Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Snag <Snag_one@msn.com>
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: <vdfgjh$2egfn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <aIBKO.76862$xO0f.10144@fx48.iad>
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: <aIBKO.76862$xO0f.10144@fx48.iad>
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 .