• Re: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

    From Snag@21:1/5 to Rudy Canoza on Mon Sep 30 19:43:27 2024
    XPost: talk.politics.guns

    On 9/30/2024 1:01 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
    I note it's time for a refresher.

    Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment
    is clearly within the scope of the amendment. Mr. Justice Scalia 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]

       https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


    You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but as a matter of
    text, history and interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and crazed far-right gun crackpots are going to have to accommodate
    themselves to that fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns
    you wish to have.


    What you are ignoring is the INTENT behind the 2nd Amendment . The
    intent was for the people to be armed equally with the military . And in
    fact more than a few of the cannons used in the Revolutionary War were privately owned ... so ANY limitation of private ownership of armaments
    - be it cannons , bombs , full auto rifles or whatever - is technically unconstitutional . If I wanted any of these I'd have it whether the
    gov't liked it or not .
    --
    Snag
    Voting for Kamabla after Biden
    is like changing your shirt because
    you shit your pants .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From max headroom@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 9 20:10:40 2024
    XPost: talk.politics.guns

    In news:vdfgjh$2egfn$1@dont-email.me, Snag <Snag_one@msn.com> typed:

    Snag
    Voting for Kamabla after Biden
    is like changing your shirt because
    you shit your pants .

    Love that tagline.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)