info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Which part of "the right secured by the Second Amendment is *not unlimited*" is unclear?
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Sep 4, 2015, 4:34:48 PM9/4/15
to
The gun nutz keep using this same tired expression, "Which part of
'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their utter
lack of understanding of the issue. Yes, indeed, the constitutional
prescription is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. But what *is* that right? What's in it? The underlying
assumption on the part of the people posing the question above - the one
in the text, not the subject line - is that the right is unlimited,
meaning anyone has the right - moral, legal, political - to own any arms
he might wish, with no legitimate power of the state to restrict what
those arms might be.
But this is wrong. The right secured by the second amendment *is* a
limited right, and was always seen to be by the founders and by all
competent constitutional scholars. Because the right to keep and bear
arms is intimately tied to the right to self defense, arms seen as
within the scope of the right are those that are seen as reasonable for
defending oneself, one's family and one's domicile. Larger arms of the
era intended for use in pitched battle by troops - mortars, howitzers,
cannons, mines - were not intended to be among those to which individual
citizens had a right. The arms were those that a militiaman was
expected to bring with him when mustered: a musket, a bayonet.
Look at pictures of today's National Guard troops carrying weapons
domestically (not deployed to war zones.) They carry some version of an
AR-15 and a sidearm. You don't see them with 50+ round magazines, you
don't see them with grenade launchers or bazookas, you don't see them
with .50 caliber handguns. None of those, nor their 18th century
equivalents, are what the founders had in mind when *they* thought of
the right to keep and bear arms. The right does not protect a citizens
acquisition and use of just *any* arms he might wish to have.
The gun nutz are asking the wrong question. I asked the right one in
the subject line: Which part of "the right secured by the Second
Amendment is *not unlimited*" is unclear to the gun nutz?
'shall not be infringed' is unclear?", thereby demonstrating their utter
lack of understanding of the issue. Yes, indeed, the constitutional
prescription is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. But what *is* that right? What's in it? The underlying
assumption on the part of the people posing the question above - the one
in the text, not the subject line - is that the right is unlimited,
meaning anyone has the right - moral, legal, political - to own any arms
he might wish, with no legitimate power of the state to restrict what
those arms might be.
But this is wrong. The right secured by the second amendment *is* a
limited right, and was always seen to be by the founders and by all
competent constitutional scholars. Because the right to keep and bear
arms is intimately tied to the right to self defense, arms seen as
within the scope of the right are those that are seen as reasonable for
defending oneself, one's family and one's domicile. Larger arms of the
era intended for use in pitched battle by troops - mortars, howitzers,
cannons, mines - were not intended to be among those to which individual
citizens had a right. The arms were those that a militiaman was
expected to bring with him when mustered: a musket, a bayonet.
Look at pictures of today's National Guard troops carrying weapons
domestically (not deployed to war zones.) They carry some version of an
AR-15 and a sidearm. You don't see them with 50+ round magazines, you
don't see them with grenade launchers or bazookas, you don't see them
with .50 caliber handguns. None of those, nor their 18th century
equivalents, are what the founders had in mind when *they* thought of
the right to keep and bear arms. The right does not protect a citizens
acquisition and use of just *any* arms he might wish to have.
The gun nutz are asking the wrong question. I asked the right one in
the subject line: Which part of "the right secured by the Second
Amendment is *not unlimited*" is unclear to the gun nutz?
Tom Gardner
Sep 5, 2015, 2:03:27 AM9/5/15
to
On 9/4/2015 4:34 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> <snip>
> <snip>
>you don't see them with .50 caliber handguns.
>
What's the difference between a .50 cal. handgun and a .22LR handgun?
>
John B.
Sep 5, 2015, 7:00:42 AM9/5/15
to
--
cheers,
John B.
Tom Gardner
Sep 7, 2015, 4:54:57 PM9/7/15
to
Gunner Asch
Sep 8, 2015, 7:36:16 PM9/8/15
to
Not a damned thing.
Gunner
Tom Gardner
Sep 9, 2015, 5:57:38 AM9/9/15
to
believe bigger is better (or worse) ans the end always justifies the means.
0 new messages