Re: And "Scout" Refuses To Answer

On 11/29/22 11:06 AM, Paul Jackson wrote:
> On 11/29/2022 6:17 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Klaus  Schadenfreude <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 02:30:47 +0000, Mitchell Holman
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 11:31:08 -0800, Klaus  Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:09:52 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 03:20:07 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> "Scout"   wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> "Klaus  Schadenfreude" wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 03:05:28 +0000, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Do you, like Hartung, believe that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone has a right to carry whatever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weaponry they want?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Well, "Scout"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>         Well, "Scout"?
>>>>>>>>>>>> When are you going to prove this is what Hartung believes?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Mitch?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometime before the sun goes nova, eh?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, he posts an assertion then demands that I answer, and then
>>>>>>>>>>> ASSUMES an answer when I don't respond to his stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>       It is a yes or no question, "Scout".
>>>>>>>>>>       Here, let me make it easy for you:
>>>>>>>>>>       ___Yes
>>>>>>>>>>       ___No
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>        Well, ""?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scout, you've been asked a hypothetical, "Do you, like Hartung,
>>>>>>>> believe that everyone has a right to carry whatever weaponry they
>>>>>>>> want?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't necessary to qualify this or demand proof of premise or
>>>> proof
>>>>>>>> that Hartung said it.  Answer straight up, do you believe that
>>>>>>>> everyone has a right to carry whatever weaponry they want?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>     And "Scout" continues in full retreat.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ANd Holman continues with his stupidity
>>>>>
>>>>> Which doesn't change the fact that Scout has failed to answer a
>>>>> question put to him five days ago and repeated daily.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about you?  Do you think everyone has a right to carry whatever
>>>>> weaponry they want?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Actually that is a good question, "Klaus"
>>>>
>>>>     Care to answer it?
>>>
>>> When will you prove that Hartung said criminals in prison should have
>>> the right to carry guns?
>>
>>
>>        Evasion noted, just answer the question.
> 
> No one ever claimed that Hartung said criminals in prison have a right 
> to carry guns.  What Hartung, "no-foreskin," scooter, Francis Mark 
> Hansen, BlueGirl, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty and all the other crazed 
> far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling morons have said is that 
> anyone whose gun rights have not been legally impaired has a right to 
> keep and bear whatever arms they wish.  And that belief is false.  Some 
> arms can be prohibited, and if the crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly 
> boy gun-fondling morons were to sue in court claiming their right to 
> keep and bear arms was infringed by that law, they would lose at ever 
> step, all the way up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> The right is not a right to keep and bear just whatever arms one wishes:
> 
>       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]
> 
>       Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v Heller
> 
> This is settled.
> 
NO because Roe V Wade also wasn't settled and you were wrong when you 
said it was settled...

Court "opinions" are never settled, they are a temporary failure of the 
Legislature to understand the Constitution and to make laws that follow 
the U.S. Constitutional logic.

NOTHING IS SETTLED UNTIL IT BECOMES PART OF THE CONSTITUTION like the 
words *THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS* that is absolute 
and it is settled.  And 250 years of government and private sector use 
of arms for self protection is also the precedence that can't be changed 
since it's the accepted interpretation of "arms".

What has been is now and are future "arms" are NOT what the courts tell 
us it is today, but what the 250 year pattern of use has created and 
can't be changed.  Arms are the self defense tools of the Soldier and 
the police and the personal security of the Politicians and hunters and 
lets NOT forget the FBI and BATF describing most all of them as arms in 
their laws and regulations while also carrying those weapons for their 
own personal safety and others who tell us they needed those to stay 
safe, which means by the pattern we see the AR-15 is for personal 
security... and in the past they have used other arms for security that 
have been banned from the possession of THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE which 
was unconstitutional because they too are "arms". If they weren't then 
the politicians wouldn't be using our tax dollars to buy them for their 
government FBI and IRS and BLM, CBP employees personal protection and 
for the politicians own personal security teams to protect the 
politicians. And that makes them absolutely and indisputably "arms" for 
personal protection and self defense. Since they can't control the 
Borders or the Burning and looting or the Murders and Gangs and the 
Cartels and the human trafficking we will be forced to protect our 
selves, and we can't do that without the same tools as the law 
enforcement would use to do that. They have reneged on the Social 
Contract that the Government agreed to when they took on the job of 
protecting our RIGHTS

*Article IV*
Section 4. *The United States shall guarantee* to every State in this 
Union a Republican Form of Government, *and shall protect each of them* 
*against Invasion* ; *and* on Application of the Legislature, or of the 
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), *against domestic* 
*Violence* .

Failure to do that means that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR 
ARMS, is even more important and needs to be taken back by force if need 
be.  Government can't ignore their job and at the same time enforce 
unconstitutional laws on the NON criminals of the NATION.







-- 
-Reality Matters-