Sujet : Re: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
De : Snag_one (at) *nospam* msn.com (Snag)
Groupes : rec.crafts.metalworking talk.politics.gunsDate : 01. Oct 2024, 01:43:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vdfgjh$2egfn$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
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 .
-- SnagVoting for Kamabla after Bidenis like changing your shirt becauseyou shit your pants .