"Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in message
news:yte4M.50972$qjm2.35193@fx09.iad...
> On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
>>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>> news:u2r2r8$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?

You tell me, you made up the list

I will simply note they aren't guns.

"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
> 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.

Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional. Indeed
I know of one right know that is part of federal law that I believe it to be
Constitutional. Further I bet you would as well.

>>>>> 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.

Me too. Rudy had to change the subject to arms... because apparently he
can't think of a single gun that would meet the criteria

Indeed, I question the need for them to be in common use.. as that could be
used to eliminate invention and innovation.

On 5/2/2023 1:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
> news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
>> 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.
>
> Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.

Yes, scooter, you did:

"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."

"By and large, I would generally state that virtually all, if not all, gun
control laws currently or recently proposed would be Unconstitutional."

You don't gain anything by weaseling around with "virtually," scooter. You
*said*, scooter, that all gun control laws are unconstitutional...except you
miswrote it "Unconstitutional," with an *incorrect upper case 'u'.

On 5/2/2023 1:45 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in message
> news:yte4M.50972$qjm2.35193@fx09.iad...
>> On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>> news:u2r2r8$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?
>
> You tell me,

No, scooter, you tell us. What does the second amendment say, scooter?

> you made up the list

I made up no list, scooter.

>
> I will simply note they aren't guns.

They are arms, scooter. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed." Do you have a "right" to any of those, scooter? No,
you don't, even though you say you do.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 15:39:09 -0700, Max Boot <max.boot@lathymes.com>
wrote:

>> Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
>
>Yes, scooter, you did:
>
> "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
> would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."

And for the tenth or eleventh time today, Rudy proves he can't read.

LOL

On 5/2/2023 1:50 PM, scooter lied:
>
> Indeed I know of one [gun control law] right know that is part of federal law
> that I believe it to be Constitutional.

That doesn't square with this, scooter:

"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."

scooter, lying on 04/26/2023 at 12:45pm ET

"By and large, I would generally state that virtually all, if not all, gun
control laws currently or recently proposed would be Unconstitutional."

scooter, lying on 04/27/2023 at 2:00pm ET

You believe all gun control laws are unconstitutional, scooter. You have said
so on multiple occasions.

You further believe, scooter, that because there are no limitations on "arms"
stated in the second amendment, that any restrictions or prohibitions on arms
other than guns *also* are unconstitutional. So yes, scooter, you believe you
have an unrestricted right to:

Rifle grenades, grenade launchers,
mortars, bazookas, stinger missles

and much more.

On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:00:20 -0700, Rudy wrote:

>> Indeed I know of one [gun control law] right know that is part of federal law
>> that I believe it to be Constitutional.
>
>That doesn't square with this, scooter:
>
> "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
> would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."

Learn to read, cunt flaps.

Just Wondering wrote:
> 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.

What do you want to deter HIMARS?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 2.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohammed

On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:11:55 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>Just Wondering wrote:
>> 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.
>
>What do you want to deter HIMARS?

Shoot the HIMARS operators while they're still in bed.

On 5/2/2023 2:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
> news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
>> 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.
>
> Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
> Indeed I know of one right know that is part of federal law that I
> believe it to be Constitutional. Further I bet you would as well.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Me too. Rudy had to change the subject to arms... because apparently he
> can't think of a single gun that would meet the criteria
>
> Indeed, I question the need for them to be in common use.. as that could
> be used to eliminate invention and innovation.
>
It's not an either-or test. "Common use" just means that if a gun is
in common use for lawful purposes, the Constitution protects it.
The inverse is not true. The "common use" test does not mean that
if a gun is not in common use, the government can ban it for that
reason alone.

On 5/2/2023 5:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:00:20 -0700, Rudy wrote:
>
>>> Indeed I know of one [gun control law] right know that is part
>>> of federal law that I believe it to be Constitutional.
>>
>> That doesn't square with this, scooter:
>>
>> "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
>> would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."
>
> Learn to read cunt flaps.
>
Are you telling Rudy to learn braille?

On Tue, 2 May 2023 17:32:37 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:

>On 5/2/2023 5:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:00:20 -0700, Rudy wrote:
>>
>>>> Indeed I know of one [gun control law] right know that is part
>>>> of federal law that I believe it to be Constitutional.
>>>
>>> That doesn't square with this, scooter:
>>>
>>> "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
>>> would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."
>>
>> Learn to read cunt flaps.
>>
>Are you telling Rudy to learn braille?

Well he can't read the English alphabet, that's for sure.

On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> 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.
>
> What do you want to deter HIMARS?
>
For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction
against U.S. noncombatant civilians.

On 5/2/2023 1:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
> news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
>> 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.
>
> Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.

You did say it, scooter.

"The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."

scooter, lying on 04/26/2023 at 12:45pm ET

"By and large, I would generally state that virtually all, if not all, gun
control laws currently or recently proposed would be Unconstitutional."

scooter, lying on 04/27/2023 at 2:00pm ET

No matter how you try to lard your bullshit with weaselly wheeze like "pretty
much" and "by and large" and "generally state" and "virtually," what you are
saying, scooter, is that *all* gun control laws are unconstitutional. You're
wrong, of course.

>
>>>>>> 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.
>> [snip wheeze from non-scholar]
>> I'm still looking forward to you identifying a gun that
>> constitutionally can be banned once these criteria are applied.
>
> Me too. Rudy had to change the subject to arms

Arms is the subject of the second amendment, scooter.

>
> Indeed, I question the need for them to be in common use.

Of course you do, scooter, which is why you believe you have a right to any arms
at all, not just any guns at all. But you are wrong, scooter.

On *every* date, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> What do you want to deter HIMARS?
>>
> For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction
> against U.S. noncombatant civilians.

Tyrants of other nations have done so, Francis. Trump had troops tear-gas
peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square so that he could go perform blasphemy in
front of a church he had never entered. What makes you think he wouldn't have
had the troop machine-gun those protesters if they had been armed, Francis?

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> What do you want to deter HIMARS?
>>
> For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
> destruction
> against U.S. noncombatant civilians.

If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to
'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 2.1 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohammed

On Tue, 2 May 2023 14:37:03 -0500, "Scout" wrote:
>"Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote
>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
>>> 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 second doesn't give us the right to keep and bear "guns". And here you are hinting
again that no guns are limited by the second . . .

Swill
--
Writing for the majority in Heller, Justice Scalia noted: "Like most rights, the right secured by
the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." - Justice Antonin Scalia

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>

On Tue, 2 May 2023 15:39:14 -0700, "Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote:

>On 5/2/2023 1:45 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in message
>> news:yte4M.50972$qjm2.35193@fx09.iad...
>>> On 5/2/2023 12:37 PM, scooter tried to be cute and bullshit again:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noemail@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:XnsAFF8836068D5Anoemailcomcastnet@69.80.101.57...
>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:u2r2r8$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?
>>
>> You tell me,
>
>No, scooter, you tell us. What does the second amendment say, scooter?
>
>> you made up the list
>
>I made up no list, scooter.
>
>>
>> I will simply note they aren't guns.
>
>They are arms, scooter. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>shall not be infringed." Do you have a "right" to any of those, scooter? No,
>you don't, even though you say you do.

Either of you girls need a condom?

Swill
--
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>

On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:48:24 -0700, Rudy forged:

>> Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
>
>You did say it, scooter.
>
> "The second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America
> would pretty much render any gun control law you want to be null and void."

Rudy, lying, May 2, 2023.

"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:l1h4M.233203$qpNc.135413@fx03.iad...
> On 5/2/2023 2:50 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
>> news:oFd4M.2910280$vBI8.2825226@fx15.iad...
>>> 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.
>>
>> Which is why I never said "all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.
>> Indeed I know of one right know that is part of federal law that I
>> believe it to be Constitutional. Further I bet you would as well.
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Me too. Rudy had to change the subject to arms... because apparently he
>> can't think of a single gun that would meet the criteria
>>
>> Indeed, I question the need for them to be in common use.. as that could
>> be used to eliminate invention and innovation.
>>
> It's not an either-or test. "Common use" just means that if a gun is
> in common use for lawful purposes, the Constitution protects it.
> The inverse is not true. The "common use" test does not mean that
> if a gun is not in common use, the government can ban it for that
> reason alone.

I would agree with you as any rational person would... but gun control
advocates usually aren't rational on this subject.

Look at Rudy... as a prime example of that.

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:ja635i5iqumt1mng9miq9m116ik8j6j1kg@Schadenfreude.com...
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:11:55 -0700, Siri Cruise
> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Just Wondering wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>What do you want to deter HIMARS?
>
> Shoot the HIMARS operators while they're still in bed.

Actually, given the percentage of the military that are conservatives......
probably not necessary

"Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What do you want to deter HIMARS?
>>>
>> For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction
>> against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
>
> If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to
> 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?

So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons then.. and
certainly any gun out there...

And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.

On 5/3/2023 4:59 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> What do you want to deter HIMARS?
>>>>
>>> For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military is not
>>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass destruction
>>> against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
>>
>> If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need to 'forcibly
>> overthrow a tyrannical government'?
>
> So what you're saying is

Whenever scooter starts with "So what you're saying is...", what follows is
always a straw man — *not* what the other person, his better, was saying.

Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:ja635i5iqumt1mng9miq9m116ik8j6j1kg@Schadenfreude.com...
>> On Tue, 2 May 2023 16:11:55 -0700, Siri Cruise
>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What do you want to deter HIMARS?
>>
>> Shoot the HIMARS operators while they're still in bed.
>
> Actually, given the percentage of the military that are
> conservatives...... probably not necessary
>
>

So are you fighting 'a tyrannical government' or a cub scout pack?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 2.L / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohammed

Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Siri Cruise" <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u2scca$102fn$1@dont-email.me...
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2023 5:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> What do you want to deter HIMARS?
>>>>
>>> For one, the fact that for a bunch of reasons, the US military
>>> is not
>>> going to deploy rockets, or fighter jets, or weapons of mass
>>> destruction
>>> against U.S. noncombatant civilians.
>>
>> If the government won't use its best weapons, why would we need
>> to 'forcibly overthrow a tyrannical government'?
>
> So what you're saying is that the people SHOULD have such weapons
> then.. and certainly any gun out there...
>
> And just like that Siri now opposes any sort of gun control.

What do you want to deter HIMARS?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 2.L / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohammed