info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: SCOTUS striking down NY gun law
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Slater
Dec 26, 2022, 11:57:35 PM12/26/22
to
On 07 Dec 2022, "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
posted some news:tmqhps$js67$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "Gronk" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:tmodve$5qrd$4...@news.mixmin.net...
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:05:11 AM UTC-5, Gronk wrote:
>>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>>> SCOTUS struck down the NY gun law that said people needed a
>>>>> special reason
>>>>> to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is just common
>>>>> sense. Would
>>>>> anyone think it would be acceptable for a state law requiring a
>>>>> special reason to
>>>>> exercise free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
>>>>> or any other of
>>>>> our basic liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
>>>>>
>>>> All of those have restrictions (e.g., shouting fire in a crowded
>>>> theatre when there
>>>> isn't a fire).
>>>>
>>>> Go review Heller...
>>>
>>> These restrictions do not constitute a special need. Nobody needs a
>>> special need to practice
>>> any of our basic, constitutionally protected liberties, including
>>> the right to keep and bear arms.
>>>
>>
>> No special need means those restrictions are fine.
>
> And just like that Rudy shows his inability to read for
> comprehension..... but we're suppose to accept his claims about what
> he's read without question.
Rudy translation: "inability" = "refusal".
There's a difference.
posted some news:tmqhps$js67$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "Gronk" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:tmodve$5qrd$4...@news.mixmin.net...
>> bigdog wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 12:05:11 AM UTC-5, Gronk wrote:
>>>> bigdog wrote:
>>>>> SCOTUS struck down the NY gun law that said people needed a
>>>>> special reason
>>>>> to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This is just common
>>>>> sense. Would
>>>>> anyone think it would be acceptable for a state law requiring a
>>>>> special reason to
>>>>> exercise free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press,
>>>>> or any other of
>>>>> our basic liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
>>>>>
>>>> All of those have restrictions (e.g., shouting fire in a crowded
>>>> theatre when there
>>>> isn't a fire).
>>>>
>>>> Go review Heller...
>>>
>>> These restrictions do not constitute a special need. Nobody needs a
>>> special need to practice
>>> any of our basic, constitutionally protected liberties, including
>>> the right to keep and bear arms.
>>>
>>
>> No special need means those restrictions are fine.
>
> And just like that Rudy shows his inability to read for
> comprehension..... but we're suppose to accept his claims about what
> he's read without question.
Rudy translation: "inability" = "refusal".
There's a difference.
Scout
Dec 27, 2022, 10:20:52 AM12/27/22
to
"Slater" <sla...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:todtvt$v26$6...@toxic.dizum.net...
read for comprehension as such an assertion of "refusal" assumes facts not
in evidence.
0 new messages