On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:13:50 -0500, Tom Gardner Mars@Tacks wrote:

On 2/24/2013 7:42 AM, Gunner wrote:
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 of law
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie



Ed either really, really just doesn't get it or, more likely, he will
NEVER admit he is wrong.

You sit here and say all this is wrong, while REAL Constitutional
scholars -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito...even Thomas and Blackstone, fer
chrissake, all say YOU're wrong.

Heller quotes numerous cases of regulation of guns, including several
outright BANS of concealed carry from the 19th century, as evidence
that there have always been limitations on the "right," that "shall
not be infringed" never meant "no restrictions," as Scalia says,

"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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy
152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues." -- Opinion of the Court, D.C. v. Heller

So what you're saying I don't "get" is your ignorant, ahistorical
interpretation of the Amendment. Even though you've been contradicted
throughout history.

Here's what you don't "get," Tom: You're in a bubble. You cooked up a
meaning for the 2nd that suits your desires and wishes, and you
reflect it back and forth with the gun nutz, until you've lost all
sense of reality. You're in an echo chamber of fools.

You probably think the FOX News gun-control poll is a left-wing
conspiracy.

Maybe your should take your own poll. You could restrict it to the gun
nutz. Then send it to FOX and tell them how wrong they are, how
outrageous it is that they're furthering the left-wing agenda, because
you have the REAL numbers. Everyone on RCM agrees.

You really don't get it, Tom.

We know he has absolutely no consideration for
anyone else's arguments or opinions...

Make a sensible argument, and I'll be all ears. So far, you haven't
done much of that.

he MUST always be right because he
is superior in every way!

That sounds more like Tawwwm.

--
Ed Huntress