On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:ae2dnYfN--eI_krNnZ2dnUVZ5oudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 12/23/2012 11:50 AM, Sarah Ehrett wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:18:08 -0800, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/21/2012 9:10 AM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:wvydnSJgkOPXcE7NnZ2dnUVZ5vqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 12/20/2012 6:56 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hsqdnWtvzrXCWE7NnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2012 5:55 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:rbidnRg2JdA6Kk7NnZ2dnUVZ5vKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2012 5:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:0-ednUvxLebfLk7NnZ2dnUVZ5g6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2012 4:49 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Fred C. Dobbs" <treasure@sierramadre.con> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6bOdned9xK4i7k7NnZ2dnUVZ5h2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't one. And if there is, then conservatives can go
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to hell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> libs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you really don't care about having a valid rationale for
>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>> certain arms that you might plausibly use for your self
>>>>>>>>>>>> defense; you
>>>>>>>>>>>> just want the most firepower you can possibly get, without any
>>>>>>>>>>>> restrictions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but that isn't what the second amendment
>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantees you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, but he doesn't need a valid rational, but rather you
>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>> produce a valid reason why he shouldn't be able to exercise his
>>>>>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He doesn't have any "right" to have whatever weapons he wants.
>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>> that simple.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Really? Do you have the right to my money for your birth control,
>>>>>>>>> ducky?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not comparable in the least.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do not have a right to *any* weapon you might wish to keep.
>>>>>>>> Some
>>>>>>>> are off limit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show me that in the 2nd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not how it works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it is.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There are no restrictions in the Second Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> There are. The Supreme Court has held that there are.
>>>
>>> Then cite the ruling from the Supreme Court.
>>
>> I have done. Here it is again:
>>
>> 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]
>>
>>
>> That's taken directly from the majority opinion. The right is not
>> unlimited. Specifically, "the right [is] not a right to keep and
>> carry any weapon whatsoever."
>
> Seems to me there is a bit of a difference between saying a right is not
> unlimited and claiming that restrictions exist in the 2nd Amendment.

No one used the word restrictions until now.

The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the limitations
exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble understanding
that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same meaning.
The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with 100%
assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the
right protected by the amendment.

That's how it works.

On 4/29/2023 9:54 AM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
> On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:
>>
>> Seems to me there is a bit of a difference between saying a right is not
>> unlimited and claiming that restrictions exist in the 2nd Amendment.
>
> No one used the word restrictions until now.
> The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the
> limitations exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible
> trouble understanding that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor
> do they have the same meaning. The limitations are not "in" the
> amendment, but they most definitely, with 100% assurance, are *within*
> the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the right protected
> by the amendment.
>
Is there a limit to the right of free speech that is inherent
in the right itself?
What about the right to own property? The right to liberty?
The right to life? Are there limits to those rights that are
inherent in the right itself? Can you provide examples that
illustrate those limits?

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 08:54:49 -0700, Carol Kinsey Goman
<ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:

>
>No one used the word restrictions until now.
>
>The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the limitations
>exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble understanding
>that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same meaning.
>The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with 100%
>assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the
>right protected by the amendment.
>
>That's how it works.

Thanks to Trump, you will never see an assault weapons ban.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 08:54:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Carol Kinsey
Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:

>No one used the word restrictions until now.
>
>The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the limitations
>exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble understanding
>that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same meaning.
>The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with 100%
>assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the
>right protected by the amendment.
>
>That's how it works.

The first noun phrase followed by the progressive participle would, to
an eighteenth-century reader, have been a clear reference to slavery.
The only use for a militia was to put down slave revolts and the use
of the term "free state" had the connotation of meaning the non-slaves
in a state that practiced slavery. It was eighteenth-century double
speak.

The reason the second amendment is so torturously ambiguous is because
Mr. Madison was trying to say: "This is about *slavery*" without
actually using the word "slavery". 2A was the compromise between the
slave states and non-slave states that allowed ratification of the
1787 constitution.

In news:e5b3M.637819$PXw7.374311@fx45.iad, Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com>
typed:

> On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:...

2012 ?!?

Holy shit, Rudy! Don't you have a life???

"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote in message
news:e5b3M.637819$PXw7.374311@fx45.iad...
> On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:

Rudy is behind that he's answering posts from over a decade ago.

I will simply note, I address all your points then when you made the same
bullshit claims you're trying to make again.

Let us know when you manage to get caught up to the present.

"!Jones" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:gbhr4il08u3g3iu157rvo43t9msar9uoov@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 08:54:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Carol Kinsey
> Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:
>
>>No one used the word restrictions until now.
>>
>>The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the
>>limitations
>>exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble
>>understanding
>>that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same
>>meaning.
>>The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with
>>100%
>>assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are
>>*within* the
>>right protected by the amendment.
>>
>>That's how it works.
>
> The first noun phrase

I bet they were certainly aware that the opening nominative absolute clause
was not a noun phrase.

On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:22:26 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>news:e5b3M.637819$PXw7.374311@fx45.iad...
>> On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:
>
>Rudy is behind that he's answering posts from over a decade ago.

Apparently you aren't kicking his ass enough.

LOL

On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:24:43 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>>The first noun phrase followed by the progressive participle would, to
>>an eighteenth-century reader, have been a clear reference to slavery.
>>The only use for a militia was to put down slave revolts and the use
>>of the term "free state" had the connotation of meaning the non-slaves
>>in a state that practiced slavery. It was eighteenth-century double
>>speak.
>>
>>The reason the second amendment is so torturously ambiguous is because
>>Mr. Madison was trying to say: "This is about *slavery*" without
>>actually using the word "slavery". 2A was the compromise between the
>>slave states and non-slave states that allowed ratification of the
>>1787 constitution.
>
>I bet they were certainly aware that the opening nominative absolute clause
>was not a noun phrase.

Why, it most certainly *is*, sir!

A "nominative" is a noun or a phrase used as a noun. "A well
regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
is an absolute noun *phrase*, not a clause. The sentence is an
example of a "dangling participle" in that the "being necessary..."
participle could modify either noun phrase. I.e.: it could also be
read:

"Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people... [yaba yaba]" (IOW, the participle modifies the second noun
phrase.)

Saying something is a "nominative absolute clause" doesn't make sense.
If it's "nominative", it's used as a noun. If it's a "clause", then
it's a complete sentence in and of itself.

-------------------------------------------------

The purpose of the sentence was to call the reader's attention to
slavery without explicitly using that term and to protect the slave
states' militias from being disbanded by the fed. We should have
dealt with slavery in 1790 and we paid dearly for not doing so. In
1865, we should have eliminated the second amendment as an artifact of
slavery; I suggest that we have, again, paid dearly.

Just as we finally had to deal with slavery, sooner or later, we will
have to roll back the guns... and that will happen. I doubt that it
will be a peaceful transition, though.

On 5/1/2023 5:24 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "!Jones" <x@y.com> wrote in message
> news:gbhr4il08u3g3iu157rvo43t9msar9uoov@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 08:54:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Carol Kinsey
>> Goman <ckg@f�rbes.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No one used the word restrictions until now.
>>>
>>> The *right* protected by the amendment is limited. *THEREFORE*, the limitations
>>> exist within the amendment. You seem to be having terrible trouble understanding
>>> that "in" and "within" are not the same word, nor do they have the same meaning.
>>> The limitations are not "in" the amendment, but they most definitely, with 100%
>>> assurance, are *within* the amendment...because the limitations are *within* the
>>> right protected by the amendment.
>>>
>>> That's how it works.
>>
>> The first noun phrase followed by the progressive participle would, to
>> an eighteenth-century reader, have been a clear reference to slavery.
>> The only use for a militia was to put down slave revolts and the use
>> of the term "free state" had the connotation of meaning the non-slaves
>> in a state that practiced slavery. It was eighteenth-century double
>> speak.
>>
>> The reason the second amendment is so torturously ambiguous is because
>> Mr. Madison was trying to say: "This is about *slavery*" without
>> actually using the word "slavery". 2A was the compromise between the
>> slave states and non-slave states that allowed ratification of the
>> 1787 constitution.
>
> I bet they were certainly aware

They were aware that the amendment is about preserving slavery.

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:0ijv4it84g4m1m6iudstfbomg5fke2pfes@Schadenfreude.com...
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:22:26 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>news:e5b3M.637819$PXw7.374311@fx45.iad...
>>> On 12/23/2012 5:39 PM, scooter lied:
>>
>>Rudy is behind that he's answering posts from over a decade ago.
>
> Apparently you aren't kicking his ass enough.
>
> LOL

More likely that's how far back he had to go to come up with something where
he thought he actually got the better of me....

On 5/1/2023 1:59 PM, !Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2023 07:24:43 "Scout" wrote:
>
>>> The first noun phrase followed by the progressive participle would, to
>>> an eighteenth-century reader, have been a clear reference to slavery.
>>> The only use for a militia was to put down slave revolts and the use
>>> of the term "free state" had the connotation of meaning the non-slaves
>>> in a state that practiced slavery. It was eighteenth-century double
>>> speak.
>>>
>>> The reason the second amendment is so torturously ambiguous is because
>>> Mr. Madison was trying to say: "This is about *slavery*" without
>>> actually using the word "slavery". 2A was the compromise between the
>>> slave states and non-slave states that allowed ratification of the
>>> 1787 constitution.
>>
>> I bet they were certainly aware that the opening nominative absolute clause
>> was not a noun phrase.
>
> Why, it most certainly *is*, sir!
>
> A "nominative" is a noun or a phrase used as a noun. "A well
> regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
> is an absolute noun *phrase*, not a clause. The sentence is an
> example of a "dangling participle" in that the "being necessary..."
> participle could modify either noun phrase. I.e.: it could also be
> read:
>
> "Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
> people... [yaba yaba]" (IOW, the participle modifies the second noun
> phrase.)
>
> Saying something is a "nominative absolute clause" doesn't make sense.
> If it's "nominative", it's used as a noun. If it's a "clause", then
> it's a complete sentence in and of itself.
>
iJones is demonstrating his skill at being pedantic while adding
nothing substantive to the discussion.