On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>> amendment is clearly within the
>>>> scope of the amendment.
>>>
>>> Another gun grabber straw man.
>>
>> Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
>> would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
>> of money into it.
>>
>>
>>> No right is "unlimited."
>>
>> Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
>
> Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
> limitations existed within the 2nd.

Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to exist
"within" it, else how else could the court see them?

> Which they do not.

They do - *necessarily*, they do.

>
>> For example, they believe that a limitation on clip/magazine capacity
>> would be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it would not be.
>
> Actually, it certainly could be given the current SCOTUS rulings on what
> things would be protected. High capacity magazines are most certainly
> "any part of ordinary military equpiment" per your cited ruling of Miller.

The assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, which included a limitation on
ammunition feeding device capacity, was never successfully challenged and
overturned on second amendment grounds. Almost certainly, a new limitation on
such devices would be upheld. All decent and thinking people would hope it would be.

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
news:X1c3M.377384$ZhSc.176572@fx38.iad...
> On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>> news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>>> amendment is clearly within the
>>>>> scope of the amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Another gun grabber straw man.
>>>
>>> Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
>>> would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
>>> of money into it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> No right is "unlimited."
>>>
>>> Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
>>
>> Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
>
> Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
> exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?

Because you're not the Court and your assertions come out of your ass.. not
the Constitution.

On 5/1/2023 4:49 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
> news:X1c3M.377384$ZhSc.176572@fx38.iad...
>> On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the
>>>>>> scope of the amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another gun grabber straw man.
>>>>
>>>> Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
>>>> would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
>>>> of money into it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No right is "unlimited."
>>>>
>>>> Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
>>
>> Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to exist
>> "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
>
> Because you're not the Court and

Irrelevant. The court sees the limits, and they aren't expressly stated in the
text of the amendment. So where are the limits? They are, as I have instructed
you, inherent to the right. They don't need to be stated in the amendment, and
they aren't.

On 5/1/2023 7:54 AM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
> On 5/1/2023 4:49 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
>> news:X1c3M.377384$ZhSc.176572@fx38.iad...
>>> On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote >>>>>
>>>>> Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
>>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
>>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
>>>
>>> Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
>>> exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
>>
>> Because you're not the Court and
>
> Irrelevant.  The court sees the limits, and they aren't expressly stated
> in the text of the amendment.  So where are the limits?  They are, as I
> have instructed you, inherent to the right.  They don't need to be
> stated in the amendment, and they aren't.
>
Please give an example of what you mean by a limit to the
right that is inherent in the right itself.
Or at least explain what you mean, because your statement
makes no sense.

On 5/1/2023 12:12 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy rent-skip
chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:

> On 5/1/2023 7:54 AM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>> On 5/1/2023 4:49 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:X1c3M.377384$ZhSc.176572@fx38.iad...
>>>> On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote >>>>>
>>>>>> Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
>>>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
>>>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
>>>>
>>>> Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to exist
>>>> "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
>>>
>>> Because you're not the Court and
>>
>> Irrelevant.  The court sees the limits, and they aren't expressly stated in
>> the text of the amendment.  So where are the limits?  They are, as I have
>> instructed you, inherent to the right.  They don't need to be stated in the
>> amendment, and they aren't.
>>
> Please give an example of what you mean by a limit to the
> right that is inherent in the right itself.

I already did that, Francis, in response to the exact same querulous question
from you. It was on 04/29/2023 at 12:33pm Mountain Time. Stop fucking around
and read it.

"Just Wondering" <JW@jw.com> wrote in message
news:QaU3M.1681660$MVg8.540653@fx12.iad...
> On 5/1/2023 7:54 AM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>> On 5/1/2023 4:49 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:X1c3M.377384$ZhSc.176572@fx38.iad...
>>>> On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote >>>>>
>>>>>> Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
>>>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
>>>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
>>>>
>>>> Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
>>>> exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
>>>
>>> Because you're not the Court and
>>
>> Irrelevant. The court sees the limits, and they aren't expressly stated
>> in the text of the amendment. So where are the limits? They are, as I
>> have instructed you, inherent to the right. They don't need to be stated
>> in the amendment, and they aren't.
>>
> Please give an example of what you mean by a limit to the
> right that is inherent in the right itself.
> Or at least explain what you mean, because your statement
> makes no sense.

I bet you will be waiting a long time for a rational response....