"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2on66$8h06$2@dont-email.me...
> Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>>>>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
>>>>> to keep and bear arms.
>>>>
>>>> Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
>>>
>>> That's false. Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even — said
>>> the
>>> right is an individual right.
>>
>> Agreed. It is an individual right and is separate from any consideration
>> of militia.
>
> What did Burger know?
>
> https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
>
>
> “A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren
> Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered
> individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the
> rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the
> longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
>
> Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig.
> Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but
> increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on
> streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.
>
> Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that
> the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until
> 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law
> effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the
> court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

Try again:

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

A case that hinged around the notion that a former black slave was not a
citizen.. and among the items in the ruling which any citizen could do, we
find this.

"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities
of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and
from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their
own satiety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized
as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other
State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or
passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased,
to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without
molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white
man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in
public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might
speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry
arms"

IOW.. if blacks were actually citizens they could "keep and carry arms".

So clearly DC vs. Heller is NOT the first time the court covered the issue
of whether the people could keep and carry arms.

In fact there are a multitude of court cases that address this issue long
before DC vs. Heller.

and they all say the same thing. People, average people, have the RIGHT to
keep and carry guns.

NO where will you find any SCOTUS case that states otherwise.

On 5/1/2023 1:17 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u2on66$8h06$2@dont-email.me...
>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:28:01 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>>>>>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right
>>>>>> to keep and bear arms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only recently when NRA propaganda packed the court.
>>>>
>>>> That's false.  Numerous scholars have for years — centuries even — said the
>>>> right is an individual right.
>>>
>>> Agreed.  It is an individual right and is separate from any consideration of
>>> militia.
>>
>> What did Burger know?
>>
>> https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
>>
>>
>> “A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren
>> Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered
>> individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the
>> rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the
>> longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
>>
>> Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not
>> only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly
>> states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in
>> parks, in bars—even in churches.
>>
>> Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the
>> Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008,
>> when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively
>> banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled
>> previously, it had ruled otherwise.
>
> Try again:
>
> Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
>
> A case that hinged around the notion that a former black slave was not a
> citizen.. and among the items in the ruling which any citizen could do, we find
> this.
>
> "For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of
> citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from
> the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own
> satiety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as
> citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State
> whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and
> without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they
> pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they
> committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it
> would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all
> subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon
> political affairs, and to keep and carry arms"
>
> IOW.. if blacks were actually citizens they could "keep and carry arms".

That doesn't mean that the court in Dred Scott was saying the right to arms is
an individual right.

On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:

>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>
>The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.

That was one reason.

> Because for all intents
>there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose.

So what?

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
>
>>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>>
>>The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
>
> That was one reason.
>
>> Because for all intents
>>there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose.
>
> So what?

Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all
intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected
by the 2nd Amendment.

Why? Because the right doesn't depend on you being in the militia.. but as a
human being.

On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:05:00 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
>> On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
>>
>>>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>>>
>>>The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
>>
>> That was one reason.
>>
>>> Because for all intents
>>>there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose.
>>
>> So what?
>
>Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all
>intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected
>by the 2nd Amendment.
>
>Why? Because the right doesn't depend on you being in the militia.. but as a
>human being.
>
>

Rudy knows this. He just likes to shriek, for some reason.

He HATES that they can't ban AR's. And what REALLY galls him is that
Trump cemented that with his Supreme Court picks.

On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
>> On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
>>
>>>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>>>
>>> The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
>>
>> That was one reason.
>>
>>> Because for all intents
>>> there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose.
>>
>> So what?
>
> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all
> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected by
> the 2nd Amendment.

But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some
guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.

On Mon, 1 May 2023 18:46:23 -0700, Salty Stan <wsjames123n@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
>>> On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
>>>
>>>>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>>>>
>>>> The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
>>>
>>> That was one reason.
>>>
>>>> Because for all intents
>>>> there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all
>> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected by
>> the 2nd Amendment.
>
>But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some
>guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.

Expect him to argue this point and then claim he never said the right was unlimited.

Swill
NP: Steely Dan - Green Earrings
--
From Bill Maher: So Fox News, they put out a statement after the settlement was reached.
They said, "This settlement reflects the continuing commitment of Fox News
to the highest journalistic standards."
But I got to say, you know, which news outlets have, I think, even higher journalistic standards?
The ones who don’t have to pay three quarters of a billion dollars for being a fucking liar."

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k0315i9mlfj8n2qi78fvui0q75rdc0asd0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 18:46:23 -0700, Salty Stan <wsjames123n@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
>>>> On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
>>>>
>>>>>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>>>>>
>>>>> The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
>>>>
>>>> That was one reason.
>>>>
>>>>> Because for all intents
>>>>> there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that
>>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
>>> "all
>>> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
>>> protected by
>>> the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>>But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
>>Some
>>guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
>
> Expect him to argue this point and then claim he never said the right was
> unlimited.

I would argue the extent of it, but would agree some limit could exist, it's
just not where you think it is, and certainly not where you want it to be.

"Salty Stan" <wsjames123n@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QXZ3M.551546$Ldj8.251414@fx47.iad...
>
> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
>>> On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
>>>
>>>>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>>>>
>>>> The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
>>>
>>> That was one reason.
>>>
>>>> Because for all intents
>>>> there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that
>>>> purpose.
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
>> "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
>> protected by the 2nd Amendment.
>
> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
> Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the
> right.

Perhaps, that's never really been put to the test. Seems to me, that a lot
of guns currently banned are banned Unconstitutionally.
At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been or is
used by the military
would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
Beyond that, who knows..
So Yes, there could be guns that might not fall under the protections of the
2nd. Just as some books or speech wouldn't fall under the protections of the
first.

On 5/2/2023 5:33 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Salty Stan" <wsjames123n@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QXZ3M.551546$Ldj8.251414@fx47.iad...
>>
>> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
>>>> On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
>>>>
>>>>>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>>>>>
>>>>> The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
>>>>
>>>> That was one reason.
>>>>
>>>>> Because for all intents
>>>>> there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that
>>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
>>> "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
>>> protected by the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
>> Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the
>> right.
>
> Perhaps, that's never really been put to the test.

Of course it has, scooter.

> Seems to me, that a lot of guns currently banned are banned Unconstitutionally.

We don't look to idiots like you for what's constitutional or not, scooter.

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:

>
>
> At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
> or is used by the military
> would certainly be protected by the Constitution.

Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
all protected by the Constitution?

That's a new one.............

On 5/2/2023 10:53 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
>> or is used by the military
>> would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
>
>
> Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
> mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
> all protected by the Constitution?
>
> That's a new one.

But that's exactly what the gun idolator scooter believes. Hartung believes it,
too. They're wrong, of course.

On 5/2/2023 5:33 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Salty Stan" <wsjames123n@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QXZ3M.551546$Ldj8.251414@fx47.iad...
>>
>> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:ar905i1cfe738prpmqbd1o68dfic1ts32q@Schadenfreude.com...
>>>> On Mon, 1 May 2023 06:54:09 -0700, a glue huffing midget forged:
>>>>
>>>>>> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia
>>>>>
>>>>> The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia.
>>>>
>>>> That was one reason.
>>>>
>>>>> Because for all intents
>>>>> there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that
>>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
>>> "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
>>> protected by the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
>> Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the
>> right.
>
> Perhaps, that's never really been put to the test. Seems to me, that a lot
> of guns currently banned are banned Unconstitutionally.

Nope.

> At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been or is used
> by the military would certainly be protected by the Constitution.

We don't take any lecture on reasonableness from a criminal gun idolator, scooter.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 10:56:24 -0700, Rudy forged:

>We don't take any lecture on reasonableness from a criminal gun idolator, scooter.

Yeah, you will. You'll take it from Scout, and you'll take it from the
court.

That's why bans on the AR-15 are totally illegal.

We don't take lectures on what's reasonable from nut cases like you.
It's reasonable to own AR-15's to defend ourselves from people like
you.

The Impotent Canoza Violence File™

"You know I would demolish you in a fistfight."
-Rudy, in a final, desperate attempt to salvage his pride
after being pummeled senseless.
-Message-ID: <EfFpB.31818$xN2.24925@fx44.iad>

"I'm a few years beyond retirement age"
-Rudy, 4/19/2020

> What's next- a fist fight challenge"
Sure, why not? Meet me at the Jolly Kone hamburger shack in
Bakersfield. I've dispatched a couple of other Usenet loudmouth fat
fucks in the parking lot there. I know the proprietor. If it appears
you've already suffered your stroke, I'll only use one hand to flatten
you.
-Rudy, explaining his fantasy "fist-fight" victories.
-Message-ID: <U3SuB.25861$TD2.7598@fx18.iad>

"You still haven't recovered from the ass-kicking I gave you at the
Jolly Kone, have you? <chuckle>"
-Rudy Canoza to doctor postalman, 11/18/2017, referring to
another imaginary "fist fight"
-Message-ID: <hr%PB.10409$Fz6.2712@fx41.iad>

"I tell you what. I'm about eight inches shorter than Shitbag [6' 2"]
Trump, and at least 80 pounds lighter, and I would *love* to take the
fat fuck on in a fistfight. He gets to pick the *public* venue and
the referee."
-5' 6" Rudy, declaring his wish to fist-fight the President
of the United States, by posting on Usenet.
-Message-ID: <Xq8DB.451$Q03.210@fx44.iad>

>> Trumpchev is such a vile bit of filth.
> Why don't you challenge him to a fist fight?
I already have. It's legal, too. I even said he gets to pick the
referee and judges - not that they'll really have anything to do.
-A desperate Rudy, trying to claim his previous message was
where he "challenged President Trump to a fist fight."
-Message-ID: <bIc1C.305646$oE2.186205@fx33.iad>

You are fit for someone to slam a fist into your florid fat face.
-Rudy, losing another argument.
-Message-ID: <kB73D.209647$4M6.187820@fx27.iad>

I would gladly pay $2,000 for the privilege of beating your fucking
face to a pulp in person.
-Rudy, losing again
-Message-ID: <ire3D.198667$bJ2.1028@fx15.iad>

....kleine klauschen, a cunt whom I *have* beat up with my bare
hands...
- Rudy, dreaming
-Message-ID: <fewfF.255710$Yo.161912@fx08.iad>

"Rudy Canoza beat the living fuck out of me in the parking lot at
Jolly Kone burgers."
-Rudy, with another pathetic, impotent forgery
-Message-ID: <Rr5nF.88475$Sj1.38990@fx33.iad>

"On 10/23/2019 3:02 PM, kleine klausche, a runt punk whom I have
flattened, ineptly forged"
- Another desperate fantasy from Rudy.:

"I'd like to see some political violence aimed at *you*, you rancid
cunt."
-Rudy losing another argument.
-Message-ID: <KJC2F.238959$i84.232596@fx34.iad>

"I can kick your ass, and you know it. You're old, small, infirm and
weak - a fucking speck of dust."
-Another impotent boast from Usenet's Favorite Dwarf, Rudy
Canoza
-Message-ID: <lXqlG.35799$Us2.29588@fx07.iad>

"I'm bigger than you and I can kick your ass."
-Fire hydrant-sized Rudy, puffing his chest out as far as it
will go.
-Message-ID: <KhFlG.47294$2U3.6204@fx04.iad>

Fuck off and die, and give me your fucking address so I can come help
you do it.
-Our favorite dwarf, Rudy Canoza, coming out from under the
couch to bark.
-Message-ID: <oIGlG.2165$uE.343@fx24.iad>

No, you fucking lying midget whom I could flatten with *both* hands
tied behind my back
-Rudy Canoza, attempting to destroy everyone's irony meter by
calling someone else a "midget."
-Message-ID: <AcjoG.152881$Xk.112717@fx46.iad>

Fuck you and fuck every Hartung, and I hope you're all beaten to
death.
-Rudy losing another discussion
-Message-ID: <rf7116$16bu$4@neodome.net>

Read it and *weep*, Schild, you squat-to-piss fairy whom I can - and
*will* - strangle with my bare hands:
-Rudy, displaying his impotent rage and gynaphobia in one
sentence
Message-ID: <rgngn8$1fa3$1@neodome.net>

Your kind need to be marginalized, preferably exterminated.
-Rudy, wishing he wasn't impotent
-Message-ID: <vz%fH.342246$I15.96948@fx36.iad>

....if you're [sic] post your real name and address here, I'll gladly
come down and scatter your 73 brain cells in front of your nursing
home.
-Rudy,fantasizing about having the upper body strength to
beat a senior citizen.
-Message-ID: <kMTvH.5377$ev6.1691@fx14.iad>

"I'd have hauled you out back and shot you dead."
-Brave, brave Rudy, telling us what he would do to the
President if his White House Press Credentials were revoked.
-Message-ID: <s0v8v0$1v4e$1@neodome.net>

"You need to be shot dead."
-Rudy's usual response when someone out-argues him.
-Message-ID: <s0v8v0$1v4e$1@neodome.net>

I wish I knew where that shitbag cocksucker [Alan] Bond lives.
-Rudy wanting to suck off one of his Usenet opponents, apparently.
Message-ID: <s2ir4v$2ujc$2@neodome.net>

I'd have gotten a little longer sentence if I had ever got that close
to Trump, because in addition to slapping him in the face, I would
have kneed him in the groin as well. The fat fuck is still too
chickenshit to get into a fistfight with me.
-Rudy, wishing President Trump was aware of his existence, and that
he could bring his knee up that high.
Message-ID: <Nu7xI.46923$431.8742@fx39.iad>

Why can't we have a mass annihilation of Trumpswabs?
-Little Rudy, confessing his wish to commit suicide.
Message-ID: <AQKyI.98089$5%7.39466@fx13.iad>

The next time that neighbor attacks [Rand] Paul, I'm going to help
him.
-Rudy, threatening a U.S. Senator
-Message-ID: <%nfKI.326861$nc1.291868@fx12.ams1>

"I would really like to pump bullets into your head."
---Rudy as "Bill Flett" 1/22/18

"I can still kick your high-cholesterol hypertensive morbidly obese
ass."
-Rudy, still dreaming
-Message-ID: <WpjMI.981641$Uq8a.627809@fx02.ams1>

"If I came around you and yours, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell
Lamey Pig-Fucker, you'd be begging through tears for me to spare your
life."
-Rudy, puffing out his sunken chest again
-Message-ID: <I7t2J.41909$2B4.26171@fx04.iad>

"You need to be depopulated."
- Gruppenfuhrer Canoza
Message-ID: <Okl3J.120840$rl3.60928@fx45.iad>

"I can't wait until you're strung up from a lamp post with barbed
wire."
-Rudy, waiting
Message-ID: <VF75J.44954$gc3.19974@fx12.iad>

"I'm striking a blow for decency and Christian love. You need to be
offed."
-Father Rudy
-Message-ID: <Rts6J.138409$lC6.84928@fx41.iad>

"Speaking for myself I'd dick slap you silly before I bent you over
and did a Deliverance dance in your
behind."
-Rudy, reliving his high school initiation
-Message-Id: <20211003.022149.af0b0d2c@mix1.remailer.xyz>

"If you don't start to show that you understand that black lives
matter, you will be corrected up with a baseball bat."
-Rudy, bring a bat to a gun fight.
-Message-ID: <TDSjJ.47486$VS2.3153@fx44.iad>

"I'll send right-wingnuts to hell. I'm more than ready for you
piss-ants."
-Brave, brave Rudy, gearing up
-Message-ID: <RV%lJ.28968$L_2.7207@fx04.iad>

You know I could kill you easily if we ever met.
-Rudy Canoza, dreaming again
-Message-ID: <QHCqJ.97446$Ql5.56564@fx39.iad>

Rightards always prate about "the melting pot," a lousy synonym for
assimilation, and consider it not merely a good thing, but a moral
imperative. So why don't Jews assimilate? Why is it you can watch an
episode of "Seinfeld" or "Curb Your Enthusiasm," and you simply know
you're watching Jews pushing their Jewness into your face? And why do
rightards excuse Jews' refusal to assimilate? If minorities are
supposed to assimilate, why does this not apply to Jews?
-Our little dwarf goose-stepper Rudy posting as "David Elsan"
Message-ID: <3oywJ.88435$JZ3.54851@fx05.iad>

I swear to fuck, someone needs to sneak into your nursing home and
strangle you in the middle of the night.
-Rudy Canoza, waiting for his testicles to drop.
Message-ID: <qFJBJ.197370$SW5.867@fx45.iad>

On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
>> "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and
>> be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
>
> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
> Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
>
That's a pretty useless statement. Now, if you could state the
criteria by which we could tell which guns could be banned and
which ones can't, you might have something. Begin with the Heller
statement that guns in common use for lawful purposes are protected.
Then toss in Bruen which requires government to prove the desired
restriction is consistent with the text, history, and tradition of
2A at the time 2A was ratified. Include that a major purpose of the
right to keep and bear arms is for civilians to be able to overthrow
a tyrannical government, by force of arms if necessary.
That's a decent beginning to decide what guns can be banned.
The line is probably not where you think it is.

On 5/2/2023 11:12 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all
>>> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected
>>> by the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some
>> guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
>>
> That's a pretty useless statement.

It isn't, Francis.

 > Now, if you could state the
> criteria by which we could tell which guns could be banned and
> which ones can't, you might have something.

I can't state it, Francis, but legal scholars can. You can't.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 11:13:31 -0700, Rudy ineptly forged

>On 5/2/2023 11:12 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
>chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>
>> On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all
>>>> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be protected
>>>> by the 2nd Amendment.
>>>
>>> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some
>>> guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
>>>
>> That's a pretty useless statement.
>
>It isn't, Francis.

LOL Yeah, it is.

>  > Now, if you could state the
>> criteria by which we could tell which guns could be banned and
>> which ones can't, you might have something.
>
>I can't state it, Francis, but legal scholars can. You can't.

TRANSLATION: You can't state it because it doesn't exist. You can't.
Legal scholars can't. Because guns can't legally be banned.

On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just
>>>> for "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist
>>>> and be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
>>>
>>> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to
>>> have. Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement
>>> of the right.
>>>
>> That's a pretty useless statement.
> > It isn't.
>
It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned.

>> Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
>> which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have something.
>
> I can't state it, but legal scholars can.  You can't.
>
Sure you can. Anybody informed on the subject can. There are three
controlling criteria that I know of. You also know them.

1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.

2. Heller says government cannot take arms that are in common
use for lawful purposes.

3. Bruen says that for government to restrict the right to keep
and bear arms, the government has the burden to prove the restriction
is consistent with the text, history, and tradition of 2A at the
time it was adopted.

I'm looking forward to you identifying a gun that constitutionally
be banned once these criteria are applied.

On 5/2/2023 11:54 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>> On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for "all
>>>>> intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
>>>>> protected by the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have. Some
>>>> guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
>>>>
>>> That's a pretty useless statement.
>> > It isn't.
>>
> It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned.

I'm not interested in that, Francis. I'm interested only in establishing the
fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned, and that scooter the gun
idolator is wrong to say that all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

>>> Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
>>> which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have something.
>>
>> I can't state it, but legal scholars can.  You can't.
>>
> Sure you can.

No, Francis, I can't, nor can you. You're not a legal scholar, Francis.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 11:59:32 -0700, Salty Stan <wsjames123n@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I'm interested only in establishing the
>fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,

You'd be wrong.

On 5/2/2023 12:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2023 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>>>> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just
>>>>>> for "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL
>>>>>> exist and be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to
>>>>> have. Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement
>>>>> of the right.
>>>>>
>>>> That's a pretty useless statement.

>>>> It isn't.
>>>
>> It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned.
>
> I'm not interested in that.  I'm interested only in establishing the
> fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,

OK, so go right ahead and do that. You don't do it by making
a bare assertion, you actually have to identify some so that
your assertion can be evaluated as factually true or false.

> and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say that
> all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
>
I would agree as a general proposition, but the devil is in the details.

>>>> Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
>>>> which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have
>>>> something.
>>>
>>> I can't state it, but legal scholars can.  You can't.
>>>
>> Sure you can.
>
> No, I can't, nor can you.

Sure I can, and I did. You clipped it.

1. A major purpose of the 2A is to keep the government from taking
from its citizens the sort or arms that citizens would need to resist
and, if necessary, forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government.

2. Heller says government cannot take arms that are in common
use for lawful purposes.

3. Bruen says that for government to restrict the right to keep
and bear arms, the government has the burden to prove the restriction
is consistent with the text, history, and tradition of 2A at the
time it was adopted.

I'm still looking forward to you identifying a gun that
constitutionally can be banned once these criteria are applied.

On 5/2/2023 12:38 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 5/2/2023 12:59 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>> On 5/2/2023 Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>> On 5/2/2023 12:13 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2023 Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
>>>>> On 5/1/2023 7:46 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/1/2023 2:05 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep because even if the militia totally ceased to exist, not just for
>>>>>>> "all intents", our right to keep and bear arms would STILL exist and be
>>>>>>> protected by the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But *not* just whatever arms, by which you mean guns, you wish to have.
>>>>>> Some guns could be banned, and there would be no infringement of the right.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's a pretty useless statement.
>
>>>>> It isn't.
>>>>
>>> It's not useful to help decide what guns can constitutionally be banned.
>>
>> I'm not interested in that.  I'm interested only in  establishing the
>> fact that *some* can be constitutionally banned,
>
> OK, so go right ahead and do that.

I have.

>> and that scooter the gun idolator is wrong to say that
>> all gun control laws are unconstitutional.
>>
> I would agree as a general proposition,

Then you've finished.

>
>>>>> Now, if you could state the criteria by which we could tell
>>>>> which guns could be banned and which ones can't, you might have something.
>>>>
>>>> I can't state it, but legal scholars can.  You can't.
>>>>
>>> Sure you can.
>>
>> No, I can't, nor can you.
>
> Sure I can,

No, you can't, Francis. You are not a legal scholar on *anything*, least of all
gun law.

"Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
>> or is used by the military
>> would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
>
>
> Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
> mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
> all protected by the Constitution?
>
> That's a new one.............

Which of those are guns?

The only thing that isn't new is your inability to read and understand what
was actually written rather than whatever distorted crap you come up with. .

On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
>
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>> news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
>>> or is used by the military
>>> would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
>>
>>
>>    Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
>> mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
>> all protected by the Constitution?
>>
>>    That's a new one.............
>
> Which of those are guns?

Are they arms, scooter? Does the amendment say the right to keep and bear
"guns" shall not be infringed, scooter?

On Tue, 2 May 2023 13:34:38 -0700, Rudy forged:

>On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
>>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>> news:u2r2r8$p54u$2@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the very least it would seem reasonable that any gun that has been
>>>> or is used by the military
>>>> would certainly be protected by the Constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>    Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
>>> mortars, bazookas, stinger missles -
>>> all protected by the Constitution?
>>>
>>>    That's a new one.............
>>
>> Which of those are guns?

==================================================
==================================================
================= WARNING! ========================
**** GOAL POST MOVES AHEAD! ****
================= WARNING! ========================
==================================================
==================================================

>Are they arms, scooter?

Do you EVER stop letting Scout make you look like an idiot?

ROFLMAO