On 12/24/2012 6:47 PM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:2JGdnaK6pJL9KEXNnZ2dnUVZ5qadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 12/24/2012 12:01 PM, scooter lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Qd6dnfqNAa8GOUXNnZ2dnUVZ5tqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 12/24/2012 10:51 AM, Derek Smalls wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" wrote in message
>>>>> news:rLmdnYZrcZ5_GkXNnZ2dnUVZ5hqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/24/2012 8:37 AM, Derek Smalls wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:-YidnYjX8_BeHEXNnZ2dnUVZ5qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/24/2012 8:19 AM, Derek Smalls wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:LOudnRIdlIkW4UXNnZ2dnUVZ5vednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/23/2012 8:44 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:SNWdnWG3ouWqU0rNnZ2dnUVZ5vWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2012 7:29 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:SqmdnS_dCKqKVErNnZ2dnUVZ5tWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2012 6:41 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:SdOdnYwCVq0jIErNnZ2dnUVZ5t6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/23/2012 4:36 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:bJqdnXpWdKADp0rNnZ2dnUVZ5rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 10:53 PM, scooter lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:dbmdnQlxIrT18UvNnZ2dnUVZ5rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 4:14 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When words and behaviour clash, it's behaviour that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a gun grabber.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a "gun grabber", you fucking brain-damaged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> top-poster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can't prove it by your posting history.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I can!!! Not one post of mine has advocated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confiscating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all guns. That's what "gun grabber" means, and I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Na, just a nibble here, a nibble there, here a ban, there a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ban,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. I'm not a gun grabber - not in any way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet you tell us we can prohibit anything simply by
>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd
>>>>>>>>>>>> Amendment doesn't protect it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, not "anything" - nice straw man.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what, specifically, can't be prohibited?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Where exactly is the limit between that which can be
>>>>>>>>>> prohibited and
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> which can not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, limitations *do* exist on the right that is
>>>>>>>>>>> protected by
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BRAVO!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just when I thought you were unable to learn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, fuck off. But thanks for admitting you were only engaging in
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> really shitty sophistry - a sophistry you are incompetent to make
>>>>>>>>> happen - all along.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, just engaging in lame, pointless sophistry that
>>>>>>> had no
>>>>>>> chance of succeeding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those limitations quite easily might be on the type and
>>>>>>>>>>> capacity of
>>>>>>>>>>> arms owned.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Based on what language in the Constitution?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, I don't know - general welfare clause, maybe. Use your own
>>>>>>>>> imagination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So basically you have no idea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do have quite a good idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Give it up, scooter: you're not a constitutional scholar, and in
>>>>>>> fact
>>>>>>> you're just in thrall to some web page crackpots who have said some
>>>>>>> outlandish things you find pleasing to believe. You don't know what
>>>>>>> you're talking about - you depend wholly on a bunch of unidentified
>>>>>>> crackpots whose ideas are entirely bullshit. You couldn't form an
>>>>>>> original thought on any of this if your life depended on it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, a statutory limit on the magazine or clip capacity
>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>> be enacted, and the court might hold that such a limit is well
>>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>> the limits of the right protected, and therefore does not
>>>>>>>>>>> violate
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, but you do realize that the court has no authority to
>>>>>>>>>> deny
>>>>>>>>>> the protections of the Constitution as enacted?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no right to have a magazine or clip of whatever capacity
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> might wish to have.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based on what language in the Constitution?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on the inherent limits in the right recognized by the second
>>>>>>> amendment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ^^^^
>>>>>>> Then please feel free to show those "limits" that you talk of in the
>>>>>>> Second Amendment.
>>>>>>> Please use English, the only language used in that Document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've already established that the limits are in the right itself,
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> in the amendment. The amendment does not create or define the
>>>>>> right -
>>>>>> it recognizes it, and says that the state may not abridge it. The
>>>>>> right
>>>>>> recognized is not unlimited.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ^^^^
>>>>>> Excuse me. Was it you or somebody else that said: "
>>>>>> There is no right to have a magazine or clip of whatever capacity you
>>>>>> might wish to have."....
>>>>>> "Based on the inherent limits in the right recognized by the second
>>>>>> amendment."
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct. The inherent limits are in the right recognized. They
>>>>> aren't
>>>>> in the recognition text itself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So again, I ask (in English) ... Where is that right(or denial of
>>>>>> said
>>>>>> right) mentioned in the United STATES 2nd Amendment?
>>>>>
>>>>> The limitations are in the right. The text addressing the right
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> need to spell them out - they were already understood.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> So you lied yet again,
>>>>
>>>> No, I didn't lie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and you run away by NOT providing what I asked for?
>>>>
>>>> What you asked for doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> So there is no proof of your claims?
>>
>> He asked for text in the amendment spelling out the limitations.
>
> He said nothing about text.

On 4/29/2023 12:00 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>
> There are inherent limits in the right to keep and bear arms. You know
> this. They are not spelled out in the second amendment or in other
> amendments - they are inherent to the right itself.

Please give an example of what you mean by a limit to the
right that is inherent in the right itself.

On 4/29/2023 11:20 AM, Francis Mark Hansen <fmhlaw@comcast.net>, sleazy
rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
> On 4/29/2023 12:00 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>
>> There are inherent limits in the right to keep and bear arms. You know this.
>> They are not spelled out in the second amendment or in other amendments - they
>> are inherent to the right itself.
>
> Please give an example of what you mean by a limit to the
> right that is inherent in the right itself.

Scalia already instructed you on that point, Francis. When he said:

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]

He is elaborating on — instructing you, Francis — on the inherent limits to the
right. It is an inherent limit to the right itself that it doesn't mean a right
to just whatever guns you wish to have, Francis.

Why do you suppose your fellow gun idolator, scooter, is too stupid to see that
the limits to the right, which he claims elsewhere to acknowledge, would *not*
be enumerated in the amendment? Do you think the amendment defines the right,
Francis? It doesn't, of course — it takes the right to be preexisting. The
amendment could be rewritten, with no loss or addition of meaning, as:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right — *whatever that right may be* — of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.

That would not alter the *meaning* of the amendment in any way, Francis. It
would alter the text, but not the meaning. My textual alteration, Francis, is
something that was unnecessary to state, but it is implicitly present. It is
present in *all* the amendments addressing rights, Francis.

You are such a fucking dope, Francis. If I were to be charged with some crime
in SLC, I would throw myself onto the mercy of the court before I would hire an
incompetent rent-skip chaser like you to represent me. I couldn't do any worse.