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

[Paul Jackson]

On 12/22/2012 10:51 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
> news:WYydnfCPqeEOw0vN...@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, which is why you
>> gun-crazed proto-Nazis think the rights are unlimited in the first
>> place.  Yet, despite the absence of any language spelling out limits,
>> we *know* beyond doubt that the rights recognized in the amendment are
>> not unlimited.
>
> Excuse me, but where did I say the right was unlimited?

So you agree: the right is limited. Now, there are no limits
delineated out in the second amendment - there is no definition of the
right *at all* in the amendment - so, given that you believe the right
is limited, where do you believe the limits are defined?

[Scout]

"Paul Jackson" <p...@costco.con> wrote in message
news:kMAnC.75810$yv1....@fx07.iad...

Where did I say that?

You do understand I was asking a question, not making a statement?

If you could prove what you claimed, then you wouldn't have to reference me
asking you to show where I said what you claim I did.

At this point you are showing yourself to be a liar.