[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

[ANN] rutema 0.5.0 Released

Vassilis Rizopoulos

2/26/2008 10:51:00 PM

rutema version 0.5.0 has been released!

## DESCRIPTION:

Rutema provides the basis for building tools that can manage the
execution of tests as well as an example implementation as
proof-of-concept for the ideas behind it.

It's purpose is to provide a set of classes and a framework that will
allow testers to specify and execute tests in heterogeneous testing
environments.

Rutema allows you to combine tools while it takes care of logging,
reporting, archiving of results and formalizes execution of automated
and manual tests.

For more information look at http://patir.rubyforge....

## FEATURES/PROBLEMS:

Changes:

## 0.5.0 / 2008-02-26
* activerecord reporter is now loaded by default (no need to require it
in the configuration file)
* bugfix: step names correctly written in the database
* The web frontend now uses Ramaze
* using patir-0.5.3 because of the chdir bugfixes
* rutema can now test itself! rutemax and rutemah return meaningful exit
codes. So there, we do it our own dogfood
* lots more documentation on usage and how to build a parser

## 0.4.3 / 2008-02-25
* fixed bug in rutemax when the activerecord reporter is used, where the
database was not created relative to the configuration entry
* fixed bug in rutemah where the report was not printed (doh!)
* added active record reporter configuration and rutemah configuration
to distro test
## 0.4.2 / 2007-12-05
* rutemah code cleaned up
* Bugfix: MinimalXMLParser now handles relative paths in command
elements correctly
* distro_test added to the gem
* Distro test documented, documentation pages updated
## 0.4.1 / 2007-12-04
* Documented MinimalXMLParser
* More debug logs
* Fixed bug in attribute checking for command steps in the minimal parser
* Fixed bug in specification parsing in the Coordinator (no specs were
returned)
* Fixed bug in the implementation of <prompt> in the minimal parser
(attended was not set)
* Fixed bug in evaluation of attended status for steps
* Fixed bug where runner would complain that attened scenarios cannot be
run in unattended mode when choosing to run only attended tests
* Added Version module to better handle versioning
## 0.4 / 2007-07-05
* rutemaweb, a web interface for the db contents added
* uses WEBRick, Camping and Ruport
* offers views on all runs in the System, detailed scenario views and
scenario-over-time views
* Runner now rescues all failures in scenarios
* Bugfix in setting status of attended scenario in unattended mode
* Better ruport usage in the historian
* rutemah added to the gem and manifest
* rutemax help message complete with commands
* split the AR reporter and the model
* expanded the unit tests



--
http://www.braveworl...
23 Answers

Carol Kinsey Goman

1/5/2013 9:49:00 PM

0

On 1/4/2013 8:14 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>> On 1/3/2013 11:12 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/2013 5:43 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>>>> They keep making these stupid
>>>>> restricdtive gun laws which only slow down my personal right to
>>>>> stay adequately armed against invaders of my person, home and
>>>>> city. The fact that these laws are repugnant to the purpose of the
>>>>> second amendment don't make no never mind to the stupid liberals
>>>>> who seem to be running this country. (Into the ground?)
>>>>
>>>> You're still confused. *Some* limit as to type and capacity of the
>>>> arms to which you have a right most definitely is *not* repugnant to
>>>> the second amendment. Understand that the amendment does not
>>>> *create* the right - it *recognizes* it. The right that it
>>>> recognizes *inherently* is a limited right; it is not unlimited,
>>>> allowing you to have just *any* arms you might wish to keep and
>>>> bear. The question is just how stringent can the limits be and not
>>>> upon the basic right to keep and bear arms? Could Congress set a
>>>> limit of 10 round magazines and clips, and that would survive a
>>>> court challenge, but a limit of 9 rounds would fail?
>>>>
>>>> You guys want to keep pretending that limits as to type and capacity
>>>> of arms are inherently in violation of the second amendment, and I
>>>> am *telling* you that based on Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller,
>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>>>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual
>>>> right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not
>>>> unlimited*, just as the First Amendment ?s right of free
>>>> speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U.
>>>> S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to
>>>> protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of
>>>> confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to
>>>> protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
>>>> [...]
>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clearly the second amendment permits limits on the type and capacity
>>>> of arms you might be permitted to keep and bear. The second
>>>> amendment allows it, because such rights are *inherent* in the
>>>> limited right the amendment secures.
>>>
>>> That's not so "clear" to me. I think the wording is very simple and
>>> certainly doesn't imply any such thing.
>>
>> You're still confused. You're confusing the second amendment
>> acknowledgment of the right with the right itself. The second
>> amendment doesn't specify any limits on the right (other than the
>> justification clause "A well-regulated militia...") because it
>> doesn't *need* to specify any: the limitations, as Justice Scalia
>> noted, are inherent in the right being secured and acknowledged. The
>> founders had a very clear conception of limitations on the right,
>> going back to English law.
>>
>>> "Infringed" means pretty near anything to me.
>>
>> The I'd say you are not capable of rational analysis and equally not
>> susceptible to reasonable persuasion, because it definitely does not
>> mean "near anything." To infringe a right means to violate it, to
>> abrogate it, to transgress it.
>>
>>> Certainly requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon
>>> is clearly an infringement in my opinion.
>>
>> But your opinion is wrong. One of the inherent limits to the right to
>> keep and bear arms is, as Justice Scalia wrote in Heller, that it is
>>
>> not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>>
>> You may wish it to be, but it simply isn't - and *never* was seen by
>> the framers or any legal experts to be.
>>
>>
>>> I have carried a concealed
>>> pistol in my pocket for my entire adult life. I even flew to Europe
>>> with it in my luggage, took it out and put it in my pocket as soon
>>> as I arrived at the airport in Munich, and carried it everywhere for
>>> two weeks. When I motorcycled into Canada I hid it over my engine
>>> inside the air filter of my bike, and carried it through Banf park.
>>> Had a bear attacked me he would have gotten five .357 mags in the
>>> face, and the canadian mounted police would have arrested whatever
>>> was left of me. But I am still here, and I still occasionally carry
>>> it whenever I feel the need.
>>
>> And if you were caught and prosecuted for any of those instances, and
>> if you had tried to claim that the prosecution was wrong because your
>> right to keep and bear arms was violated, you would have lost.
>>
>>
>>> You see, I learned how to reaqd very well from Mrs. Hughes, my
>>> fifth grade English teacher, and I don't let authority tell me what's
>>> right and what's wrong.
>>
>> Apparently you didn't learn to read for comprehension, nor to read
>> critically. What you are is called "semi-literate."
>
> You talk pretty tough, so tell me why you think your interpretation of
> the second amendment is so different from mine? Or are you one of those
> people who accept authority and let their decisions do all your thinking
> for you?

Our interpretation of the *amendment* is probably pretty much the same.
The amendment says there is a right to keep and bear arms, and says
that it shall not be infringed (by Congress.) Where we disagree is over
the nature of the right that is recognized in the amendment. The
amendment does not *create* or *confer* the right; it simply is a formal
recognition of it. You are confused about what is comprised in the
right. It is *not* an unlimited right; there are very much limits on
it. You don't like those limits, but they are there regardless.

(Mortar)

1/5/2013 10:24:00 PM

0

On 1/5/13 1:25 PM, Gunner wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:02:34 -0600, deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/13 2:33 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 01:53:08 -0600, deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/5/13 1:24 AM, Ray Keller wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1YidnYJLNLzRM3rNnZ2dnUVZ5u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/4/2013 12:32 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:41:13 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@Hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:Y_adnZ9WuN59dXjNnZ2dnUVZ5umdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2013 12:08 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2013 6:30 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:kLCdnXjTy8tuI3zNnZ2dnUVZ5j6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2012 4:38 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6Jednd1xk-wJmHzNnZ2dnUVZ5jSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2012 9:01 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:xsSdnZmP2qjQgETNnZ2dnUVZ5jmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2012 7:03 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MIydnU8_kbtSV0XNnZ2dnUVZ5s-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2012 1:31 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:j6KdndTzAcLpDEXNnZ2dnUVZ5o2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2012 9:04 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, they believe that a limitation on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clip/magazine capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it certainly could be given the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SCOTUS rulings on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things would be protected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever the judicial branch starts deciding what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers and hardwareare constitutional and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers and hardware are unconstitutional,the court
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "legislating from the bench."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The judicial branch wouldn't decide that - Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but the only power that Congress has to alter the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No alteration of the Constitution is under discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the 2nd doesn't mean whatever SCOTUS says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does. That doesn't mean there's any alteration in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they say what the amendment means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second amendment doesn't say the right held is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual right, yet the court said in Heller it *is* an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual right. Did they change the Constitution in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that? You're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, YOU are fucked up in more ways than one by your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrant ignorance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Heller, the Court only REITERATED that it was an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual right based NOT only on the English law that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preceded the 2nd Amendment, but also on the writings of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors of the 2nd, and on the decisions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaned Justices that preceded the current crop now sitting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No dispute that the second amendment protects an individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right. That wasn't the issue being debated in this thread. What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was being debated in this thread - something you missed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because your reading comprehension is atrocious, as we know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - is whether the Court accepting gun limits enacted by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress would amount to "changing the Constitution." It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not, of course, because nothing in the right protected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the second amendment precludes congressionally enacted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limits on the arms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well in fact there are those 3 words "shall not be infringed"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that apply not to individuals but to the State..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actualy, it IS the issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the *right* that is held by individuals, and that right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is *not unlimited*, nor was it ever considered to be unlimited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by any competent authority: the authors and ratifiers of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amendment, the courts, or the academy of legal scholars. Thus, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words of Justice Scalia:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you keep repeating that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it's both a fact, *and* the prevailing legal doctrine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have a right to keep and bear arms, but not just *any* arms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever. Congress may rationally and constitutionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limit the arms to which your right applies. Those limits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might, for example, be limits on type and/or capacity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But apprently you are unable to go to the next step and actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> start definitn WHICH of those arms qualify
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't need to do that; that would be the job of Congress and/or
>>>>>>>>>>>> state legislatures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is what is going to happen, you dull plodding fuckwit: at
>>>>>>>>>>>> some level of government, a law will be passed saying you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a certain type of firearm. That law will be challenged,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the challenge will fail...because the right to keep and bear
>>>>>>>>>>>> arms is *limited*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get used to it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm quite comfortable with
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're quite comfortable with shitting in your diaper, it seems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In my humble opinion, the framers of our constitution wrote the
>>>>>>>>>>> second amendment to give citizens the right to keep weapons so
>>>>>>>>>>> they might defend temselves and their country from foreign
>>>>>>>>>>> invaders launching an assault against the United States. This
>>>>>>>>>>> threat still exists todayk, and that is why I keep several small
>>>>>>>>>>> arms together with a good supply of ammunition in my own home. In
>>>>>>>>>>> this regard, I think the writers of the constitution were talking
>>>>>>>>>>> about assault weapons, which is what foreign invaders would be
>>>>>>>>>>> carrying. So, My advice is for you gys to buy yourselves a nice
>>>>>>>>>>> AR-15 assault rifle and several thousand rounds of ammnition to
>>>>>>>>>>> go with, and disobey any and all laws that say you can't have it,
>>>>>>>>>>> on the grounds that such laws are inherently unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is an already vast and growing legal literature on the second
>>>>>>>>>> amendment. Most of it focuses on whether or not the amendment
>>>>>>>>>> recognizes an individual right to arms, or one of either a
>>>>>>>>>> "collective" right or a "state" right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The collective or state right nonsense is fairly recent (<50) when
>>>>>>>>> the gun-controllers started to argue that the right was contingent
>>>>>>>>> on being in the militia, or the even more silly notion that "the
>>>>>>>>> people" meant a collective instead or englobing indiciduals"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 200+ years of Supreme COurt decisions put the lie to that.
>>>>>>>>> And that includes decisions like Dredd Scott and Roe v Wade.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A lot of the literature discusses in depth the framers' views of
>>>>>>>>>> the militia and to just what use that militia might be put.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mostly 2nd hand nonssense, when you consider that the framers were
>>>>>>>>> quite clear on what the militia was.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is discussion of it being used to repel invaders, but also
>>>>>>>>>> being used against our own national government if it became
>>>>>>>>>> tyrannical. The consensus seems to be that the right is an
>>>>>>>>>> individual right, not a "collective" right nor a "right" of the
>>>>>>>>>> states (governments don't have rights - they have powers.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DOH !
>>>>>>>>> All that to come up with was the the position thougout the first
>>>>>>>>> 200 years
>>>>>>>>>> There seems to be much less discussion in the publicly available
>>>>>>>>>> literature over the *scope* of the right. Justice Scalia in
>>>>>>>>>> Heller said the right is "not unlimited", and he says as well that
>>>>>>>>>> that's the prevailing opinion among judges and lawyers going back
>>>>>>>>>> to before the amendment was written and ratified. I think this is
>>>>>>>>>> probably right, and it is a matter of simple common sense. The
>>>>>>>>>> framers did not recognize a right for citizens to have just *any*
>>>>>>>>>> arms whatsoever. It is inconceivable that the framers intended
>>>>>>>>>> for people to be able to keep and bear the equivalent in that time
>>>>>>>>>> of rocket propelled grenades, Claymore mines or "suitcase" nuclear
>>>>>>>>>> bombs. *Some* limit on the type and capacity of the arms that
>>>>>>>>>> were to be permitted was inherent in their conception of the
>>>>>>>>>> right. Once that is admitted, and it must be admitted, then the
>>>>>>>>>> only question is how strict the limit might be in an act of
>>>>>>>>>> Congress; the idea that there might be *some* limit imposed is
>>>>>>>>>> beyond constitutional dispute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See Miller, where the Supreme Court made a clear definition that
>>>>>>>>> still stands
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its hardly Just Heller and Miller...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalp...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> gummer keeps citing this, and it's quite obvious he has never read it
>>>>>>> carefully, because in the fifth paragraph we find:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In contrast to the State's Rights theory is what has become
>>>>>>> known as the Standard Model. Under the Standard Model, which
>>>>>>> is the consensus of most modern legal scholarship on the Second
>>>>>>> Amendment, the Amendment guarantees a right of individual
>>>>>>> Americans to own and carry guns. This modern Standard Model is
>>>>>>> similar to the position embraced by *every known legal scholar*
>>>>>>> in the nineteenth century who wrote about the Second Amendment:
>>>>>>> the Amendment guarantees an individual right, but is subject to
>>>>>>> *various reasonable restrictions*.
>>>>>>> [emphasis added for gummer and other semi-literates]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Virtually unanimous among *pro*-gun legal experts is the recognition
>>>>>>> that the right to keep and bear arms is *limited*; it is only impotent
>>>>>>> Usenet blowhards who insist that the right allows them to keep and
>>>>>>> bear *any* ol' arms they want, at *any* time and place. But that is
>>>>>>> not in the right, and hence is not recognized by the second amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you anti gunners should rewrite the amendment to properly define your
>>>>>> more restrictive interpretation instead of mealy-mouthing the
>>>>>> interpretation of its wording as you have done. This would be the honest
>>>>>> thing to do. As a matter of fact, all stupid interpretations of the
>>>>>> foundiung fathers perfectly good English should be reworded in accordance
>>>>>> with the constitutions prescribed method of addition instead of distorting
>>>>>> the meaning of the English language as you liberrals are so fond of doing,
>>>>>> because it turns the whole document into a farce to do it your way. If
>>>>>> SCOTUS can completely deistort its meaning through dumb misinterpretation
>>>>>> then of what worth is the whole document?
>>>>> Not to worry
>>>>> Once the feces hits the rotating impellers leftards will be hunted down and
>>>>> killed for their crimes against the constitution
>>>>
>>>> Anyone can play Rambo in cyberspace. If they come for your guns -- and
>>>> understand that I think this is highly unlikely -- you'll meekly hand
>>>> them over to comply with the law. Your bluster here notwithstanding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Id think again about that, if I were you. That simply will not happen
>>> this time and will only end with the deaths of a few million
>>> Leftwingers
>>
>> More gun-nut world destruction fantasies of their heroics. _Red Dawn_
>> is not a documentary.
>> <snip/>
>
> Hold that thought.
>
>
> It might comfort you up to the moment they kick the lawn chair out
> from under your feet.
>
> Shrug
>
> Gunner

Not to worry, Gummer. If I owned a lawn chair, I wouldn't stand on it.

How's that work going on validating those bogus quotes you live your
life by? Slow going? I guess there's not much time left between bouts
of gun-blazing fantasies.

Gray Guest

1/5/2013 11:06:00 PM

0

deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
news:K_WdndZnYcF5RnrNnZ2dnUVZ5sgAAAAA@giganews.com:

> Anyone can play Rambo in cyberspace. If they come for your guns -- and
> understand that I think this is highly unlikely -- you'll meekly hand
> them over to comply with the law. Your bluster here notwithstanding.
>

Just because you are a spineless coward doesan't mean everyone is.

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

(Mortar)

1/5/2013 11:56:00 PM

0

On 1/5/13 5:06 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
> news:K_WdndZnYcF5RnrNnZ2dnUVZ5sgAAAAA@giganews.com:
>
>> Anyone can play Rambo in cyberspace. If they come for your guns -- and
>> understand that I think this is highly unlikely -- you'll meekly hand
>> them over to comply with the law. Your bluster here notwithstanding.
>>
>
> Just because you are a spineless coward doesan't mean everyone is.

Just because you bluster about your resolute courage doesn't mean you're
not a spineless coward.

Carol Kinsey Goman

1/6/2013 12:52:00 AM

0

On 1/4/2013 8:42 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>> On 1/3/2013 4:41 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Y_adnZ9WuN59dXjNnZ2dnUVZ5umdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>>> There seems to be much less discussion in the publicly available
>>>> literature over the *scope* of the right. Justice Scalia in Heller
>>>> said the right is "not unlimited", and he says as well that that's
>>>> the prevailing opinion among judges and lawyers going back to
>>>> before the amendment was written and ratified. I think this is
>>>> probably right, and it is a matter of simple common sense. The
>>>> framers did not recognize a right for citizens to have just *any*
>>>> arms whatsoever. It is inconceivable that the framers intended for
>>>> people to be able to keep and bear the equivalent in that time of
>>>> rocket propelled grenades, Claymore mines or "suitcase" nuclear
>>>> bombs. *Some* limit on the type and capacity of the arms that were
>>>> to be permitted was inherent in their conception of the right. Once
>>>> that is admitted, and it must be admitted, then the only
>>>> question is how strict the limit might be in an act of Congress;
>>>> the idea that there might be *some* limit imposed is beyond
>>>> constitutional dispute.
>>>
>>> See Miller, where the Supreme Court made a clear definition that
>>> still stands
>>
>> Miller contains no such "clear" definition. Miller is notorious for
>> being cited by both sides.
>
> Tsk, tsk. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed." How simple and obvious is that?
I'm sorry, but that's not part of Miller.

Carol Kinsey Goman

1/6/2013 12:54:00 AM

0

On 1/4/2013 9:07 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>> On 1/4/2013 2:59 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:QbudnWY8Ebq1lHrNnZ2dnUVZ5sudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>> Virtually unanimous among *pro*-gun legal experts is the recognition
>>>> that the right to keep and bear arms is *limited*; it is only
>>>> impotent Usenet blowhards who insist that the right allows them to
>>>> keep and bear *any* ol' arms they want, at *any* time and place. But
>>>> that is not in the right, and hence is not recognized by the
>>>> second amendment.
>>>
>>> 1) Since I have never made such a declaration, you are projecting
>>
>> But you reject the idea that there are limits on the right, including
>> limits on type and capacity, so by unavoidable implication you fall
>> into the gang of Usenet blowhards who believe that the second
>> amendment guarantees you a right to *any* ol' arms you want. This is
>> not in dispute.
>>
>>> 2) Since most on this group have made no such declarations, you
>>> are projecting about them too
>>
>> I am following the logically necessary implications of what they say.
>>
>>
>>> 3) So when do you think you can start describing which "arms" are
>>> covered and protected ?
>>
>> There's no "list" of "covered" arms. All we are doing here is
>> establishing that the right is limited, and that Congress may indeed
>> impose limits on type and capacity that the Supreme Court would
>> uphold.
>
> But to limit the guns to exclude the arms that any invading army might
> use when they lkaunch an attack on the united states is grossly stupid,

No, it isn't, because the founders never intended for the militia to be
the sole source of opposition to an invading hostile power.

Fred C. Dobbs

1/6/2013 1:01:00 AM

0

On 1/4/2013 11:24 PM, Ray Keller wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1YidnYJLNLzRM3rNnZ2dnUVZ5u6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>> On 1/4/2013 12:32 AM, Gunner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:41:13 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@Hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Y_adnZ9WuN59dXjNnZ2dnUVZ5umdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 1/3/2013 12:08 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2013 6:30 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:kLCdnXjTy8tuI3zNnZ2dnUVZ5j6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/31/2012 4:38 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:6Jednd1xk-wJmHzNnZ2dnUVZ5jSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2012 9:01 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:xsSdnZmP2qjQgETNnZ2dnUVZ5jmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2012 7:03 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MIydnU8_kbtSV0XNnZ2dnUVZ5s-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2012 1:31 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:j6KdndTzAcLpDEXNnZ2dnUVZ5o2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/24/2012 9:04 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, they believe that a limitation on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clip/magazine capacity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be a violation of the amendment. Clearly it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it certainly could be given the current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SCOTUS rulings on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things would be protected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever the judicial branch starts deciding what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers and hardwareare constitutional and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers and hardware are unconstitutional,the court
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "legislating from the bench."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The judicial branch wouldn't decide that - Congress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but the only power that Congress has to alter the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No alteration of the Constitution is under discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the 2nd doesn't mean whatever SCOTUS says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does. That doesn't mean there's any alteration in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Constitution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when they say what the amendment means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second amendment doesn't say the right held is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual right, yet the court said in Heller it *is* an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual right. Did they change the Constitution in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that? You're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, YOU are fucked up in more ways than one by your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrant ignorance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Heller, the Court only REITERATED that it was an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual right based NOT only on the English law that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preceded the 2nd Amendment, but also on the writings of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> authors of the 2nd, and on the decisions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaned Justices that preceded the current crop now sitting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No dispute that the second amendment protects an individual
>>>>>>>>>>>> right. That wasn't the issue being debated in this thread. What
>>>>>>>>>>>> was being debated in this thread - something you missed
>>>>>>>>>>>> because your reading comprehension is atrocious, as we know
>>>>>>>>>>>> - is whether the Court accepting gun limits enacted by
>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress would amount to "changing the Constitution." It
>>>>>>>>>>>> would not, of course, because nothing in the right protected
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the second amendment precludes congressionally enacted
>>>>>>>>>>>> limits on the arms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well in fact there are those 3 words "shall not be infringed"
>>>>>>>>>>> that apply not to individuals but to the State..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not the issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actualy, it IS the issue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not the issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is the *right* that is held by individuals, and that right
>>>>>>>>>> is *not unlimited*, nor was it ever considered to be unlimited
>>>>>>>>>> by any competent authority: the authors and ratifiers of the
>>>>>>>>>> amendment, the courts, or the academy of legal scholars. Thus, in
>>>>>>>>>> the words of Justice Scalia:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you keep repeating that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because it's both a fact, *and* the prevailing legal doctrine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have a right to keep and bear arms, but not just *any* arms
>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever. Congress may rationally and constitutionally
>>>>>>>>>> limit the arms to which your right applies. Those limits
>>>>>>>>>> might, for example, be limits on type and/or capacity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But apprently you are unable to go to the next step and actually
>>>>>>>>> start definitn WHICH of those arms qualify
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't need to do that; that would be the job of Congress and/or
>>>>>>>> state legislatures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is what is going to happen, you dull plodding fuckwit: at
>>>>>>>> some level of government, a law will be passed saying you can't
>>>>>>>> have a certain type of firearm. That law will be challenged,
>>>>>>>> and the challenge will fail...because the right to keep and bear
>>>>>>>> arms is *limited*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Get used to it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm quite comfortable with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're quite comfortable with shitting in your diaper, it seems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my humble opinion, the framers of our constitution wrote the
>>>>>>> second amendment to give citizens the right to keep weapons so
>>>>>>> they might defend temselves and their country from foreign
>>>>>>> invaders launching an assault against the United States. This
>>>>>>> threat still exists todayk, and that is why I keep several small
>>>>>>> arms together with a good supply of ammunition in my own home. In
>>>>>>> this regard, I think the writers of the constitution were talking
>>>>>>> about assault weapons, which is what foreign invaders would be
>>>>>>> carrying. So, My advice is for you gys to buy yourselves a nice
>>>>>>> AR-15 assault rifle and several thousand rounds of ammnition to
>>>>>>> go with, and disobey any and all laws that say you can't have it,
>>>>>>> on the grounds that such laws are inherently unconstitutional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an already vast and growing legal literature on the second
>>>>>> amendment. Most of it focuses on whether or not the amendment
>>>>>> recognizes an individual right to arms, or one of either a
>>>>>> "collective" right or a "state" right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The collective or state right nonsense is fairly recent (<50) when
>>>>> the gun-controllers started to argue that the right was contingent
>>>>> on being in the militia, or the even more silly notion that "the
>>>>> people" meant a collective instead or englobing indiciduals"
>>>>>
>>>>> 200+ years of Supreme COurt decisions put the lie to that.
>>>>> And that includes decisions like Dredd Scott and Roe v Wade.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of the literature discusses in depth the framers' views of
>>>>>> the militia and to just what use that militia might be put.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mostly 2nd hand nonssense, when you consider that the framers were
>>>>> quite clear on what the militia was.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is discussion of it being used to repel invaders, but also
>>>>>> being used against our own national government if it became
>>>>>> tyrannical. The consensus seems to be that the right is an
>>>>>> individual right, not a "collective" right nor a "right" of the
>>>>>> states (governments don't have rights - they have powers.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DOH !
>>>>> All that to come up with was the the position thougout the first
>>>>> 200 years
>>>>>> There seems to be much less discussion in the publicly available
>>>>>> literature over the *scope* of the right. Justice Scalia in
>>>>>> Heller said the right is "not unlimited", and he says as well that
>>>>>> that's the prevailing opinion among judges and lawyers going back
>>>>>> to before the amendment was written and ratified. I think this is
>>>>>> probably right, and it is a matter of simple common sense. The
>>>>>> framers did not recognize a right for citizens to have just *any*
>>>>>> arms whatsoever. It is inconceivable that the framers intended
>>>>>> for people to be able to keep and bear the equivalent in that time
>>>>>> of rocket propelled grenades, Claymore mines or "suitcase" nuclear
>>>>>> bombs. *Some* limit on the type and capacity of the arms that
>>>>>> were to be permitted was inherent in their conception of the
>>>>>> right. Once that is admitted, and it must be admitted, then the
>>>>>> only question is how strict the limit might be in an act of
>>>>>> Congress; the idea that there might be *some* limit imposed is
>>>>>> beyond constitutional dispute.
>>>>>
>>>>> See Miller, where the Supreme Court made a clear definition that
>>>>> still stands
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Its hardly Just Heller and Miller...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalp...
>>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases
>>>
>>> gummer keeps citing this, and it's quite obvious he has never read it
>>> carefully, because in the fifth paragraph we find:
>>>
>>> In contrast to the State's Rights theory is what has become
>>> known as the Standard Model. Under the Standard Model, which
>>> is the consensus of most modern legal scholarship on the Second
>>> Amendment, the Amendment guarantees a right of individual
>>> Americans to own and carry guns. This modern Standard Model is
>>> similar to the position embraced by *every known legal scholar*
>>> in the nineteenth century who wrote about the Second Amendment:
>>> the Amendment guarantees an individual right, but is subject to
>>> *various reasonable restrictions*.
>>> [emphasis added for gummer and other semi-literates]
>>>
>>>
>>> Virtually unanimous among *pro*-gun legal experts is the recognition
>>> that the right to keep and bear arms is *limited*; it is only impotent
>>> Usenet blowhards who insist that the right allows them to keep and
>>> bear *any* ol' arms they want, at *any* time and place. But that is
>>> not in the right, and hence is not recognized by the second amendment.
>>
>> Then you anti gunners should rewrite the amendment to properly define your
>> more restrictive interpretation instead of mealy-mouthing the
>> interpretation of its wording as you have done. This would be the honest
>> thing to do. As a matter of fact, all stupid interpretations of the
>> foundiung fathers perfectly good English should be reworded in accordance
>> with the constitutions prescribed method of addition instead of distorting
>> the meaning of the English language as you liberrals are so fond of doing,
>> because it turns the whole document into a farce to do it your way. If
>> SCOTUS can completely deistort its meaning through dumb misinterpretation
>> then of what worth is the whole document?
> Not to worry
> Once the feces hits the rotating impellers leftards will be hunted down and
> killed for their crimes against the constitution

No. That's not going to happen - not any of it. There's going to be no
"great cull" at all. Bet on it.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs.

Nobody

1/6/2013 1:22:00 AM

0

Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:

> On 1/5/2013 2:14 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>> news:pJKdnS2TPpE3AnXNnZ2dnUVZ5gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 1/4/2013 8:14 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/2013 11:12 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/3/2013 5:43 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They keep making these stupid
>>>>>>>> restricdtive gun laws which only slow down my personal
>>>>>>>> right to stay adequately armed against invaders of my
>>>>>>>> person, home and city. The fact that these laws are
>>>>>>>> repugnant to the purpose of the second amendment don't make
>>>>>>>> no never mind to the stupid liberals who seem to be running
>>>>>>>> this country. (Into the ground?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're still confused. *Some* limit as to type and capacity
>>>>>>> of the arms to which you have a right most definitely is
>>>>>>> *not* repugnant to the second amendment. Understand that
>>>>>>> the amendment does not *create* the right - it *recognizes*
>>>>>>> it. The right that it recognizes *inherently* is a limited
>>>>>>> right; it is not unlimited, allowing you to have just *any*
>>>>>>> arms you might wish to keep and bear. The question is just
>>>>>>> how stringent can the limits be and not upon the basic right
>>>>>>> to keep and bear arms? Could Congress set a limit of 10
>>>>>>> round magazines and clips, and that would survive a
>>>>>>> court challenge, but a limit of 9 rounds would fail?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You guys want to keep pretending that limits as to type and
>>>>>>> capacity of arms are inherently in violation of the second
>>>>>>> amendment, and I am *telling* you that based on Justice
>>>>>>> Scalia's opinion in Heller, you are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
>>>>>>> and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
>>>>>>> individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the
>>>>>>> right was *not unlimited*, just as the First Amendment
>>>>>>> ?s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United
>>>>>>> States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do
>>>>>>> not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of
>>>>>>> citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation,
>>>>>>> just as we do not read the First Amendment to
>>>>>>> protect the right of citizens to speak for any
>>>>>>> purpose. [...]
>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly the second amendment permits limits on the type and
>>>>>>> capacity of arms you might be permitted to keep and bear.
>>>>>>> The second amendment allows it, because such rights are
>>>>>>> *inherent* in the limited right the amendment secures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not so "clear" to me. I think the wording is very
>>>>>> simple and certainly doesn't imply any such thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're still confused. You're confusing the second amendment
>>>>> acknowledgment of the right with the right itself. The second
>>>>> amendment doesn't specify any limits on the right (other than
>>>>> the justification clause "A well-regulated militia...")
>>>>> because it doesn't *need* to specify any: the limitations, as
>>>>> Justice Scalia noted, are inherent in the right being secured
>>>>> and acknowledged. The founders had a very clear conception of
>>>>> limitations on the right, going back to English law.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Infringed" means pretty near anything to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> The I'd say you are not capable of rational analysis and
>>>>> equally not susceptible to reasonable persuasion, because it
>>>>> definitely does not mean "near anything." To infringe a right
>>>>> means to violate it, to abrogate it, to transgress it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon is
>>>>>> clearly an infringement in my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> But your opinion is wrong. One of the inherent limits to the
>>>>> right to keep and bear arms is, as Justice Scalia wrote in
>>>>> Heller, that it is
>>>>>
>>>>> not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in
>>>>> any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may wish it to be, but it simply isn't - and *never* was
>>>>> seen by the framers or any legal experts to be.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have carried a concealed
>>>>>> pistol in my pocket for my entire adult life. I even flew to
>>>>>> Europe with it in my luggage, took it out and put it in my
>>>>>> pocket as soon as I arrived at the airport in Munich, and
>>>>>> carried it everywhere for two weeks. When I motorcycled into
>>>>>> Canada I hid it over my engine inside the air filter of my
>>>>>> bike, and carried it through Banf park. Had a bear attacked
>>>>>> me he would have gotten five .357 mags in the face, and the
>>>>>> canadian mounted police would have arrested whatever was left
>>>>>> of me. But I am still here, and I still occasionally carry it
>>>>>> whenever I feel the need.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if you were caught and prosecuted for any of those
>>>>> instances, and if you had tried to claim that the prosecution
>>>>> was wrong because your right to keep and bear arms was
>>>>> violated, you would have lost.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You see, I learned how to reaqd very well from Mrs. Hughes,
>>>>>> my fifth grade English teacher, and I don't let authority
>>>>>> tell me what's right and what's wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you didn't learn to read for comprehension, nor to
>>>>> read critically. What you are is called "semi-literate."
>>>>
>>>> You talk pretty tough, so tell me why you think your
>>>> interpretation of the second amendment is so different from
>>>> mine? Or are you one of those people who accept authority and
>>>> let their decisions do all your thinking for you?
>>>
>>> Our interpretation of the *amendment* is probably pretty much
>>> the same. The amendment says there is a right to keep and bear
>>> arms, and says that it shall not be infringed (by Congress.)
>>
>> There you go being wrong again
>> Unlike the 1st Amendment, there is NO MENTION of Congress in the
>> 2nd Amendment
>
> Nope - not wrong. Congress is the only legislative body that
> could do the infringement, so when the amendment says the right
> "shall not be infringed", by necessary implication - *absolutely*
> necessary implication - it meant that it shall not be infringed by
> an act of Congress.
>
> That's how that stuff works. It really is. I'm sorry you are
> unable to understand it.
>
>
>>
>>> Where we disagree is over the nature of the right that is
>>> recognized in the amendment.
>>
>> The "nature" of the right is "inealienable" and not infrigable.
>
> No, the nature of the right includes limitations as well.
>
>
>>> The amendment does not *create* or *confer* the right; it
>>> simply is a formal recognition of it.
>>
>> Finally, you got something right..
>
> I get all of it right.
>
>
>>> You are confused about what is comprised in the right.
>>
>> Highly doubtfull
>
> Not in doubt at all.
>
>
>>> It is *not* an unlimited right; there are very much limits on
>>> it. You don't like those limits, but they are there regardless.
>>>
>>
>> Feel free to state what those limits are
>
> No need.
>
>
>> Se let's have YOUR list of those limits
>
> There is no list, nor is there any need of one. We're talking
> concepts here, which is a big part of why you're so badly
> confused. When Justice Scalia wrote in the Heller decision:
>
> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual
> right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not
> unlimited*, just as the First Amendment?s right of free
> speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553
> U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment
> to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort
> of confrontation, just as we do not read the First
> Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any
> purpose. [...]
> 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]
>
> he doesn't specify any list of limits, either. He says the right
> is "not unlimited", i.e., it is conceptually subject to limits,
> just as the first amendment is. The language of the first
> amendment doesn't list any limitations on speech, either, but
> limits there are! For example, the amendment doesn't say
> "...except for yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater", but you *MAY
> NOT* do that and then claim first amendment protection; the first
> amendment also doesn't explicitly exclude "fighting words",
> either, yet they *are* excluded.
>
> It's always dangerous to say "everybody knows" something as a form
> of justification, because quite often what it is alleged that
> "everybody knows" simply is not. But sometimes it *does* work.
> "Everybody knows" that not just *any* speech is protected by the
> first amendment; and "everybody knows" that the second amendment
> does *NOT* recognize an unlimited right to keep and bear just
> *any* arms at just *any* times and places. Even without an
> explicit list of limitations, "everybody knows" that acts of
> legislatures that *create* some limits are perfectly
> constitutional.
>
> That's just how it is.
>

You are arguing with Sappy the 'knower of all things'. He has been
made a fool of by myself and many others for his comments in other
groups. He is best ignored.

Carol Kinsey Goman

1/6/2013 3:09:00 AM

0

On 1/5/2013 5:21 PM, Nobody wrote:
> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/2013 2:14 PM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@f?rbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pJKdnS2TPpE3AnXNnZ2dnUVZ5gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On 1/4/2013 8:14 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/3/2013 11:12 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/3/2013 5:43 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They keep making these stupid
>>>>>>>>> restricdtive gun laws which only slow down my personal
>>>>>>>>> right to stay adequately armed against invaders of my
>>>>>>>>> person, home and city. The fact that these laws are
>>>>>>>>> repugnant to the purpose of the second amendment don't make
>>>>>>>>> no never mind to the stupid liberals who seem to be running
>>>>>>>>> this country. (Into the ground?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're still confused. *Some* limit as to type and capacity
>>>>>>>> of the arms to which you have a right most definitely is
>>>>>>>> *not* repugnant to the second amendment. Understand that
>>>>>>>> the amendment does not *create* the right - it *recognizes*
>>>>>>>> it. The right that it recognizes *inherently* is a limited
>>>>>>>> right; it is not unlimited, allowing you to have just *any*
>>>>>>>> arms you might wish to keep and bear. The question is just
>>>>>>>> how stringent can the limits be and not upon the basic right
>>>>>>>> to keep and bear arms? Could Congress set a limit of 10
>>>>>>>> round magazines and clips, and that would survive a
>>>>>>>> court challenge, but a limit of 9 rounds would fail?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You guys want to keep pretending that limits as to type and
>>>>>>>> capacity of arms are inherently in violation of the second
>>>>>>>> amendment, and I am *telling* you that based on Justice
>>>>>>>> Scalia's opinion in Heller, you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
>>>>>>>> and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an
>>>>>>>> individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the
>>>>>>>> right was *not unlimited*, just as the First Amendment
>>>>>>>> ?s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United
>>>>>>>> States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do
>>>>>>>> not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of
>>>>>>>> citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation,
>>>>>>>> just as we do not read the First Amendment to
>>>>>>>> protect the right of citizens to speak for any
>>>>>>>> purpose. [...]
>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly the second amendment permits limits on the type and
>>>>>>>> capacity of arms you might be permitted to keep and bear.
>>>>>>>> The second amendment allows it, because such rights are
>>>>>>>> *inherent* in the limited right the amendment secures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not so "clear" to me. I think the wording is very
>>>>>>> simple and certainly doesn't imply any such thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're still confused. You're confusing the second amendment
>>>>>> acknowledgment of the right with the right itself. The second
>>>>>> amendment doesn't specify any limits on the right (other than
>>>>>> the justification clause "A well-regulated militia...")
>>>>>> because it doesn't *need* to specify any: the limitations, as
>>>>>> Justice Scalia noted, are inherent in the right being secured
>>>>>> and acknowledged. The founders had a very clear conception of
>>>>>> limitations on the right, going back to English law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Infringed" means pretty near anything to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The I'd say you are not capable of rational analysis and
>>>>>> equally not susceptible to reasonable persuasion, because it
>>>>>> definitely does not mean "near anything." To infringe a right
>>>>>> means to violate it, to abrogate it, to transgress it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon is
>>>>>>> clearly an infringement in my opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But your opinion is wrong. One of the inherent limits to the
>>>>>> right to keep and bear arms is, as Justice Scalia wrote in
>>>>>> Heller, that it is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in
>>>>>> any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may wish it to be, but it simply isn't - and *never* was
>>>>>> seen by the framers or any legal experts to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have carried a concealed
>>>>>>> pistol in my pocket for my entire adult life. I even flew to
>>>>>>> Europe with it in my luggage, took it out and put it in my
>>>>>>> pocket as soon as I arrived at the airport in Munich, and
>>>>>>> carried it everywhere for two weeks. When I motorcycled into
>>>>>>> Canada I hid it over my engine inside the air filter of my
>>>>>>> bike, and carried it through Banf park. Had a bear attacked
>>>>>>> me he would have gotten five .357 mags in the face, and the
>>>>>>> canadian mounted police would have arrested whatever was left
>>>>>>> of me. But I am still here, and I still occasionally carry it
>>>>>>> whenever I feel the need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you were caught and prosecuted for any of those
>>>>>> instances, and if you had tried to claim that the prosecution
>>>>>> was wrong because your right to keep and bear arms was
>>>>>> violated, you would have lost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You see, I learned how to reaqd very well from Mrs. Hughes,
>>>>>>> my fifth grade English teacher, and I don't let authority
>>>>>>> tell me what's right and what's wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently you didn't learn to read for comprehension, nor to
>>>>>> read critically. What you are is called "semi-literate."
>>>>>
>>>>> You talk pretty tough, so tell me why you think your
>>>>> interpretation of the second amendment is so different from
>>>>> mine? Or are you one of those people who accept authority and
>>>>> let their decisions do all your thinking for you?
>>>>
>>>> Our interpretation of the *amendment* is probably pretty much
>>>> the same. The amendment says there is a right to keep and bear
>>>> arms, and says that it shall not be infringed (by Congress.)
>>>
>>> There you go being wrong again
>>> Unlike the 1st Amendment, there is NO MENTION of Congress in the
>>> 2nd Amendment
>>
>> Nope - not wrong. Congress is the only legislative body that
>> could do the infringement, so when the amendment says the right
>> "shall not be infringed", by necessary implication - *absolutely*
>> necessary implication - it meant that it shall not be infringed by
>> an act of Congress.
>>
>> That's how that stuff works. It really is. I'm sorry you are
>> unable to understand it.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Where we disagree is over the nature of the right that is
>>>> recognized in the amendment.
>>>
>>> The "nature" of the right is "inealienable" and not infrigable.
>>
>> No, the nature of the right includes limitations as well.
>>
>>
>>>> The amendment does not *create* or *confer* the right; it
>>>> simply is a formal recognition of it.
>>>
>>> Finally, you got something right..
>>
>> I get all of it right.
>>
>>
>>>> You are confused about what is comprised in the right.
>>>
>>> Highly doubtfull
>>
>> Not in doubt at all.
>>
>>
>>>> It is *not* an unlimited right; there are very much limits on
>>>> it. You don't like those limits, but they are there regardless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Feel free to state what those limits are
>>
>> No need.
>>
>>
>>> Se let's have YOUR list of those limits
>>
>> There is no list, nor is there any need of one. We're talking
>> concepts here, which is a big part of why you're so badly
>> confused. When Justice Scalia wrote in the Heller decision:
>>
>> There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
>> history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual
>> right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was *not
>> unlimited*, just as the First Amendment?s right of free
>> speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553
>> U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment
>> to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort
>> of confrontation, just as we do not read the First
>> Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any
>> purpose. [...]
>> 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]
>>
>> he doesn't specify any list of limits, either. He says the right
>> is "not unlimited", i.e., it is conceptually subject to limits,
>> just as the first amendment is. The language of the first
>> amendment doesn't list any limitations on speech, either, but
>> limits there are! For example, the amendment doesn't say
>> "...except for yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater", but you *MAY
>> NOT* do that and then claim first amendment protection; the first
>> amendment also doesn't explicitly exclude "fighting words",
>> either, yet they *are* excluded.
>>
>> It's always dangerous to say "everybody knows" something as a form
>> of justification, because quite often what it is alleged that
>> "everybody knows" simply is not. But sometimes it *does* work.
>> "Everybody knows" that not just *any* speech is protected by the
>> first amendment; and "everybody knows" that the second amendment
>> does *NOT* recognize an unlimited right to keep and bear just
>> *any* arms at just *any* times and places. Even without an
>> explicit list of limitations, "everybody knows" that acts of
>> legislatures that *create* some limits are perfectly
>> constitutional.
>>
>> That's just how it is.
>>
>
> You are arguing with Sappy the 'knower of all things'.

Yes. I generally call him Saphead.


> He has been
> made a fool of by myself and many others for his comments in other
> groups. He is best ignored.

No, I disagree. He's a useful idiot; kind of a foil. There are others
who are better foils - on this issue, scooter comes to mind - but
Saphead is useful here, although he has about run out of utility. You
can tell because he has ceased arguing. Previously, he was arguing (to
the best of his ability) in a way that allowed me easily to show what's
wrong with the unthinking gun nut crowd.

Don't get carried away; we may not be allies. I happen to be *very*
pro-gun, including - perhaps most importantly - a belief that there is
an inalienable right to arms that is held by individual persons, not by
collectives. However, I think it is beyond rational dispute that that
right is *not* unlimited.

Gunner Asch

1/6/2013 3:20:00 AM

0

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:55:30 -0600, deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:

>On 1/5/13 5:06 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> deadrat <a@b.com> wrote in
>> news:K_WdndZnYcF5RnrNnZ2dnUVZ5sgAAAAA@giganews.com:
>>
>>> Anyone can play Rambo in cyberspace. If they come for your guns -- and
>>> understand that I think this is highly unlikely -- you'll meekly hand
>>> them over to comply with the law. Your bluster here notwithstanding.
>>>
>>
>> Just because you are a spineless coward doesan't mean everyone is.
>
>Just because you bluster about your resolute courage doesn't mean you're
>not a spineless coward.
>

Do you have any p[roof of this? Or are you simply spewing out your
asshole again?

Trot your proof out and drop it so we can all review it.

Failure to do so will simply show you to be the utter wanker you
appear to be.

Gunner

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