info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Paul Jackson
Mar 6, 2018, 1:06:10 PM3/6/18
to
On 12/22/2012 10:46 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:JcOdnTEGD4PkxkvN...@giganews.com...
>> On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvN...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the
>>>>>> scope of the amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another gun grabber straw man.
>>>>
>>>> Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
>>>> would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
>>>> of money into it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No right is "unlimited."
>>>>
>>>> Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
>>
>> Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
>> exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
>
> Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
> court saw such limitations.
As you have been instructed many times, the amendment does not in any
way define the right. It takes the definition of the right, *with* any
limitations - and all rights have limits - as a given. The amendment
merely asserts that the right, whatever it may be, shall not be
infringed. The amendment might profitably be written this way, with
*no* change in meaning:
"A well regulated militia [blah blah blah], the right to keep and bear
arms, which is limited and whose limits we do not address here, shall
not be infringed."
So, you believe the right is limited - "Excuse me, but where did I say
the right was unlimited?" - and you further acknowledge that the limits
are not found in the text of the amendment, which takes the right to be
defined elsewhere, so where are the limits in which you profess to believe?
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:JcOdnTEGD4PkxkvN...@giganews.com...
>> On 12/22/2012 2:10 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gbidnVuwYfIfsEvN...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 12/22/2012 1:56 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> Carol Kinsey Goman <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second
>>>>>> amendment is clearly within the
>>>>>> scope of the amendment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another gun grabber straw man.
>>>>
>>>> Not a straw man at all. And I'm not a "gun grabber" - I own guns, and
>>>> would like to own some more, although I can't see dumping a whole lot
>>>> of money into it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No right is "unlimited."
>>>>
>>>> Many of your fellow crazed proto-Nazi gun nuts wish to believe that
>>>> the gun rights secured by the second amendment *are* unlimited.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I believe people were contesting your assertion that such
>>> limitations existed within the 2nd.
>>
>> Of *course* they exist "within" the second, you idiot. They *have* to
>> exist "within" it, else how else could the court see them?
>
> Exactly. So please present the text from the 2nd Amendment in which the
> court saw such limitations.
As you have been instructed many times, the amendment does not in any
way define the right. It takes the definition of the right, *with* any
limitations - and all rights have limits - as a given. The amendment
merely asserts that the right, whatever it may be, shall not be
infringed. The amendment might profitably be written this way, with
*no* change in meaning:
"A well regulated militia [blah blah blah], the right to keep and bear
arms, which is limited and whose limits we do not address here, shall
not be infringed."
So, you believe the right is limited - "Excuse me, but where did I say
the right was unlimited?" - and you further acknowledge that the limits
are not found in the text of the amendment, which takes the right to be
defined elsewhere, so where are the limits in which you profess to believe?
Scout
Mar 6, 2018, 10:49:14 PM3/6/18
to
"Paul Jackson" <p...@costco.con> wrote in message
news:jMAnC.75809$yv1....@fx07.iad...
does.
0 new messages