Re: If true then all Joe Biden needs to do is point out in the Constitution where he gets the delegated power to limit
BeamMeUpScotty <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.politics.congress,alt.politics.corruption,alt.censorship,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.election,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.obama,alt.politics.scorched-earth,alt.politics.socialism.mao,alt.politics.trump,alt.global-warming,alt.conspiracy,alt.apocolypse,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.infowars, alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,alt.politics.guns,alt.politics,talk.politics.guns |
|---|---|
| Organization | Support the "Propaganda Wars Open Source Project" to encourage less violence and hate inside America's Borders. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 11/24/22 4:29 PM, Wotawonderfulworld wrote: > BeamMeUpScotty <[email protected]> wrote in > news:tNKfL.11511$m%[email protected]: > >> On 11/24/22 12:16 AM, Wotawonderfulworld wrote: >>> Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote in >>> news:[email protected]: >>> >>>> David Hartung <[email protected]> wrote in news:29GcnTLR6qWTo-P- >>>> [email protected]: >>>> >>>>> On 11/23/22 08:31, Mitchell Holman wrote: >>>>>> David Hartung <[email protected]> wrote in >>>>>> news:[email protected]: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/22/22 12:03, Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/31/2022 2:20 PM, David Hartung wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/31/22 14:26, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2022 12:19 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged >>>>>>>>>> fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a >>>>>>>>>> helmet, stupidly bawled and lied: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.infowars.com/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lie site lies not read. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If true then all Joe Biden needs to do is point out in the >>>>>>>>>>> Constitution where he gets the delegated power to limit the >>> RIGHT >>>>>>>>>>> of the people to keep and bear arms. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The limits are, of course, inherent to the right. Ask >>>>>>>>>> Hartung >>> â >>>> €†>>>>>>>>>> I've instructed himon this point many times. He knows it >>>>>>>>>> by >>>> heart >>>>>>>>>> now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All you have done Rudy, is to say that the limits are inherent, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They are. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but you never explain just how that is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course I've explained it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, yo have not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The truth is that you have no idea how or in what way the >>>>>>>>> second amendment may be limited. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one said the *amendment* is limited. It is the right to >>>>>>>> keep >>>> and >>>>>>>> bear arms that is limited. The amendment merely enumerates >>>>>>>> the right. It neither defines nor addresses any limits of the >>>>>>>> right. However, we know those limits are there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is not a right to just whatever arms you may wish to have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The highest law of the nation states that one's right to arm >>> oneself >>>>>>> may not be infringed. That same law places no limit on what type >>>>>>> of arms we have the right to carry, therefore there is no legal >>>>>>> limit >>> on >>>>>>> the types of weapons which may be possessed by a private >>>>>>> citizens. Furthermore, one who would seek to limit the ability pf >>>>>>> the >>> citizenry >>>>>>> to be armed, has no business in any position of legal authority. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you DO believe, as I have shown from >>>>>> your previous posts, that everyone has a right >>>>>> to carry whatever weaponry they want. >>>>> >>>>> So? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Just establishing your position for >>>> all to see. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> PS: Are all limitations on freedoms cited >>>>>> on the Bill of Rights an "infringement"? >>>>> >>>>> Limitations, what Rudy calls inherent limitations, involve using >>> one's >>>>> freedom to cause harm, such as slander, and crying "fire" in a >>> crowded >>>>> theater. >>>> >>>> >>>> Where is that cited in the Bill of Rights? >>>> >>>> You think think the Second Amendment is >>>> absolute, does that apply to the First as >>>> well? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Er you guys can carry Nukes ? Wow i thought the Amendment meant ARMS >>> not Weapons. Mini Guns for all. >>> >>> >> What does the Federal Government *arm* their workers and their agents >> and soldiers with and what do the States *arm* their civilian police >> with. >> >> Those are armed persons that *the Government has armed* so they carry >> arms.... and anything that is considered an "arm" or being armed for >> self defense or tracking hunting or survival that they use is what is >> called arms plus anything that the private sector may invent to carry >> as self defense arms and armament... bio-weapons and nuclear-weapons >> aren't carried by soldiers for personal protection and aren't normally >> considered "arms" as in personal protection for the police or troops >> or any other government issue to the foot soldiers and thugs and >> personal security of the President using their Government issue arms. >> >> Which means the Government has no gripe with those weapons they chose >> to call "arms" and then issued to people, also being owned and carried >> by the private sector, using the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR >> ARMS, as the denial of the GOVERNMENT'S POWER to ban them and our >> personal modifications to improve their use. >> >> If the Government didn't already use them as "arms" for self >> protection then maybe they would have been able to claim they aren't >> arms and never were. But we see the government chose to arm the GOVERNMENT >> WORKERS for self defense with those *arms* . >> >> >> >> Good heavens .. READ What i responded too.... To help you out i'll > snip and clip the bit. > > may not be infringed. That same law places no limit on what type > of arms we have the right to carry, therefore there is no legal > limit on the types of weapons which may be possessed by a private > citizens > If we agree on the idea that arms are anything carried for personal self defense by Soldiers or police or other government workers like CIA SPIES and Secret service protection details, then take it as I am agreeing with you, unless you're a Democrat then I'm clarifying what the Constitution says so that hopefully even a Democrat can understand it. I usually use the WORD DEMOCRAT in a response "a lot" so that people get that I'm NOT disagreeing with them if they support the actual Constitution and NOT the Democrats interpretation of it, but this time I didn't add in "Democrat" in all the obvious places. > > Maybe read it 2 or 3 times. > Maybe but often I'm NOT directing this as a particular statement but at the GENERAL idea behind the post as a 3rd party to the conversation NOT as only speaking to the last two responses but responding to the Subject line it's self to toss out another prospective on it, be it in partial agreement with existing or NOT. It's like showing your work in 4th grade math class, It's NOT about the answer it's about how you get there. If we agree then move on. If NOT then tell me where I was wrong in getting to that in the process of logic or fact. Because it's about how you get to the answer as much as getting it correct. -- -That's karma-