Re: Kavanaugh reinforces Scalia: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/23/22 8:09 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 6/23/22 15:52, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> "Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun
>> regulations."
>>
>> Brett Kavanaugh in concurrence to today's New York gun law opinion
>
> Now you like Kavanaugh?
>
Kind of funny isn't it?

But the reality is that, what Kavanaugh said *if it reinforced Scalia*
means that you are NOT allowed unlimited "weapons" but the nomenclature
suggests that arms and weapons are NOT interchangeable. SO it's word play.

*Arms are weapons... but NOT all weapons are arms*

The loop hole that Democrats think they see is NOT a loop hole at all.

It's their Layman's lack of understanding of war and self defense that's
showing....

The term "arms" is limiting which is what the Justices were clumsily
suggesting... Because arms are what a soldier or guard or hunter or man
protecting his home might carry into a limited battle or fight of a more
personal nature. Which means a nuclear weapon is NOT arms but all the
"arms" are arms and they are what a person in the ranks would carry into
battle or would carry hunting or for self defense.

Which means that actual MACHINE GUNS and other hand held arms are all
legal. And what isn't legal is to be determined by whether you carry it
into battle or to hunt or for self defense I would say they are weapons
that are carried to a fight that are defensive, those are arms.

The word arm While not exacting does point to the type of arms and they
are generally accepted as being the weapons that are carried by persons
preparing to defend themselves in, and survive after a conflict and for
self defense. Which means "pretty much" all kinds of firearms and hand
to hand weapons, I can't think of one that would be rejected as arms.

Which means things like bio-weapons and chemical weapons and Nuclear
weapons * which kill indiscriminately* are more strategic than tactical
and are NOT arms... That's the fuzzy part but it's NOT unlimited it is
limited to arms. Which means that to date, *anything short of* mass
offensive killing... is unlimited under the 2nd amendment.


arm verb
armed; arming; arms
Definition of arm (Entry 2 of 5)
transitive verb

1: to furnish or equip with weapons
2: *to furnish with something that strengthens or protects*
*arming citizens with the right to* vote
3: to equip or ready for action or operation
arm a bomb
intransitive verb

: to prepare oneself for struggle or resistance
arm for combat
arm noun (2), often attributive
Definition of arm (Entry 3 of 5)
1a: *a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense*
*especially : FIREARM*
b: *a combat branch (as of an army)*
c: *an organized branch of national defense (such as the navy)*
2arms plural
a: the hereditary heraldic devices of a family
b: heraldic devices adopted by a government
3arms plural
a: *active hostilities : WARFARE*
a *call to arms*
b: *military service*
*up in arms*
: aroused and *ready to undertake a fight or conflict*

--
-That's karma-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/24/22 2:34 PM, Michael A Terrell wrote:
> On 6/24/2022 11:16 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
>
>
>> On 6/24/22 12:55 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2022 9:48 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>, sleazy
>>> rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>
>>>> On 6/24/2022 10:33 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2022 8:59 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmh...@comcast.net>,
>>>>> sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut,
>>>>> lied:
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha ha ha!
>>>
>>>>>> On 6/23/2022 7:41 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

>>>>>>> On 6/23/2022 5:09 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/23/22 15:52, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of
>>>>>>>>> gun regulations."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brett Kavanaugh in concurrence to today's New York gun law opinion
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now you like Kavanaugh?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> He reinforces my point:  the right to arms is not unlimited
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The line for protected weapons is not where you wish it was.
>>>>   [erase bullshit]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't claim to know where the line is drawn.
>>>>
>>>> Then why bother mentioning it at all?
>>>
>>> Because you say there's no line, Francis.
>>>
>>>>> You say there is no line at all.
>>>> You're lying.  I never said any such thing.
>>>
>>> No, *you* are lying, Francis.  You don't believe there is any line.  You
>>> believe the right is unlimited, Francis.  You're wrong, of course.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually there is no line or limit on arms,
>
> Yes, there is.  Scalia told you there is, and he's right.
>
>        Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
>        *not unlimited*

Exactly...



The *RIGHT secured* by the 2nd Amendment in it's entirety... is limited
to "arms". The right of the people to keep and bear "space ships" or
"clown shoes" is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment. It is limited to
"arms". Meaning you can't keep and bear things that aren't arms, and
claim the 2nd amendment protects that item.

But the "RIGHT to keep and bear" is still unlimited and when it comes to
"arms" they are protected and it's unlimited also. The limitation is
created when they made it *NOT UNLIMITED* by adding the word "arms".


And "arms" is a term that covers an unspecified number of items. SO
anything called or specified in law as arms, are also secured as a
RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR.

Sadly Democrats can't read and comprehend reality.

Democrats seem to suffer from BLUE PILL syndrome... they never choose
the red pill. It's reality and accepting reality is just not within the
intellectual grasp of Democrats.


--
-That's karma-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/27/22 1:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <6cff77a0-635f-4919...@googlegroups.com>,
> "ed...@post.com" <ed...@post.com> wrote:
>
>>> What do you think was the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
>>
>>
>> To arm a militia at a time when there was barely a US military to be
>> ever-present in each of the
>
> At the time it was written you needed something like a militia to
> be lethal. Lone gunmen could only kill a few before they got
> their head smashed in.
>

And still today where people like Rittenhouse the people running amuck
with guns doing their DEMOCRAT legalized burning and looting are stopped
when they start killing.

Rittenhouse shot the people before they could shoot him. SO apparently
the killers out there that would attempt murder are still stopped by
people in the Militia who own guns and use them to protect people from
the Democrats murders of ANTIFA and BLM.


--
-That's karma-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/27/22 1:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <6cff77a0-635f-4919...@googlegroups.com>,
> "ed...@post.com" <ed...@post.com> wrote:
>
>>> What do you think was the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
>>
>>
>> To arm a militia at a time when there was barely a US military to be
>> ever-present in each of the
>
> At the time it was written you needed something like a militia to
> be lethal. Lone gunmen could only kill a few before they got
> their head smashed in.
>

And still today where people like Rittenhouse STOP the people running

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/27/22 10:25 PM, Jane Playne wrote:
> On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote in
>> news:XnsAEC389CAB1740...@216.166.97.131:
>>> David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:0aCdnTxniLjQKyT_...@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 6/27/22 08:30, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung <da...@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:H6udnc0s8PGnEST_nZ2dnUU7- WHN...@giganews.com:

>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/27/22 00:00, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> In article

>>>>>>> <c821e611-0ed0-410c...@googlegroups.com>,

>>>>>>> Jane Playne <janep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you think was the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> So you do think they envisionned a 12.7 machine gun at a thousand
>>>>>>> musket balls a minute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of us see minor qualitative differences between the weapons
>>>>>>> of today and the weapons of the second amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Weapons of the second amendment"? Wouldn't that be those weapons
>>>>>> that would be a soldier's standard equipment? Today in the USA that
>>>>>> would be the equivalent of an M4 carbine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to whom?
>>>>>
>>>>> In 1789 there was no limit on private
>>>>> ownership of any weaponry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what you want for us today?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just so.
>>>
>>> Instead of having to shoot children
>>> individuallly you think your "law abiding
>>> gun owners" should just walk down school
>>> hallways tossing hand grenades into every
>>> classroom.
>>>
>>> Or just target each classroom from a
>>> distance with a grenade launcher.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkor_MGL
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that what you want, Hartung?
>>>
>> Well, Hartung?
> .
>
> What you want; what Hartung wants; what I want is not the issue. The issue is the US Constitution.
>
> Liberals, Hillary in particular, referred to the Constitution as a living, breathing document. The conservatives took exception to that belief. ACTUALLY, Hillary was correct; there have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution.
>
> If you don't like the 2nd Amendment, stop wasting your time on this NG and work towards amending the 2nd Amendment.
>
Sadly for Democrats, the 2nd Amendment doesn't create any RIGHTS.

SO removing it is only a small piece of the effort to then try to ban
guns... there are other parts that may prevent the bans that will have
to be removed. like the 13th which means that removing that so they
don't need due process to ban guns would simultaneously re-introduce
slavery to the United States because banning self defense can only be
done to a slave. A free man has the unalienable RIGHT to life and
liberty and so you'd have to then remove the RIGHT to life and Liberty
in order to remove the RIGHT to self defense and LIBERTY to not be
enslaved.... you see what is enumerated is there to point out what is
NOT enumerated and they are all linked and when you remove one
enumerated piece you don't change the over all purpose of the
Constitution which is to RECOGNIZE the many more RIGHTS that aren't
enumerated but still exist.


This is why Democrats HATE the Constitution, it's designed to keep us on
a path to freedom even when we stumble and do something stupid.

--
-That's karma-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/28/22 11:19 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> On 6/27/2022 3:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 6/27/22 00:00, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <c821e611-0ed0-410c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>   Jane Playne <janep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do you think was the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
>>>
>>> So you do think they envisionned a 12.7 machine gun at a thousand
>>> musket balls a minute.
>>>
>>> Some of us see minor qualitative differences between the weapons
>>> of today and the weapons of the second amendment.
>>
>> "Weapons of the second amendment"? Wouldn't that be those weapons that
>> would be a soldier's standard equipment?
>

> Members of the militia in 1776 didn't have the same equipment as
> soldiers in the Continental Army had.
>
> There is no unorganized militia today resembling the unorganized militia
> in 1776.
>
> You don't have a right to an RPG or an AR-15.

Your RIGHT isn't to belong to a Militia... your RIGHT is to KEEP and
BEAR ARMS... it has zero to do with the RIGHTS of the militia... but
what it does means is that since the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND
BEAR ARM is totally of the people and there is NO U.S. GOVERNMENT or
Sates power to regulate THAT RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE and when a POWER is not
delegated to the United States and is denied to the States by the U.S.
Constitution, it means that the ONLY thing left is the Amendment 10 last
part that says; "or to the people"


Amendment X
*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution* ,
nor *prohibited by it to the States* , *are reserved* to the States
respectively, or *to the people* .

Amendment 10 agrees with Amendment 2 aand the logic is there and follows
the basic constitution process of seperate jurisdictions having separate
powers. And When a power/right is specifically assigned as a RIGHT OF
THE PEOPLE, it is denying that power to the States and if it was never
delegated to the United STates then it is clear that it's a RIGHT ONLY
of the people and the States and the United States have both been passed
over for being delegated that or being allowed to gain it by default
since it was denied to the States, when the 2nd Amendmnet says it's "THE
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE".


*Follow the logic created by the Constittuion*

We dohave the RIGHT to own an AR-15 and more.

The place where the Governmnet can possiblyargue their power would be
with what are "arms" and what are weapons.

Arms are probably more self defence weapons while teh broader scope of
"weapons" are all of that plus the weapons of
mass-destruction/mass-killing that fall under the definition of
"weapons" for strategicuse to cause mass casualtie, but NOT personal
arms for tactical use.

And since Democrats don't consider Chicago to be mass casualties it will
require more deaths than what we see in Chicago in a weekend to cause
those to be considered mass casualties. It takes a damn huge bomb or
Bioweapons or Chemical weapons to cause those kinds of mass casualties.

An AR-15 is a survival weapon, NOT a weapon that causes mass casualties.

In a room filled with people holding AR-15's who would be the mass
casualties? It would likely be less than 50% who are killed.

--
-That's karma-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/28/22 1:24 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> On 6/28/2022 9:56 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 6/28/22 11:19 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2022 3:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/22 00:00, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <c821e611-0ed0-410c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>   Jane Playne <janep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think was the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
>>>>>
>>>>> So you do think they envisionned a 12.7 machine gun at a thousand
>>>>> musket balls a minute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of us see minor qualitative differences between the weapons
>>>>> of today and the weapons of the second amendment.
>>>>
>>>> "Weapons of the second amendment"? Wouldn't that be those weapons
>>>> that would be a soldier's standard equipment?
>>>
>>> Members of the militia in 1776 didn't have the same equipment as
>>> soldiers in the Continental Army had.
>>>
>>> There is no unorganized militia today resembling the unorganized
>>> militia in 1776.
>>>
>>> You don't have a right to an RPG or an AR-15.
>>
>> Your RIGHT isn't to belong to a Militia...  your RIGHT is to KEEP and
>> BEAR ARMS
>

> Not just whatever arms you might wish to have.

"The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms" looks like it's NOT
limiting they type of arms but the type of weapons to being "arms"...

So far you've shown ZERO proof that the United States Government or the
States have the *delegated power* to limit the RIGHT of the people to
keep and bear arms.

Why didn't you just point out the flaw in my logic by posting and
quoting the text in the Constitution that makes me a liar...

You're short on FACTS and long on TRASH talk.

>>    Amendment X
>> *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution*
>

> Here is the brain-damaged fucktard blabbering about the Constitution
> again when it is already established once and for all he doesn't know a
> fucking thing about it.


I notice you have no actual text of the constitution that rejects my
cite of the text in the Constitution.

You should put-up or shut-up, either way you can't look any more stupid
than you do already.


--
-That's karma-