Re: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
BeamMeUpScotty <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.politics.congress,alt.politics.corruption,alt.censorship,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.election,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.obama,alt.politics.scorched-earth,alt.politics.socialism.mao,alt.politics.trump,alt.global-warming,alt.conspiracy,alt.apocolypse,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.infowars, alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,alt.politics.guns |
|---|---|
| Organization | Support the "Propaganda Wars Open Source Project" to encourage less violence and hate inside America's Borders. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 12/1/22 7:51 AM, Nic wrote: > On 12/1/22 12:48 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 07:53:35 -0500, Nic <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 11/28/22 10:28 PM, Mike Colangelo wrote: >>>> 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] >>>> >>>> >>>> Crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling morons want the >>>> right to be unlimited, and they talk as if it is, even after having >>>> disingenuously acknowledged that it isn't, but the simple fact is, the >>>> right is *not* unlimited, and those limits include limitations on what >>>> arms one may have. >> Sounds lovely. Men will still read it a thousand years from now. >> >> Ok, back to practical reality. >> >>> When a law banning some kind of gun is upheld on >>>> appeal, the appellate court is not "limiting" your right, >> Of course it is. If he has a right to any and all arms, his right to >> bear is being infringed by the courts. "CONGRESS shall not . . ." >> >>>> as Hartung >>>> like to lie. No, the right already carries with it *inherent* limits, >>>> and the court is finding that the ban is *within* the limits of the >>>> right. >> What are the inherent limits? It's been asked but not answered. >> >>>> You don't have a right >> "You don't have the right" is not the same as "You can't have." >> >>> to just whatever arms you may wish to have. >>>> This is a matter of text, history and judicial interpretation, and it >>>> is settled. scooter, Francis Mark Hansen, Hartung, BlueGirl, kleine >>>> klauschen "no-foreskin" Schittenkike — these right-wingnuts think the >>>> right is to just whatever arms they might wish to have, and that is >>>> false. If Congress were to pass a law prohibiting private ownership >>>> ("keeping") of, say, shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles, that law would >>>> be upheld. Such arms are outside the inherent limits of the right, so >>>> banning them doesn't violate the right. >>> You overlook the facts >> No, I don't. >> >>> that when these documents were forged, the intent >>> was to have arms to defend against the forces that sought to destroy the >>> Americans for their rebellion against the monarchy. Having arms suitable >>> to defend the American homeland was the intention. >> They all had hunting rifles and perhaps other, sporty guns? Artillery? >> Attack fighters? Bombers? Carriers? >> >>> see: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable >>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of >>> Happiness.— >> Lovely but I don't think those truths are "self evident", all men are >> NOT created equal (but they should be entitled to equal opportunity >> and treatment before the law) and rights aren't natural or >> inalienable, they're human construct. >> >> The only right nature gives you is the right to survive long enough to >> reproduce. >> >>> That to secure these rights, >> Not just secure but define. The Declaration of the Rights of Man >> contains the right to free health care. Do you agree with that right? >> >>> Governments are instituted >>> among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,— >> Majority rule. You don't have the right to insist you got more votes >> than the other guy unless you did. >> >>> That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, >>> it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to >>> institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and >>> organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to >>> effect their Safety and Happiness. >> Sounds lovely but . . . >> >> Swill > > Consider the fact that all those super arms are being controlled by > people who first are governed by the Constitution of The US and secondly > by the oaths taken by the military. So technically these people have the > final control of how the arms will be used. > The President has the codes and the keys..... the rest are just symbols of it being a process to unleash MASS DESTRUCTION. We know it's a false process because general Milley and Nancy Pelosi conspired to enagage in a Coup D`etat that seized control of the nuclear weapons by undermining the President's top secret authority. -- -Reality Matters-