On 12/24/2012 11:58 AM, scooter lied:
> "Carol Kinsey Goman"<ckg@förbes.com> 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.
>
> And your proof of that assertion, is where exactly?

Scalia's opinion of the court in Heller.

>>> 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.

<chortle>