Re: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

[Paul Jackson]

On 12/23/2012 7:26 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:5O2dnaIyRPHXVUrN...@giganews.com...
>> On 12/23/2012 6:40 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:SdOdnY0CVq28IErN...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 12/23/2012 2:43 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:bJqdnXtWdKD0p0rN...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 10:53 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:komdnfnXat5780vN...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 8:30 PM, Oglethorpe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:WYydnfKPqeEvw0vN...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 2:12 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:gbidnVqwYfJ5sEvN...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 1:58 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/2012 3:15 PM, Carol Kinsey Goman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... a lot of uninformed nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hardly.  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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Very clearly, limits on the types of arms one may have are not
>>>>>>>>>>>> precluded by the second amendment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, show me in the 2nd Amendment where the limitations on the
>>>>>>>>>>> types of
>>>>>>>>>>> arms is indicated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *No* limits in the literal text are indicated,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CITE THEM. From th text of the Second Amendment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They're not explicitly found in the text of the amendment, yet they
>>>>>>>> are *within* the amendment.  Imagine that!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, you're pulling them out of your ass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, not in the least.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       There seems to us
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, not interested in opinions,
>>>>
>>>> The opinion *IS* the meaning of the amendment.
>>>
>>> No, the opinion is
>>
>> The opinion is the meaning of the amendment,
>
> No, an opinion is

the interpretation of the amendment that prevails and by which you must
abide. Yes.