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

[Paul Jackson]

On 12/24/2012 11:48 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
> news:RoOdnUQ1oNUw5kXN...@giganews.com...
>> On 12/23/2012 8:42 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carol Kinsey Goman" <ckg@förbes.com> wrote in message
>>> news:-bmdnR94pMD0UErN...@giganews.com...
>>>> 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, and any other part of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Constitution.  For 48 years following Plessy v. Ferguson, the meaning
>>>>>> of the 14th amendment was that separate-but-equal on the basis of
>>>>>> race
>>>>>> was constitutional- and it was.  In 1954, that was thrown out, and
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> the meaning of the 14th is that separate-but-equal on the basis of
>>>>>> race
>>>>>> is *not* constitutional - and it isn't.  You may not like the system,
>>>>>> but it *is* the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, an opinion is only an opinion.
>>>>
>>>> No, the opinion *is* the meaning of the amendment
>>>
>>> Cool, so if I have an opinion that the 2nd Amendment means
>>
>> Your opinion is worthless.  You are not empowered to interpret it
>
> Actually, I have just as much power to interpret it as they do.

You have no intellectual or academic qualification to interpret it.
Your opinion is meaningless and carries no weight. Judges' opinions
establish law by which you must abide, or else face severe consequences.
Your opinions have no weight at all.