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

[Paul Jackson]

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 an opinion.

That supplies the scope - the meaning - of the amendment.

Correct.

[Scout]

"Paul Jackson" <p...@costco.con> wrote in message
news:EZKnC.52313$4z5....@fx17.iad...

Really? So the 2nd Amendment didn't have any scope or meaning until the 21st
century?

Amazing. I suppose until then you just had this meaningless collection of
words?

[Paul Jackson]

What a stupid thing to say! There were opinions before the 21s century.

[Just Wondering]

They didn't have your opinion on "inherent limits"

[Scout]

"Paul Jackson" <p...@costco.con> wrote in message

news:DhdoC.124076$Cy2....@fx44.iad...

Yet you tell us those opinions no longer matter.

[Scout]

"Just Wondering" <JustWo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AokoC.124092$Cy2....@fx44.iad...

I would also note that they didn't have the opinion of the courts which he
claims has 'teased out' those inherent limits he claims are there.