On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:42:25 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:40:27 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 16:56:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:43:49 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:51:32 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:27:36 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:19:29 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:



(Don't worry, they are only taking away and murdering the Jews)

Pure paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Tell that to 9 million Jews


This is not Germany in the 1930s. And registration of guns had nothing
to do with them murdering Jews. They round up Jews whether they had
guns or not.

Germany of the 1930s wasnt Germany of the 1920s either. Yet one
became the other.

And what is that supposed to mean? Don't duck this one, Gunner. Let's
see what you really know about this stuff you're babbling about.


You are really really weak on history arent you?

No, not especially weak.


Now about that pesky "Shall not be Infringed" thingy?

How about it? It really bugs you, doesn't it?

Look it up. Then check the historical accounts cited in Heller.

Constitution was written in 1787....which included the 2nd Amendment.

Yup. But even in 1828, as Webster tells us, the "encroach" usage was
still "little used."

But infringed was used.

In fact, it was a corruption. "Infringe" derives from Latin, "to
break." "Fringe" derives from a back formation meaning "thread," or,
literally, "fringe."

Different roots. Different meanings. And as Webster (1828) says,
"infringed" had only one side of the meaning: "pp. Broken; violated;
transgresses."

So the right to keep and bear arms shall not be broken, violated or
transgressed upon. Thanks!!


No "encroached." That had not yet reached common usage. In law, it
still is not what the word means. Break or violate is the legal usage.


And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?

Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.

It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)


So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?

Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.

No firearms allowed in DC, NYC, Chicago etc etc etc. The Right to
Keep and Bear arms is badly infringed and in fact..broken, violated
and transgressed upon. So Heller was a return to Constitutional
law...somewhat. Still not "legal" to bear arms in those places..so
its not returned to Constitutional mandate...its still broken,
violated and transgressed upon.


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie