually, your first statement is correct, but the rest is not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not the regualtions of hte state that must be narrowly tailored, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ruling htat is narrowly tailored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ruling makes no change in government treatment of gun ownership outside
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one's house.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It makes no change in what kind of guns are prohibited, even in one's own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> house.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Governments can still regulate which models of guns are manufactured and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributed, the way they are distributed, who can possess a gun in public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the way it is transported, what ammunition if available, and even, to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some degree, who may have a gun in their own home
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scalia, writing for the majority, understood that creating an absolute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual right to gun ownership would not fly, since it would allow felons
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to own gun, undesirables to walk the streets armed, and remove even product
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safety laws in their manufacture.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gun nuts jumped at the decision, failing to wait to read the entire 150 page
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruling.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In practical terms, little has changed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, except for the little itty bitty detail about being able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually own a gun in one's own home to defend oneself and that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SCOTUS actually found that all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protect the rights of individuals, not just nine of them. Other then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, I suppose you're right.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;) ;) ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed it wasn't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand what particular form of mental aberration is making
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-gun mob celebrate that particular holding ("right is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlimited") in the decision. The anti-gun mob lost, huge, in this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ruling. The right, like all rights, is limited, but the Washington DC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handgun ban was a total abrogation of the right, the court agreed, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ban was thrown out. Similar bans will be thrown out. One of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most basic points of opposition to the right, that it was a "collective"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right based on membership in a state-run militia, was thrown out. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-gun mob lost, HUGE, and here these nitwits are blabbering about the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right not being unlimited. This isn't a case of the anti-gun mob
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting half a loaf - they are bizarrely celebrating having stumbled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over a few crumbs, not even a dry crust.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All DC has to do is enact regulations that are restrictive. Or declare
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them "dangerous and unusual weapons".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A law like declaring guns "dangerous and unusual weapons" would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively negate the SCOTUS ruling and run counter to the decision.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such a law would be tossed by the court in a heartbeat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Uh, no, since that is part of the Heller ruling ;)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some win you got there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, those in common use are protected. The question will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> become one of what is considered dangerous and unusual. No
> >>>>>>>>>>>> legislature will get away with calling ALL guns dangerous and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> unusual. That would effectively negate the current ruling.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You catch on - finally.
> >>>>>>>>>> Huh? I've been saying this all along. What I see is you are finally
> >>>>>>>>>> recognizing that this ruling isn't what you hoped it would be. You're
> >>>>>>>>>> beginning to see the light. Good for you.
> >>>>>>>>> Oops, you're in the dark again.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "what is considered dangerous and unusual" is what I've said. And that
> >>>>>>>>> door is a mile wide.
> >>>>>>>> Just what have you said is dangerous and unusual? Be specific,
> >>>>>>>> because so far you've been anything but.
> >>>>>>> What are you babbling about?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The exchange above is quite clear - defining what guns are "dangerous and unusual".
> >>>>>> You didn't define it, liar. You just declared they all are. That won't
> >>>>>> fly, of course.
> >>>>> Wow,
> >>>> Wow. You're full of shit.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Dangerous and unusual" is not some arbitrary classification that commie
> >>>> municipalities like DC or Frisco can use to mean whatever they like,
> >>>> comrade Travesty.
> >>>>
> >>>> You lose. "Dangerous and unusual" *WILL NOT* support a ban. You lose,
> >>>> bitch.
> >>> Gee Rudy, just show us the legal definition of "dangerous and unusual"
> >> Show us the legal definition of "cruel and unusual", shit-4-braincell
> >> Travesty.
> >>
> >> Put your money - all fifty cents of it - where your mouth is, twat.
> >> There will be *NO* banning of handguns on the grounds they're "dangerous
> >> and unusual". BET on it, squat-to-piss bitch.
> >
> > I don't have to show it,
>
> *NO* handgun bans, Travesty. Bet on it.
RichTravsky
Trudy - still having troubles with those pesky followups? Maybe you should
get some 5 year old to help you!
> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>> Rudy Canola wrote:
> >>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 10:14 am, Rudy Canoza <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *impotent* comrade Rich Travesty, lying leftwing fascist, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Larry Hewitt wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Geo" <taxpayer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They celebrate as they are looking for any possible way to polish the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turd that was dropped in their laps. They lost and can't deal with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You appear to be looking for any possible way to hide from the fact that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else is still on the table.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Complete bans are off the table. Regulations that clearly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> amount to de facto bans are off the table. Total prohibitions on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sale of ammunition are off the table. Requiring gun owners to be
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sales of ammo are not covered in Heller.
> >>>>>>>>>> Watch, Travesty.
> >>>>>>>>> Your surrender
> >>>>>>>> No, Travesty - yours.
> >>>>>>> Poor Rudy,
> >>>>>> Not in the least, Travesty. I'm very happy with the decision, and
> >>>>> SO happy
> >>>> So happy you lost, bitch?
>
> >>>>>> you're pissing and moaning and thrashing about and trying, desperately
> >>>>>> but futilely, to find some way to effect a ban. You have failed, and
> >>>>>> you will fail.
> >>>>> You're the loser
> >>>> YOU are the loser, bitch. You lost on Heller, *huge*, and you know it.
> >>>> Cut the bullshit, comrade bitch Travesty.
> >>> And [snip comrade Travesty's whiny, impotent, desperate, pointless mewling]
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> members of an organized, state-controlled militia are off the table.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You're starving, little left-fascist Travesty. There is nothing but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> crumbs left on the table. You cannot come *close* to the ban that DC
> >>>>>>>>>>>> had...and you *KNOW* it, you whiny little left-fascist cocksucker.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah, Rudy, resorting to obscenities.
> >>>>>>>>>> No. You *are* a little left-fascist cocksucker, Travesty. That has
> >>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the analysis.
> >>>>>>>>> There he goes again.
> >>>>>>>> There you go jerking off in public again, Travesty, you impotent bitch.
> >>>>>>> Poor whining
> >>>>>> Travesty. Right.
> >>>>> Poor Rudy,
> >>>> Nope.
> >>> And [snip comrade Travesty's whiny, impotent, desperate, pointless mewling]
> >> You lost, Travesty. You're just wasting time now. You lost, *HUGE*,
> >> and you know it:
> >
> > Would you feel better
>
> I feel great, Travesty, you impotent bitch. Liberty won, and
> pusillanimous stalinist shitbags like you lost - huge.
>
> >> * NO "membership" in a militia
> >> * NO requirement that guns be kept disassembled and unloaded
> >> * NO handgun ban