Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Snag Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:43:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2024 02:43:30 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0cdcd0f84f62b8c915a7c458a62609c3"; logging-data="2572791"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Y4i0WaH+GJ7anIilm88dKk/JtfNDbnVY=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 Cancel-Lock: sha1:tJXYeB7XLSdNRJ1HVRv95okPoj0= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240930-4, 9/30/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 3422 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 .