Does this amendment say that you can carry sawed off shotguns,
shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapons (Red-Eye) , 3.5 rocket launchers,
M-60 machine guns, grenade launchers, any type of rifle, any type of
pistol.,etc?
Where do put the limit? WHY? Should there be any limit on what 'arms' you
can use? Who decides? YOU?? C'mon now. :)
Are hand grenades considers 'arms' ?

What are the limits if you take the 2nd amendments as 'gospel' according to
'your' own interpretation?
Buffalo

Off topic troll...

--
"Buffalo" <phoney@physco.invalid.net> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: "Buffalo" <phoney@physco.invalid.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: 2nd Amendmet
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:31:48 -0600
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 2
> Message-ID: <t809nm$je4$1@dont-email.me>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> format=flowed;
> charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 20:31:50 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1450356648c59c0bc97c9c457d00934c";
> logging-data="19908"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MGKNHahiA//GjPzBZ5rpb"
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:dquphY5Tz9piAAfTHYP1JBX1+4k=
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331
> Importance: Normal
> X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220610-4, 6/10/2022), Outbound message
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Received-Bytes: 1605
>
> Does this amendment say that you can carry sawed off shotguns,
> shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapons (Red-Eye) , 3.5 rocket launchers,
> M-60 machine guns, grenade launchers, any type of rifle, any type of
> pistol.,etc?
> Where do put the limit? WHY? Should there be any limit on what 'arms' you
> can use? Who decides? YOU?? C'mon now. :)
> Are hand grenades considers 'arms' ?
>
> What are the limits if you take the 2nd amendments as 'gospel' according to
> 'your' own interpretation?
> Buffalo
>

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Doe stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
USENET (**) has been 58.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
least 1623 articles to USENET. Of which 173 have been pure insults and
774 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:10:49 GMT in
message-id <ZbQoK.171609$%OV1.160998@usenetxs.com>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that Troll Doe does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

vo03ztkhE0ty

On 6/10/2022 4:31 PM, Buffalo wrote:
> Does this amendment say that you can carry sawed off shotguns,
> shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapons (Red-Eye) , 3.5 rocket
> launchers, M-60 machine guns, grenade launchers, any type of rifle, any
> type of pistol.,etc?
> Where do put the limit?  WHY? Should there be any limit on what 'arms'
> you can use? Who decides? YOU??  C'mon now. :)
> Are hand grenades considers 'arms' ?
>
> What are the limits if you take the 2nd amendments as 'gospel' according
> to 'your' own interpretation?
> Buffalo
There were no limits when the 2nd Amendments to the Constitution was
approved. In fact the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive rights
to issue Letters of Mark which allow private citizen to arm and take to
sea to claim as a prize the ship of any nation not in favor with the
Federal Government.
The 2nd Amendment gave a private citizen the right to buy what ever arms
were need, and engage the enemy wherever found if he had obtained a
Letter of Mark
From the earliest period there were no limits under the 2nd Amendment.
A citizen could buy any weapon that he could afford. This ranged from
hand guns, to the latest cannon and the ships fitted for battle if he
thought he needed one.
There are many incidence in our history when private citizen made cannon
to protect their community. This occurred in the Revolutionary war, War
of 1812, through to the Civil War. (I don't remember any events in the
later wars.)
There was one thing our ancestor had that many have lost today. That is
ethics to use the weapons they own, in a responsible way.
My friends and I grew up with guns. In my childhood there were always
two shot guns in an unlock closet of our home. Those guns were there
when we were born and in my case they were there when my parents went
into a home. We were taught how to use them and what not to do with them.
Guns are blamed when people with no morals and kill whoever they
disagree with. They do not have the guts to meet their opponent in a
formal due like our fathers.
Gun violence grew as "Thou shall not kill" was removed form our homes
and school.s

On 2022-06-10, knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> On 6/10/2022 4:31 PM, Buffalo wrote:
>> Does this amendment say that you can carry sawed off shotguns,
>> shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapons (Red-Eye) , 3.5 rocket
>> launchers, M-60 machine guns, grenade launchers, any type of rifle, any
>> type of pistol.,etc?
>> Where do put the limit??? WHY? Should there be any limit on what 'arms'
>> you can use? Who decides? YOU???? C'mon now. :)
>> Are hand grenades considers 'arms' ?
>>
>> What are the limits if you take the 2nd amendments as 'gospel' according
>> to 'your' own interpretation?
>> Buffalo
> There were no limits when the 2nd Amendments to the Constitution was
> approved. In fact the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive rights
> to issue Letters of Mark which allow private citizen to arm and take to
> sea to claim as a prize the ship of any nation not in favor with the
> Federal Government.
>
> The 2nd Amendment gave a private citizen the right to buy what ever arms
> were need, and engage the enemy wherever found if he had obtained a
> Letter of Mark
>
> From the earliest period there were no limits under the 2nd Amendment.
> A citizen could buy any weapon that he could afford. This ranged from
> hand guns, to the latest cannon and the ships fitted for battle if he
> thought he needed one.
>
> There are many incidence in our history when private citizen made cannon
> to protect their community. This occurred in the Revolutionary war, War
> of 1812, through to the Civil War. (I don't remember any events in the
> later wars.)
>
> There was one thing our ancestor had that many have lost today. That is
> ethics to use the weapons they own, in a responsible way.
>
> My friends and I grew up with guns. In my childhood there were always
> two shot guns in an unlock closet of our home. Those guns were there
> when we were born and in my case they were there when my parents went
> into a home. We were taught how to use them and what not to do with them.
>
> Guns are blamed when people with no morals and kill whoever they
> disagree with. They do not have the guts to meet their opponent in a
> formal due like our fathers.
>
> Gun violence grew as "Thou shall not kill" was removed form our homes
> and school.s

I believe the "right to bear arms" became the 2nd admendment in the
"bill of rights" is that the right to have the citizens to own guns to
fight a tyrannical government as just as what happened in the
revolutionary war. See the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of
Independence. If only the government can own arms, the people will
be in big trouble. Look at how much government control is currently
done. Even products are not available because of "prop 65" in CA as
I am unable to replace my elkhide slippers & some showerheads cannot
be bought by people in CA as even room purifiers are not allowed to be
sent to CA by Home Depot.

There is no god that said that the "assault" weapons cannot be used
as defensive weapons. More people are killed in traffic "accidents"
than by guns & no one have said "ban the automobile & truck".
The shooter in "mass killings" is blamed as being a mental defective
by the Left but no one cares why it happened nor what reasons the
shooter got to the breaking point to take such action. Perhaps the
person got fed up with all the so-called "demostrations" & riots.
The Jan 6 situation is quite tame compared to the riots in Portland,
Minniapolis & Seattle & yet congress just ignore the happenings
feeling that the riots were justified.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:12:58 -0000 (UTC), lew
<citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:

>I believe the "right to bear arms" became the 2nd admendment in the
>"bill of rights" is that the right to have the citizens to own guns to
>fight a tyrannical government as just as what happened in the
>revolutionary war.

Nope. Nice theory, but it fails the documented history test. That DOES
fit the false claims by the right and the NRA though.

Look up the Second Militia Act of 1792. It is in the US Congressional
Record (the May 8 version).

Read the *first* paragraph carefully. That is where the facts are
found. IMO, nobody else has figured it out because it is so simple.

Then, by applying logic, you (and anyone else--IF they have a
functional brain. Do YOU?) would realize the Second Amendment was
effectively repealed by Congress over a century ago (1903). They only
left the Second Amendment unchanged because they were too afraid to
reveal what they had actually done.

Buffalo <phoney@physco.invalid.net> posted this :

> Does this amendment say that you can carry sawed off shotguns,
> shoulder-launched anti-aircraft weapons (Red-Eye) , 3.5 rocket
> launchers, M-60 machine guns, grenade launchers, any type of rifle, any
> type of pistol.,etc?

What does "shall not be infringed" mean to *you*???

> Where do put the limit?

It's a Constitutional Amendment... Are you brain-damaged?

"Limits" on Constitutional Amendments can ONLY be made by Constitutional
Amendment, as prescribed in Article V of the Constitution.

Dammit! What's so fuukeen difficult to unnerstand 'bout dat?

WHY? Should there be any limit on what 'arms'
> you can use? Who decides? YOU?? C'mon now. :)

Previously answered.

> Are hand grenades considers 'arms' ?

Previously answered.

>
> What are the limits if you take the 2nd amendments as 'gospel' according
> to 'your' own interpretation?

It's *NOT* a matter of extrapolating a word or phrase out of context and
superimposing the word or phrase over the Amendment and opining "that's
what the Amendment 'really' means".

King George's government was oppressive and the FIRST thing they did, or
attempted to do, was disarm the Colonists. Our founding fathers recognized
that disarming the population was the first step to dominance and
oppression by whatever political power is extant.

No matter *WHY* Amendment II was important, "... the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the dominant directive.
How many interpretations can you construe from that?

It's like your typical Libtard's logic goes "well, we don't have a militia
anymore therefore the 2nd Amendment is now totally invalid and guns are
just so noisy and scary we should just take them all away and carry bicycle
locks for weapons now and travel in gangs to terrorize people with whom we
disagree..." D'uh!

There *ARE* *NO* *LIMITS*! There can be *NO* *LIMITS* legislatively or
judicially under our Constitution! Not by the federal government, state
governments, or local governments. (See Amendment XIV)

If "you" - or anyone else - wants to *legallly* limit "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms", "you" - or anyone else - *must* either
repeal-and/or-replace or amend Amendment II with another amendment.

That is the way our Constitution works... or is intended to work.

It's designed to protect us - "the people" - from the whims of politics,
public opinion, powerful authority, anarchy, cattle thieves, rapists, and
smartasses on the usenets, etc....

So... If your cause is so just, and your intentions are so honorable and
your arguments are so cogent, *WHY* *NOT* *SIMPLY* amend the Constitution
to suit your preferences.

It's just so fuukeen simple.

But ohhhhhhh noooooo, you snowflakes would much rather banter around and
whine about it... collect money for political action committees over it...
fragment and fractualize over it... position for yet more power over it...
push the limits of 'Separation of Powers' over it...

Oh, but that's right... Pursuant to Brown vs. Board of Education, *most* of
the population is no longer educated about the Constitution and the *WHYs*,
*HOWs*, *WHENs*, and *WHATs* of OUR CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE RULE OF LAW
anymore, because mobs, mainstream Leftist media, and Hollywood tell you how
these things *should* work...

> Buffalo
>
>

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

And *NO*, that is *NOT* a Jedi Light Saber I have in my pocket!

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm happy to see you either.

jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> posted this:

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:12:58 -0000 (UTC), lew
> <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I believe the "right to bear arms" became the 2nd admendment in the
>>"bill of rights" is that the right to have the citizens to own guns to
>>fight a tyrannical government as just as what happened in the
>>revolutionary war.
>
> Nope. Nice theory, but it fails the documented history test. That DOES
> fit the false claims by the right and the NRA though.
>
> Look up the Second Militia Act of 1792. It is in the US Congressional
> Record (the May 8 version).
>
> Read the *first* paragraph carefully. That is where the facts are
> found. IMO, nobody else has figured it out because it is so simple.
>
> Then, by applying logic, you (and anyone else--IF they have a
> functional brain. Do YOU?) would realize the Second Amendment was
> effectively repealed by Congress over a century ago (1903). They only
> left the Second Amendment unchanged because they were too afraid to
> reveal what they had actually done.

Those are interesting "facts" but "facts" misconstrued out of order do not
constitute "logic" in the true definition of "logic" - juxtaposed to
"Liberal Logic", which is actually an oxymoronic idiom applied quite
facetiously. Like an intellectual joke, of a sort... anyways:

In legal terms, the heirarchy is 1) US Constitution; 2) Amendments to the
US Constitution pursuant to Article V of the US Constitution - which
actually and effectively become integral to and part of the US
Constitution; 3) Legislative, Bills, Acts, etc., which become law; 4)
Federal Regulations pursuant to Legislative actions and Executive
signature; and 5) Judicial precedent, pursuant to Article III of the US
Constitution.

In other words, you *cannot* correctly construe The Second Militia Act of
1792 to be the "basis" of Amendment II to our Constitution.

The Militia Act of 1903, appropriately called The Dick Act, simply
consoldated the militia concept into a National Guard configuration,
combining the various states' militias under a flexible federal central
control...

BUT, even that argument fades into semantics over the evolution and use of
the word "militia" from 1792 through 1903. It in NO WISE diminished, nor
attempted to diminish, the provisions of the 2nd Amendment or its basic
premise; to wit, the people's right to keep and bear arms, ultimately to
defend ourselves against an oppressive government and/or to defend
ourselves when government cannot or will not defend us.

While The 1792 Act could have well been within the same fields of
consideration for the 2nd Amendment within the historical context, Congress
*CANNOT* "effectively repeal" a Constitutional Amendment... *EVER*!

Neither can the US Supreme Court "effectively" promulgate legal precedent
to diminish the 2nd Amendment... *EVER*!

If they should bane to do so, it *MIGHT* hold for a while, given our
current abberant political environment and the abomination of the US
Justice Department's picking and choosing which laws to ignore and which to
rigidly enforce in arbitrary and capricious patterns...

But, with all that notwithstanding, the *ONLY* legitimate way to modify,
qualify, repeal, or replace a Constitutional Amendment is by Constitutional
Amendment pursuant to Article V of our Constitution.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

And *NO*, that is *NOT* a Jedi Light Saber I have in my pocket!

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm happy to see you either.

On 2022-06-11, jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:12:58 -0000 (UTC), lew
><citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I believe the "right to bear arms" became the 2nd admendment in the
>>"bill of rights" is that the right to have the citizens to own guns to
>>fight a tyrannical government as just as what happened in the
>>revolutionary war.
>
> Nope. Nice theory, but it fails the documented history test. That DOES
> fit the false claims by the right and the NRA though.

Nope. You need to consider the time that the Constitution was done &
how long after the Revolutionary war & WHY the war happened.
>
> Look up the Second Militia Act of 1792. It is in the US Congressional
> Record (the May 8 version).
>
> Read the *first* paragraph carefully. That is where the facts are
> found. IMO, nobody else has figured it out because it is so simple.
>
> Then, by applying logic, you (and anyone else--IF they have a
> functional brain. Do YOU?) would realize the Second Amendment was
> effectively repealed by Congress over a century ago (1903). They only
> left the Second Amendment unchanged because they were too afraid to
> reveal what they had actually done.

You have disregarded why the war happened & whether the people
involved woulld trust any government. The fact remains that the right
to bear arms is a 'just in case' the US government becomes over
dictorial like what occur now regarding the covid mask mandate.
The mask mandate affected the supply chain adversely.

On 2022-06-11, Bucky Breeder <Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:
> In legal terms, the heirarchy is 1) US Constitution; 2) Amendments to the
> US Constitution pursuant to Article V of the US Constitution - which
> actually and effectively become integral to and part of the US
> Constitution; 3) Legislative, Bills, Acts, etc., which become law; 4)
> Federal Regulations pursuant to Legislative actions and Executive
> signature; and 5) Judicial precedent, pursuant to Article III of the US
> Constitution.

Don't confuse liberal turds with facts that contradict their fantasy world.
It accomplishes nothing and just annoys the turds.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:57:39 -0400, knuttle wrote:
> On 6/10/2022 4:31 PM, Buffalo wrote:
> > [quoted text muted]
> >
> > What are the limits if you take the 2nd amendments as 'gospel' according
> > to 'your' own interpretation?
> > Buffalo
> There were no limits when the 2nd Amendments to the Constitution was
> approved. In fact the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive rights
>

Wrong newsgroup, Keith. Please don't encourage the trolls by giving
them attention.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-06-11, jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:12:58 -0000 (UTC), lew
>> <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I believe the "right to bear arms" became the 2nd admendment in the
>>> "bill of rights" is that the right to have the citizens to own guns to
>>> fight a tyrannical government as just as what happened in the
>>> revolutionary war.
>>
>> Nope. Nice theory, but it fails the documented history test. That DOES
>> fit the false claims by the right and the NRA though.
>
> Nope. You need to consider the time that the Constitution was done &
> how long after the Revolutionary war & WHY the war happened.
>
>>
>> Look up the Second Militia Act of 1792. It is in the US Congressional
>> Record (the May 8 version).
>>
>> Read the *first* paragraph carefully. That is where the facts are
>> found. IMO, nobody else has figured it out because it is so simple.
>>
>> Then, by applying logic, you (and anyone else--IF they have a
>> functional brain. Do YOU?) would realize the Second Amendment was
>> effectively repealed by Congress over a century ago (1903). They only
>> left the Second Amendment unchanged because they were too afraid to
>> reveal what they had actually done.
>
> You have disregarded why the war happened & whether the people
> involved woulld trust any government. The fact remains that the right
> to bear arms is a 'just in case' the US government becomes over
> dictorial like what occur now regarding the covid mask mandate.
> The mask mandate affected the supply chain adversely.

I don't remember seeing anti-maskers taking arms. Were they too chicken?
They only time they took up their guns during the pandemic was to attack
other American civilians demonstrating for people's rights. Doesn't sound
very constitutional to me?

If the US really were an authoritarian regime, do you really believe the
people would have any more power than they do now to overcome a
professional army? Just look at oppressive regimes over the centuries, they
have always been able to suppress the people.

When the real need for a "friendly shooter" arises, on a depressing regular
basis, they never appear. They save their own skins or they hide behind
excuses. None of them are brave enough to do anything, even those trained
to do so, except on very rare cases.

All these are simply excuses and a pretence so that the little boys can
keep their toys. AKA the NRA.

Off-topic

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:23:42 GMT, shemp13@outlook.com wrote:

>Off-topic

Yes!

I'm going to say this just one more time. If this and other political
crap keeps getting posted here, I'm going to killfile all its
participants, regardless of whether I agree with or disagree with
their political views, and regardless of how much I appreciate, and
sometimes learn from, their on-topic posts. My patience has just about
ended.

I recommend that you, and everyone else here, do the same.

I'll also repeat that I don't mind an occasional off-topic post. I'm
as guilty of that as anyone else. But all this back-and-forth arguing
is way too much.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:26:14 GMT, Bucky Breeder
<Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:

>jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> posted this:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:12:58 -0000 (UTC), lew
>> <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
>>

>Those are interesting "facts" but "facts" misconstrued out of order do not
>constitute "logic" in the true definition of "logic" - juxtaposed to
>"Liberal Logic", which is actually an oxymoronic idiom applied quite
>facetiously. Like an intellectual joke, of a sort... anyways:

Facts which were presented in the proper order that documented the
effective removal of the Second Amendment.

>In legal terms, the heirarchy is 1) US Constitution; 2) Amendments to the
>US Constitution pursuant to Article V of the US Constitution - which
>actually and effectively become integral to and part of the US
>Constitution; 3) Legislative, Bills, Acts, etc., which become law; 4)
>Federal Regulations pursuant to Legislative actions and Executive
>signature; and 5) Judicial precedent, pursuant to Article III of the US
>Constitution.

Where is marriage and/or abortion mentioned in that document? Oh yes,
those are NOT areas covered. So.....

>In other words, you *cannot* correctly construe The Second Militia Act of
>1792 to be the "basis" of Amendment II to our Constitution.

Denying reality is what the right does every day.

>The Militia Act of 1903, appropriately called The Dick Act, simply
>consoldated the militia concept into a National Guard configuration,
>combining the various states' militias under a flexible federal central
>control...

Nice guess, but you failed the fundamental test that was requested,
specifically to READ AND UNDERSTAND. You failed to UNDERSTAND the
first paragraph. So go back and try again and again and again UNTIL
YOU UNDERSTAND. If you *WON'T", then we have irrefutable proof you are
totally clueless about US history just after the Revolutionary War.

>BUT, even that argument fades into semantics over the evolution and use of
>the word "militia" from 1792 through 1903. It in NO WISE diminished, nor
>attempted to diminish, the provisions of the 2nd Amendment or its basic
>premise; to wit, the people's right to keep and bear arms, ultimately to
>defend ourselves against an oppressive government and/or to defend
>ourselves when government cannot or will not defend us.

Wrong again. See above paragraph. READ AND UNDERSTAND. You do NOT
understand (as usual).

>While The 1792 Act could have well been within the same fields of
>consideration for the 2nd Amendment within the historical context, Congress
>*CANNOT* "effectively repeal" a Constitutional Amendment... *EVER*!

Sure they can. They have done it LOTS of times.

>Neither can the US Supreme Court "effectively" promulgate legal precedent
>to diminish the 2nd Amendment... *EVER*!

You mean like the right to an abortion? Or marriage? Or lots of other
stuff such as individuals owning warships, or nuclear, biological,
chemical, and radiological weapons? NONE of those are prohibited in
the US Constitution, and they ALL fall under the "Second Amendment".

>If they should bane to do so, it *MIGHT* hold for a while, given our
>current abberant political environment and the abomination of the US
>Justice Department's picking and choosing which laws to ignore and which to
>rigidly enforce in arbitrary and capricious patterns...

That is Spankee's way.

>But, with all that notwithstanding, the *ONLY* legitimate way to modify,
>qualify, repeal, or replace a Constitutional Amendment is by Constitutional
>Amendment pursuant to Article V of our Constitution.

Or don't fund it or enforce it. Now whoda thunk THAT ? LOL !!!!

Oh yes, one more CRITICAL fact.

BULLETS were invented in 1847. Therefore, the US Constitution does NOT
cover any weapon that would use such an item (that includes field
pieces because they use a LARGE bullet).

How do we KNOW? YOU SAID SO. At the top of YOUR RESPONSE, you said
'"facts" misconstrued out of order'--which, by applying YOUR OWN
STATEMENT, means weapons that use BULLETS are NOT COVERED by the US
Constitution. ONLY muzzle-loaders fall under the US Constitution
because only those items EXISTED at that time.

As stated in my original post: READ AND UNDERSTAND the SECOND MILITIA
ACT of 1792. You are THE poster boy of failure of the right until you
COMPREHEND that law.

Let me state a fact FIRST: You *refuse* to do so because it is "TOO
HARD".

ROFLMAO !!!

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:51:59 -0000 (UTC), lew
<citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:

>The fact remains that the right
>to bear arms is a 'just in case' the US government becomes over
>dictorial like what occur now regarding the covid mask mandate.
>The mask mandate affected the supply chain adversely.

Nope. Guess again.

The mask mandate did NOT affect the supply chain adversely.

However, the Spankee Plague (Covid-19) DID impact it.

Whoda thunk THAT ????

Again, TOO HARD for a RWNJ to comprehend.

On 2022-06-12, jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:51:59 -0000 (UTC), lew
><citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
>
>>The fact remains that the right
>>to bear arms is a 'just in case' the US government becomes over
>>dictorial like what occur now regarding the covid mask mandate.
>>The mask mandate affected the supply chain adversely.
>
> Nope. Guess again.
>
> The mask mandate did NOT affect the supply chain adversely.
>
> However, the Spankee Plague (Covid-19) DID impact it.
>
> Whoda thunk THAT ????
>
> Again, TOO HARD for a RWNJ to comprehend.

Did you wear a mask while exercising? or do physcical labor?
Or did you just cover the mouth but leave the nose uncovered
to breath better?

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:38:46 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If the US really were an authoritarian regime, do you really believe the
>people would have any more power than they do now to overcome a
>professional army? Just look at oppressive regimes over the centuries, they
>have always been able to suppress the people.

You mean like the US does NOW ??? ROFLMAO !!!

The public is NOT allowed to own real weapons that would be effective
against the US military. How is it NOT an "authoritarian regime"?

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 14:52:47 GMT, Bucky Breeder
<Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:

> Pursuant to Brown vs. Board of Education, *most* of
>the population is no longer educated about the Constitution and the *WHYs*,
>*HOWs*, *WHENs*, and *WHATs* of OUR CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE RULE OF LAW
>anymore, because mobs, mainstream Leftist media, and Hollywood tell you how
>these things *should* work...

This, of course, mean YOU are "no longer educated about the
Constitution...."

You are nothing but a bag of hot air, just a lot smaller than the
Orange Turd. He tells YOU what to think, how things, work, etc.

Meanwhile, REAL AMERICANS have understood him as the loser he has
always been. You are NOT one of the REAL AMERICANS.

Now, tell us what you were told to say next.....

+ 100

jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> posted this :

> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:26:14 GMT, Bucky Breeder
> <Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:
>
>>jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> posted this:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:12:58 -0000 (UTC), lew
>>> <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>
>>Those are interesting "facts" but "facts" misconstrued out of order do
>>not constitute "logic" in the true definition of "logic" - juxtaposed to
>>"Liberal Logic", which is actually an oxymoronic idiom applied quite
>>facetiously. Like an intellectual joke, of a sort... anyways:
>
> Facts which were presented in the proper order that documented the
> effective removal of the Second Amendment.

As dutifully explained previously: legislative actions CANNOT "effectively
remove the Second Amendment"... you fuukeen dumbass.

>
>>In legal terms, the heirarchy is 1) US Constitution; 2) Amendments to
>>the US Constitution pursuant to Article V of the US Constitution - which
>>actually and effectively become integral to and part of the US
>>Constitution; 3) Legislative, Bills, Acts, etc., which become law; 4)
>>Federal Regulations pursuant to Legislative actions and Executive
>>signature; and 5) Judicial precedent, pursuant to Article III of the US
>>Constitution.
>
> Where is marriage and/or abortion mentioned in that document? Oh yes,
> those are NOT areas covered. So.....

"Marriage and/or abortion" ARE NOT areas under Constitutional purview - or
the federal government's jurisdiction! The 14th Amendment is however under
the federal government's purview.

Refer to Amendment X of our Constitution, which CANNOT be changed by
legislative actions, "such as Bills, Acts, etc."

To change our Constitution, including any Amendments thereto, the proposed
changes MUST go through the Article V Amendment process... to be legal and
binding.

>
>>In other words, you *cannot* correctly construe The Second Militia Act
>>of 1792 to be the "basis" of Amendment II to our Constitution.
>
> Denying reality is what the right does every day.

Now you're just PROVING that you are a fuuking idiot.

Attacking the person when your IDEATIONS are PROVEN DELUSIONAL is what the
Lunatic Left does every day. (At least the mainstream media and Leftist
politicians use a little more finesse with semantics, psuedo-expert
opinions, and group-think reinforcement.)

>
>>The Militia Act of 1903, appropriately called The Dick Act, simply
>>consoldated the militia concept into a National Guard configuration,
>>combining the various states' militias under a flexible federal central
>>control...
>
> Nice guess, but you failed the fundamental test that was requested,
> specifically to READ AND UNDERSTAND. You failed to UNDERSTAND the
> first paragraph. So go back and try again and again and again UNTIL
> YOU UNDERSTAND. If you *WON'T", then we have irrefutable proof you are
> totally clueless about US history just after the Revolutionary War.
>

Look, you clueless turdtard: IT DOESN'T MATTER what YOU conjure the "first
paragraph" to say and/or mean... AN AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE
ALTERED, CHANGED, "EFFECTIVELY REPEALED", et. al., BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

Right-splain it for idiots of your ilk: The Militia Act of 1903 was a
legislative action. It dealt with consolidating state militias under a
federal system of emergency controls. It "effectively" tip-toed through
the 10th Amendment. "Militia" is a common term to both Amendment II and
The Militia Act of 1903; BUT, it DID NOT alter Amendment II; it merely
consolodated state militias under a loose system of federal control while
basically leaving the states' systems under the states' control. SEE
AGAIN: AMENDMENT X.

>>BUT, even that argument fades into semantics over the evolution and use
>>of the word "militia" from 1792 through 1903. It in NO WISE diminished,
>>nor attempted to diminish, the provisions of the 2nd Amendment or its
>>basic premise; to wit, the people's right to keep and bear arms,
>>ultimately to defend ourselves against an oppressive government and/or
>>to defend ourselves when government cannot or will not defend us.
>
> Wrong again. See above paragraph. READ AND UNDERSTAND. You do NOT
> understand (as usual).

I understand YOU ARE A DUMBASS... And I have a better idea WHY they called
it "The Dick Act"... BECAUSE IN THEIR PRESCIENCE, THEY SAW YOU, AND MORONS
LIKE YOU, COMING.

>
>>While The 1792 Act could have well been within the same fields of
>>consideration for the 2nd Amendment within the historical context,
>>Congress *CANNOT* "effectively repeal" a Constitutional Amendment...
>>*EVER*!
>
> Sure they can. They have done it LOTS of times.

Now you're not only stupid but worse than stupid. NAME ONE (1) TIME!

>
>>Neither can the US Supreme Court "effectively" promulgate legal
>>precedent to diminish the 2nd Amendment... *EVER*!
>
> You mean like the right to an abortion? Or marriage? Or lots of other
> stuff such as individuals owning warships, or nuclear, biological,
> chemical, and radiological weapons? NONE of those are prohibited in
> the US Constitution, and they ALL fall under the "Second Amendment".
>

Here is where YOUR association fails: ABORTION and MARRIAGE ARE NOT
COVERED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION or Amendments thereto.

YES! Pursuant to the 2nd Amendment, ANY AMERICAN - not otherwise stripped
of their right to do so by appropriate due-process - can possess, maintain,
own, bear, etc., missiles, hand grenades, warships, tanks, machine guns,
nuclear artillery, rubber band guns, spitball straws, slingshots... etc.,
etc., etc....

The ONLY possible LEGAL restriction to Amendment II rights would come from
within the Constitution - and Amendments thereto... Such as Amendment IX,
which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Therefore, if my ownership of a warship with nuclear weapons or my driving
a tank on the freeway back and forth to work everyday endangered the safety
and security of other Americans, then by "due process" my 2nd Amendment
rights to certain activities with my "Arm" could be restricted within
certain parameters, but my right to otherwise "keep and bear Arms" still
"shall not be infringed" UNLESS, say a court takes away my individual right
because I have proven myself to be a danger... etc.

But the court CANNOT take away EVERYBODY's right because one person - or
several persons - have done bad things. And neither the courts nor
Congress can alter or amend the US Constitution. The ONLY way to do that is
via Article V Constitutional Amendment process!

>>If they should bane to do so, it *MIGHT* hold for a while, given our
>>current abberant political environment and the abomination of the US
>>Justice Department's picking and choosing which laws to ignore and which
>>to rigidly enforce in arbitrary and capricious patterns...
>
> That is Spankee's way.

Again, now you're just being an obtuse jerk. You are a wrong-thinking
individual.

>
>>But, with all that notwithstanding, the *ONLY* legitimate way to modify,
>>qualify, repeal, or replace a Constitutional Amendment is by
>>Constitutional Amendment pursuant to Article V of our Constitution.
>
> Or don't fund it or enforce it. Now whoda thunk THAT ? LOL !!!!
>
> Oh yes, one more CRITICAL fact.
>
> BULLETS were invented in 1847. Therefore, the US Constitution does NOT
> cover any weapon that would use such an item (that includes field
> pieces because they use a LARGE bullet).

That's certainly a backwards perspective... Under your delusional
rationale, only muskets are covered by the 2nd Amendment?

Well, if that were be true, or remotely valid, circa 1847 SOMEBODY would
have brought that up and consequently constrained the 2nd Amendment in
Liberals' Semantics Court.

"Arms" is pretty much an inclusive and our forefathers were acutely aware
that technology is an advancing dynamic. Your lame-ass argument would have
the British complaining of war crimes because American Colonists deployed
the long-rifle - with rifling - instead of those trumpet-shaped turkey
shooters...

Again, if there's enough desire to amend the 2nd Amendment - AT ANY POINT
IN HISTORY - then folks should amend it via the Article 5 process amply
provided ostensibly for circumstances like this.

It's just you Lazy-Ass Libtards would rather whine and riot because you all
figure if you do enough damage, you can get some more of that FEMA money to
buy your drugs and electric scooters.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> posted this via
news:vhvbahlf0b1lgff0jabett96kh7moc1lbg@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:23:42 GMT, shemp13@outlook.com wrote:
>
>>Off-topic
>
>
> Yes!
>
> I'm going to say this just one more time. If this and other political
> crap keeps getting posted here, I'm going to killfile all its
> participants, regardless of whether I agree with or disagree with
> their political views, and regardless of how much I appreciate, and
> sometimes learn from, their on-topic posts. My patience has just about
> ended.
>
> I recommend that you, and everyone else here, do the same.
>
> I'll also repeat that I don't mind an occasional off-topic post. I'm
> as guilty of that as anyone else. But all this back-and-forth arguing
> is way too much.

You're the ONLY one who gets to post "off-topic" rants?

Good to know.

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

And *NO*, that is *NOT* a Jedi Light Saber I have in my pocket!

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm happy to see you either.

Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> posted this:

> On 2022-06-11, Bucky Breeder
> <Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:
>> In legal terms, the heirarchy is 1) US Constitution; 2) Amendments to
>> the US Constitution pursuant to Article V of the US Constitution -
>> which actually and effectively become integral to and part of the US
>> Constitution; 3) Legislative, Bills, Acts, etc., which become law; 4)
>> Federal Regulations pursuant to Legislative actions and Executive
>> signature; and 5) Judicial precedent, pursuant to Article III of the US
>> Constitution.
>
> Don't confuse liberal turds with facts that contradict their fantasy
> world. It accomplishes nothing and just annoys the turds.
>

I'm just saying that *IF* these people *GENUINELY* wanted to change
firearms laws, there is an absolutely correct way to do it which was
contemplated and provided by the same Constitution which gave us the 2nd
Amendment in the first place...

Dayuum... How many years have they been squabbling and squawking and
yelping about "Congress needs to do something" everytime a segment of the
population gets fixated in the "anger" stage of grief?

It's the exception that proves the rule: "There's no money in the cure.
All the profit is in the diagnoses, studies, and treatments."

Think about it: How long did it take our ancestors to process and pass the
18th Amendment ("Prohibition")? Congress passed the Act December 18, 1917
and the required 36 of the 48 states had ratified it on January 16, 1919
making it Federal Law pursuant to Article VI, Paragraph 2 (The Supremacy
Clause) of our Constitution. It came into effect, by provision therein, one
year later.

And then... the 21st Amendment repealed that very same 18th Amendment on
December 5, 1933. It was proposed by Congress in February 1933. Quite
simply, due to public outcry, our Constitution was again LEGALLY changed
within 10-months.

Now fast forward to today: How many times have you heard a US Senator or
Congressperson call for a Constitutional Amendment to alter or repeal the
2nd Amendment? Never happens... How many times have you seen any
reasonable proposition for a solution?

All you ever hear are these inflammatory tropes like "Assault rifles are
for killing people"... These are *NOT* literallly "assault rifles" because
without a special federal firearms license, they cannot be switched to
fullly automatic... WHICH *IS* an "infringment" of our 2nd Amendment
rights, but you don't see much resistance to it. Personally, I need a
semiautomatic firearm to defend myself [and/or others] against an armed mob
of zombie Democrats who figure I have something and they want it and they
won't be prosecuted for forceably taking it from me...

In the wake of every school, supermarket, nightclub, church, or movie
theater shooting, what you hear is a bunch of whining and gnashing of the
teeth about passing laws to literally "infringe" on *EVERYBODY'S* 2nd
Amendment rights!

If their cause be true, why don't they simply proceed the correct way?

In truth, it's just as well because *GUNS* *ARE* *NOT* *THE* *PROBLEM*!

Liberals, aka Democrats and their wishy-washy, Kumbaya, hot-cold, erratic
enforcement of existing laws are the problem. Some left wing Liberal
college graduate working as a school teacher who decided, "I'll just leave
that door open today" was part of the problem. Some retired-in-place
Democrat police chief who commanded "Don't go in yet... Wait until the
shooting stops because we don't want any of our officers getting shot" and
the ~45-minute wait for an affirmative response - by Border Patrol agents
who disobeyed the scene commander's orders and went in and shot the
shooter... By then, most of the children with survivable wounds had bled
out on the floor.

Guns were NOT the problem! It's like saying fruit is the problem...
because if Eve would have never eaten of the fruit of the tree of good and
evil, none of this would be happening; therefore, we *MUST* outlaw fruit!!!

You cannot take away people's cars because a few crazy morons choose to
drive into a crowd to make some abberant statement... Oh, but wait... The
government actually can do that - because there's no Constitutional
Amendment protecting our rights to a motor vehicle... excepting the 4th and
14th Amendments, of course....

Actually, *IF* our elected federal representatives were doing their jobs
proficiently and *IF* the majority opinon were constructively focused on
correcting the mass-shootings and gun-violence problems, the 4th Amendment
is already the answer!

It's as simple as Red Flag Laws which provide ample due-process which could
legitimately deny access to firearms to those criminals and disturbed
people who shouldn't have access to dangerous instrumentalities of any
sort. It's as simple as Red Flag and fedral firearms licensing laws which
require firearm purchases and firearm transfers to employ due-diligence to
insure that people who should not have firearms do not gain access to
firearms - under severe penalties for ignoring or breaking these laws.

Everybody should be happy. Patriots and law abiding citizens who wish to
possess lethal arsenals, ammunition and/or ordinance can keep their
arsenals while criminals and crazy people cannot have access to firearms.

But the Libtards would argue "That's a violation of the All Men Are Created
Equal Law and the plaque on the bottom of the Statue of Liberty."
EVERYBODY has to surrender their guns and EVERYBODY gets a participation
trophy - unless you're a Conservative... Then you get cancelled and
censored. And that's the American way!

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

Old men in geriatric diapers stalk me on the usenets
and call me a "troll", a term of endearment and high praise.

Humbly, I am awesome.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 16:47:15 GMT, Bucky Breeder
<Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:

>jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> posted this :
>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 15:26:14 GMT, Bucky Breeder
>> <Breeder_Bucky-Breeder@That's.my.name_Don't.wear.it.out> wrote:
>>
>>>jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> posted this:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 01:12:58 -0000 (UTC), lew
>>>> <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>Those are interesting "facts" but "facts" misconstrued out of order do
>>>not constitute "logic" in the true definition of "logic" - juxtaposed to
>>>"Liberal Logic", which is actually an oxymoronic idiom applied quite
>>>facetiously. Like an intellectual joke, of a sort... anyways:
>>
>> Facts which were presented in the proper order that documented the
>> effective removal of the Second Amendment.
>
>As dutifully explained previously: legislative actions CANNOT "effectively
>remove the Second Amendment"... you fuukeen dumbass.

Yet it was done. Go ahead, prove me wrong. You have been trying but
have yet to come up with anything but "THE CONSTITUTION SAYS..."

>>>In legal terms, the heirarchy is 1) US Constitution; 2) Amendments to
>>>the US Constitution pursuant to Article V of the US Constitution - which
>>>actually and effectively become integral to and part of the US
>>>Constitution; 3) Legislative, Bills, Acts, etc., which become law; 4)
>>>Federal Regulations pursuant to Legislative actions and Executive
>>>signature; and 5) Judicial precedent, pursuant to Article III of the US
>>>Constitution.
>>
>> Where is marriage and/or abortion mentioned in that document? Oh yes,
>> those are NOT areas covered. So.....
>
>"Marriage and/or abortion" ARE NOT areas under Constitutional purview - or
>the federal government's jurisdiction! The 14th Amendment is however under
>the federal government's purview.
>
>Refer to Amendment X of our Constitution, which CANNOT be changed by
>legislative actions, "such as Bills, Acts, etc."
>
>To change our Constitution, including any Amendments thereto, the proposed
>changes MUST go through the Article V Amendment process... to be legal and
>binding.

Then how did Congress eliminate the Second Amendment? Oh yes, YOU
CAN'T FIND FACTS IN US HISTORY.

>>>In other words, you *cannot* correctly construe The Second Militia Act
>>>of 1792 to be the "basis" of Amendment II to our Constitution.
>>
>> Denying reality is what the right does every day.
>
>Now you're just PROVING that you are a fuuking idiot.
>
>Attacking the person when your IDEATIONS are PROVEN DELUSIONAL is what the
>Lunatic Left does every day. (At least the mainstream media and Leftist
>politicians use a little more finesse with semantics, psuedo-expert
>opinions, and group-think reinforcement.)

Thus far, you have NOT shown anything but LOUD SCREAMING.

Facts? Not so much, particularly those relevant to the discussion..

>>>The Militia Act of 1903, appropriately called The Dick Act, simply
>>>consoldated the militia concept into a National Guard configuration,
>>>combining the various states' militias under a flexible federal central
>>>control...
>>
>> Nice guess, but you failed the fundamental test that was requested,
>> specifically to READ AND UNDERSTAND. You failed to UNDERSTAND the
>> first paragraph. So go back and try again and again and again UNTIL
>> YOU UNDERSTAND. If you *WON'T", then we have irrefutable proof you are
>> totally clueless about US history just after the Revolutionary War.
>>
>
>Look, you clueless turdtard: IT DOESN'T MATTER what YOU conjure the "first
>paragraph" to say and/or mean... AN AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE
>ALTERED, CHANGED, "EFFECTIVELY REPEALED", et. al., BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

You keep SCREAMING that belief, but that does NOT mean it is true. You
know, like the RWNJ justices said "Roe is settled law". They LIED.

>Right-splain it for idiots of your ilk: The Militia Act of 1903 was a
>legislative action. It dealt with consolidating state militias under a
>federal system of emergency controls. It "effectively" tip-toed through
>the 10th Amendment. "Militia" is a common term to both Amendment II and
>The Militia Act of 1903; BUT, it DID NOT alter Amendment II; it merely
>consolodated state militias under a loose system of federal control while
>basically leaving the states' systems under the states' control. SEE
>AGAIN: AMENDMENT X.

You? Explain ANYTHING? ROFLMAO. You can't EXPLAIN the Second Militia
Act of 1792 and why it was so essential to the people AND the US govt
at the time. AND how it was critical for supporting the NEED for
people to own weapons (*as specified by the US govt*, no less).

>>>BUT, even that argument fades into semantics over the evolution and use
>>>of the word "militia" from 1792 through 1903. It in NO WISE diminished,
>>>nor attempted to diminish, the provisions of the 2nd Amendment or its
>>>basic premise; to wit, the people's right to keep and bear arms,
>>>ultimately to defend ourselves against an oppressive government and/or
>>>to defend ourselves when government cannot or will not defend us.
>>
>> Wrong again. See above paragraph. READ AND UNDERSTAND. You do NOT
>> understand (as usual).
>
>I understand YOU ARE A DUMBASS... And I have a better idea WHY they called
>it "The Dick Act"... BECAUSE IN THEIR PRESCIENCE, THEY SAW YOU, AND MORONS
>LIKE YOU, COMING.

You have failed, yet again, to comprehend FACTS IN LAW. Maybe your
CONSTITUTION is letting you down (again)?

>>>While The 1792 Act could have well been within the same fields of
>>>consideration for the 2nd Amendment within the historical context,
>>>Congress *CANNOT* "effectively repeal" a Constitutional Amendment...
>>>*EVER*!
>>
>> Sure they can. They have done it LOTS of times.
>
>Now you're not only stupid but worse than stupid. NAME ONE (1) TIME!

Second Amendment repealed by Congress in 1903.

>>>Neither can the US Supreme Court "effectively" promulgate legal
>>>precedent to diminish the 2nd Amendment... *EVER*!
>>
>> You mean like the right to an abortion? Or marriage? Or lots of other
>> stuff such as individuals owning warships, or nuclear, biological,
>> chemical, and radiological weapons? NONE of those are prohibited in
>> the US Constitution, and they ALL fall under the "Second Amendment".
>>
>
>Here is where YOUR association fails: ABORTION and MARRIAGE ARE NOT
>COVERED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION or Amendments thereto.
>
>YES! Pursuant to the 2nd Amendment, ANY AMERICAN - not otherwise stripped
>of their right to do so by appropriate due-process - can possess, maintain,
>own, bear, etc., missiles, hand grenades, warships, tanks, machine guns,
>nuclear artillery, rubber band guns, spitball straws, slingshots... etc.,
>etc., etc....
>
>The ONLY possible LEGAL restriction to Amendment II rights would come from
>within the Constitution - and Amendments thereto... Such as Amendment IX,
>which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
>not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>Therefore, if my ownership of a warship with nuclear weapons or my driving
>a tank on the freeway back and forth to work everyday endangered the safety
>and security of other Americans, then by "due process" my 2nd Amendment
>rights to certain activities with my "Arm" could be restricted within
>certain parameters, but my right to otherwise "keep and bear Arms" still
>"shall not be infringed" UNLESS, say a court takes away my individual right
>because I have proven myself to be a danger... etc.
>
>But the court CANNOT take away EVERYBODY's right because one person - or
>several persons - have done bad things. And neither the courts nor
>Congress can alter or amend the US Constitution. The ONLY way to do that is
>via Article V Constitutional Amendment process!

See? More of your "I don't have a clue, so I gotta claim crap that has
NEVER withstood the test of time--OR facts".

>>>If they should bane to do so, it *MIGHT* hold for a while, given our
>>>current abberant political environment and the abomination of the US
>>>Justice Department's picking and choosing which laws to ignore and which
>>>to rigidly enforce in arbitrary and capricious patterns...
>>
>> That is Spankee's way.
>
>Again, now you're just being an obtuse jerk. You are a wrong-thinking
>individual.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 15:11:23 -0000 (UTC), lew
<citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> wrote:

>Did you wear a mask while exercising? or do physcical labor?

I do not do either due to back problems/pain.

>Or did you just cover the mouth but leave the nose uncovered
>to breath better?

I use a mask whenever I go out of my apt. Wastewater shows growing
dominance of BA.4 and BA.5.

You missed the "picture postcard" contradicting your position. It was
shown on national television.

Tom Brady--no mask--huffing and puffing, blowing his germs everywhere.
HIGHLY VISIBLE to everyone watching because it was COLD at the
outdoor stadium and his breath could be EASILY SEEN when he EXHALED.
It easily went 3+ feet all around him.

Meanwhile, a DIFFERENT player, in the same game/play, WAS WEARING A
MASK, ALSO breathing heavily. But his exhalations were kept close to
him by his mask, so he was NOT spreading a lot of germs in a large
area around him. The sportscasters mentioned that fact on air.