On 12/22/2012 10:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:komdnfnXat5780vNnZ2dnUVZ5sednZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 12/22/2012 8:30 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:WYydnfKPqeEvw0vNnZ2dnUVZ5gAAAAAA@giganews.com...
>>>> On 12/22/2012 2:12 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gbidnVqwYfJ5sEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 1:58 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 3:15 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. Of course the right was *not
>>>>>> unlimited*,
>>>>>> just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was
>>>>>> not, see,
>>>>>> e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008).
>>>>>> Thus, we
>>>>>> do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of
>>>>>> citizens
>>>>>> to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
>>>>>> read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
>>>>>> speak for any purpose.
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
>>>>>> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century
>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
>>>>>> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
>>>>>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>>>>>> [emphasis added]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
>>>>>> precluded by the second amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
>>>>> arms is indicated.
>>>>
>>>> *No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
>>>
>>> CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
>>
>> They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
>> are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
>
> IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.

No, not in the least.

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. Of course the right was *not unlimited*,
just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see,
e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we
do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens
to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
speak for any purpose.
[...]
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
*not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
[emphasis added]

Mr. Justice Scalia isn't pulling them out of /his/ ass, either. Nor was
Blackstone. The right is is "not a right to keep and carry *any weapon
whatsoever*...", and it never was.

>
> If they aren't explicitly found in the text....then they aren't *within*
> the amendment

They are. They have to be.

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.

They packed it too well, so the court has the new precedent that
precedents don't matter. So once the dead enders are cleared out,
and they are daring Congress to impeach and convict, their
stupidities can be reversed and the USA again on the road to a
civilisation.

--
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 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.

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.

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 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.

*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group rights.

Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the amendment
announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not condition having the
right to being in the militia. Individual persons have a right to arms whether
or not there is a militia.

On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:

> On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>
> *All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
> rights.

Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
categorical group rights? I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and
Kamala first thing in the morning.

> Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the
> amendment announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not
> condition having the right to being in the militia. Individual
> persons have a right to arms whether or not there is a militia.

On 4/30/2023 5:19 PM, Al wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
> news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
>
>> On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>>
>> *All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
>> rights.
>
> Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
> categorical group rights?

No one ever said there were "categorical" [sic] group rights. There are no
group rights.

> I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and Kamala first thing in the morning.

No need. They don't believe in group rights, either. They believe there are
rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have been
systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 16:59:40 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:

>On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>
>*All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group rights.

I didn't say there was. I said it was an individual right. A right not conditional on
the militia clause.

>Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the amendment
>announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not condition having the
>right to being in the militia. Individual persons have a right to arms whether
>or not there is a militia.

Exactly.

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 Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:46:44 -0700, David Hartung <shitbag.hartung@shitbags.r.us> wrote:

>No need. They don't believe in group rights, either.

It's not about "group rights". It's about classes of individuals who's rights have been
so long denied that they now must be spelled out.

> They believe there are
>rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have been
>systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.

David, I've warned you about the risks of talking to your mirror.

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 4/30/2023 7:19 PM, Al wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
> news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
>
>> On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>>
>> *All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
>> rights.
>
> Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
> categorical group rights? I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and
> Kamala first thing in the morning.

You are a Moron. Those people do have individual rights. But they sure
as Hell do not preclude the rights of Normal every day citizens and they
sure as Hell do not have any right to Propagandize our School Children.
The Hat crime statutes should be stricken from out laws. All Crimes
should be judged on their real value for punishment.
>
>> Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the
>> amendment announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not
>> condition having the right to being in the militia. Individual
>> persons have a right to arms whether or not there is a militia.
>

On 4/30/2023 10:22 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2023 18:46:44 -0700, David Hartung <shitbag.hartung@shitbags.r.us> wrote:
>
>> No need. They don't believe in group rights, either.
>
> It's not about "group rights". It's about classes of individuals who's rights have been
> so long denied that they now must be spelled out.

What the blue blazes are you babbling about now. Level the rights for
everyone. BS on raising one segment above the other because they were a
suppressed group in the past. Your interpretation would always have
underclasses in some form or the other of legal slavery. As for
reparations. *NO NO NO!* We would have to go way back past Abraham and
his slave Sheep Herders in the Bible. Or his slave wife that replaced
his first wife.

>
>> They believe there are
>> rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have been
>> systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.
>
> David, I've warned you about the risks of talking to your mirror.
>
> 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>

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
news:ytc3M.355976$jiuc.115509@fx44.iad...
> On 12/22/2012 10:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>> news:komdnfnXat5780vNnZ2dnUVZ5sednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 12/22/2012 8:30 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:WYydnfKPqeEvw0vNnZ2dnUVZ5gAAAAAA@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 12/22/2012 2:12 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gbidnVqwYfJ5sEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 1:58 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 3:15 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hardly. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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. Of course the right was *not
>>>>>>> unlimited*,
>>>>>>> just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was
>>>>>>> not, see,
>>>>>>> e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008).
>>>>>>> Thus, we
>>>>>>> do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of
>>>>>>> citizens
>>>>>>> to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
>>>>>>> read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
>>>>>>> speak for any purpose.
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
>>>>>>> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century
>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
>>>>>>> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
>>>>>>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>>>>>>> [emphasis added]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
>>>>>>> precluded by the second amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> arms is indicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> *No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
>>>>
>>>> CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
>>>
>>> They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
>>> are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
>>
>> IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
>
> No, not in the least.

You've already admitted as such above.

> 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.

in 1837 Georgia was the first state to attempt to impose gun control since
the Constitution was enacted.
The law was quickly thrown out as Unconstitutional by the Georgia's Supreme
Court.
Nunn v. State in which the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Georgia's ban on
handguns was a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States.

Meanwhile the NRA was founded in 1871.

Yep, according to Rudy the NRA propaganda was packing the courts before the
NRA even existed.

Further let's not forget that the BOR was ratified in 1791, less than 50
years before.. so I'm pretty sure they knew what the intent actually was.

Now here over 230 years later, Rudy somehow feels he knows better what their
intent was.

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad...
> On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>
> *All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
> rights.
>
> Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the
> amendment announces a purpose, *for* the amendment. It does not condition
> having the right to being in the militia. Individual persons have a right
> to arms whether or not there is a militia.

Further, by most of the population is already the militia as a matter of
law. Further as members of the militia, expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by ourselves, then wouldn't 'weapons of war' be exactly the type of
guns we should appear with?

Na, Rudy's own logic (if you can call it that) is internally flawed and
contradicts his own assertion about what he wants vs his assertions on the
intent of the 2nd.

He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia, then would deny the militia the
very arms they would need.

Even his own arguments refutes the controls he wants to impose.

"David Hartung" <shitbag.hartung@shitbags.r.us> wrote in message
news:9SE3M.1623758$t5W7.960828@fx13.iad...
> On 4/30/2023 5:19 PM, Al wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
>> news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
>>
>>> On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>>>
>>> *All* rights are individual rights. There is no such thing as group
>>> rights.
>>
>> Oh? Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
>> categorical group rights?
>
> No one ever said there were "categorical" [sic] group rights. There are
> no group rights.
>
>> I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and Kamala first thing in the
>> morning.
>
> No need. They don't believe in group rights, either. They believe there
> are rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have
> been systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.

And who as Al denied their rights?

Unlike you that would deny people their rights.

On 4/30/2023 10:18 PM, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> On 4/30/2023 7:19 PM, Al wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
>> news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
>>
>>> On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>>>
>>> *All* rights are individual rights.  There is no such thing as group
>>> rights.
>>
>> Oh?  Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
>> categorical group rights?  I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and
>> Kamala first thing in the morning.
>
> You are a Moron. Those people do have individual rights. But they sure as Hell
> do not preclude the rights of Normal every day citizens and they sure as Hell do
> not have any right to Propagandize our School Children.
> The Hat crime statutes should be stricken from out laws. All Crimes should be
> judged on their real value for punishment.

All of your capitalization beyond the first word of each barely literate
sentence is wrong.

What's a "Hat crime"?

>>
>>> Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the
>>> amendment announces a purpose, *for* the amendment.  It does not
>>> condition having the right to being in the militia.  Individual
>>> persons have a right to arms whether or not there is a militia.
>>

On 5/1/2023 5:17 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "David Hartung" <shitbag.hartung@shitbags.r.us> wrote in message
> news:9SE3M.1623758$t5W7.960828@fx13.iad...
>> On 4/30/2023 5:19 PM, Al wrote:
>>> On 30 Apr 2023, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> posted some
>>> news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>>>>
>>>> *All* rights are individual rights.  There is no such thing as group
>>>> rights.
>>>
>>> Oh?  Then blacks, homosexuals, atheists and illegal aliens have no
>>> categorical group rights?
>>
>> No one ever said there were "categorical" [sic] group rights.  There are no
>> group rights.
>>
>>> I'll make sure I point that out to Joe and Kamala first thing in the morning.
>>
>> No need.  They don't believe in group rights, either.  They believe there are
>> rights, and they believe, correctly, that members of some groups have been
>> systematically denied their rights...by people like you, of course.
>
> And who as Al denied their rights?

<chortle> The words are (mostly) English, but that's not English.

On 5/1/2023 5:15 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
> news:NhD3M.2858888$vBI8.1107331@fx15.iad...
>> On 4/30/2023 4:41 PM, 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.
>>
>> *All* rights are individual rights.  There is no such thing as group rights.
>>
>> Scalia got it right when he said that the prefatory clause of the amendment
>> announces a purpose, *for* the amendment.  It does not condition having the
>> right to being in the militia.  Individual persons have a right to arms
>> whether or not there is a militia.
>
> Further, by most of the population is already the militia as a matter of law.

There is no militia as a matter of practical effect.

> Further as members of the militia, expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
> ourselves,

No one is expected to "appear" for any militia activity.

> He claims the 2nd is to protect the militia

The amendment was adopted to preserve the militia. Because for all intents
there is no longer a militia, the amendment no longer serves that purpose.

On 5/1/2023 5:06 AM, Scout 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.
>
> in 1837 Georgia was the first state to attempt to impose gun control since the
> Constitution was enacted.
> The law was quickly thrown out as Unconstitutional by the Georgia's Supreme
> Court.
> Nunn v. State in which the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Georgia's ban on
> handguns was a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the
> United States.

That isn't saying the right is an individual right.

On 5/1/2023 4:51 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:ytc3M.355976$jiuc.115509@fx44.iad...
>> On 12/22/2012 10:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:komdnfnXat5780vNnZ2dnUVZ5sednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 12/22/2012 8:30 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:WYydnfKPqeEvw0vNnZ2dnUVZ5gAAAAAA@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 2:12 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:gbidnVqwYfJ5sEvNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 1:58 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 3:15 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hardly. Mr. Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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. Of course the right was *not
>>>>>>>> unlimited*,
>>>>>>>> just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was
>>>>>>>> not, see,
>>>>>>>> e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008).
>>>>>>>> Thus, we
>>>>>>>> do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of
>>>>>>>> citizens
>>>>>>>> to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not
>>>>>>>> read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to
>>>>>>>> speak for any purpose.
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
>>>>>>>> *not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century
>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>> commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was
>>>>>>>> not a right to keep and carry *any weapon whatsoever* in any
>>>>>>>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>>>>>>>> [emphasis added]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
>>>>>>>> precluded by the second amendment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the types of
>>>>>>> arms is indicated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
>>>>>
>>>>> CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
>>>> are *within* the amendment. Imagine that!
>>>
>>> IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
>>
>> No, not in the least.
>
> You've already admitted as such above.

No.

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. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look
for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

--
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

PaxPerPoten wrote:
> What the blue blazes are you babbling about now. Level the rights
> for everyone. BS on raising one

So when you have evidence rights have been denied? Your answer is
that we can't do anything about it?

--
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 5/1/2023 11:22 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> PaxPerPoten wrote:
>> What the blue blazes are you babbling about now. Level the rights for
>> everyone. BS on raising one
>
> So when you have evidence rights have been denied? Your answer is that
> we can't do anything about it?

Your reading comprehension could use an upgrade. One right we all have
is to ignore or not, Slop's propaganda and it is Slop's right to keep
posting to dead air or not.

On 5/1/2023 9:51 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> 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.
>
No, he wasn't expressing any such thing, because there was
no such longtime consensus.

"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.