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

[Mike Colangelo]

Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. 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]


Crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling morons want the right to
be unlimited, and they talk as if it is, even after having disingenuously
acknowledged that it isn't, but the simple fact is, the right is *not*
unlimited, and those limits include limitations on what arms one may have. When
a law banning some kind of gun is upheld on appeal, the appellate court is not
"limiting" your right, as Hartung like to lie. No, the right already carries
with it *inherent* limits, and the court is finding that the ban is *within* the
limits of the right.

You don't have a right to just whatever arms you may wish to have. This is a
matter of text, history and judicial interpretation, and it is settled. scooter,
Francis Mark Hansen, Hartung, BlueGirl, kleine klauschen "no-foreskin"
Schittenkike — these right-wingnuts think the right is to just whatever arms
they might wish to have, and that is false. If Congress were to pass a law
prohibiting private ownership ("keeping") of, say, shoulder-fired anti-tank
missiles, that law would be upheld. Such arms are outside the inherent limits
of the right, so banning them doesn't violate the right.

[dyno dan]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:28:50 -0800, Mike Colangelo <air@vatican_.con>
wrote:

>Crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling morons

Prejudiced much?


__

--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
(use cut and paste to your browser if necessary)

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

[F. Georg McDuffee]

Some limitation on the types of arms protected by the second amendment is
clearly within the scope of the amendment. 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]


Crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling morons want the right to

be unlimited, and they talk as if it is, but it isn't.

Lately, some of the crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling morons
have attempted a goofy bit of sophistry by saying something to the effect of,
"Well, [sound of trick deck of cards being shuffled] I don't 'want' to keep and
bear a [FIM-92 Stinger/FGM-148 Javelin/Grom-M/Strela/Igla/etc.], but I have a
'right' to keep and bear any arms I 'want'." But of course, they /might/ want
to keep and bear one of those, or some other ridiculous weapon, and the simple
fact is they don't have any "right" to do so. This is settled.

[Jonathan Ball is a Faggot]

Hey faggot, Scalia was opposed to banning semi-automatic rifles such
as the AR-15:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

Eat shit and die of the fake Covid vax.

[governo...@gmail.com]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 03:53:00 +0000, Jonathan Ball is a Faggot
<rob...@lynch.confederacy> wrote:

>Hey faggot,

You smooth talker!

Swill
--
"Reality is an acquired taste." - Matthew Perry

[Nic]

You overlook the facts that when these documents were forged, the intent
was to have arms to defend against the forces that sought to destroy the
Americans for their rebellion against the monarchy. Having arms suitable
to defend the American homeland was the intention.

see: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.

[governo...@gmail.com]

Sounds lovely. Men will still read it a thousand years from now.

Ok, back to practical reality.

>When a law banning some kind of gun is upheld on
>> appeal, the appellate court is not "limiting" your right,

Of course it is. If he has a right to any and all arms, his right to
bear is being infringed by the courts. "CONGRESS shall not . . ."

>> as Hartung
>> like to lie.  No, the right already carries with it *inherent* limits,
>> and the court is finding that the ban is *within* the limits of the
>> right.

What are the inherent limits? It's been asked but not answered.

>> You don't have a right

"You don't have the right" is not the same as "You can't have."

> to just whatever arms you may wish to have. 
>> This is a matter of text, history and judicial interpretation, and it
>> is settled. scooter, Francis Mark Hansen, Hartung, BlueGirl, kleine
>> klauschen "no-foreskin" Schittenkike — these right-wingnuts think the
>> right is to just whatever arms they might wish to have, and that is
>> false.  If Congress were to pass a law prohibiting private ownership
>> ("keeping") of, say, shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles, that law would
>> be upheld.  Such arms are outside the inherent limits of the right, so
>> banning them doesn't violate the right.
>
>You overlook the facts

No, I don't.

> that when these documents were forged, the intent
>was to have arms to defend against the forces that sought to destroy the
>Americans for their rebellion against the monarchy. Having arms suitable
>to defend the American homeland was the intention.

They all had hunting rifles and perhaps other, sporty guns? Artillery?
Attack fighters? Bombers? Carriers?

>see: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
>Happiness.—

Lovely but I don't think those truths are "self evident", all men are
NOT created equal (but they should be entitled to equal opportunity
and treatment before the law) and rights aren't natural or
inalienable, they're human construct.

The only right nature gives you is the right to survive long enough to
reproduce.

>That to secure these rights,

Not just secure but define. The Declaration of the Rights of Man
contains the right to free health care. Do you agree with that right?

>Governments are instituted
>among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—

Majority rule. You don't have the right to insist you got more votes
than the other guy unless you did.

>That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
>it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
>institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
>organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
>effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sounds lovely but . . .

[Nic]

Consider the fact that all those super arms are being controlled by
people who first are governed by the Constitution of The US and secondly
by the oaths taken by the military. So technically these people have the
final control of how the arms will be used.

[Mike Colangelo]

He does *not* have a right to any and all arms. Some arms are outside the

limits of the right.

>
>>> as Hartung
>>> like to lie.  No, the right already carries with it *inherent* limits,
>>> and the court is finding that the ban is *within* the limits of the
>>> right.
>
> What are the inherent limits? It's been asked but not answered.

I have answered.

>
>>> You don't have a right
>
> "You don't have the right" is not the same as "You can't have."

Yeah, it is the same.

>
>> to just whatever arms you may wish to have.
>>> This is a matter of text, history and judicial interpretation, and it
>>> is settled. scooter, Francis Mark Hansen, Hartung, BlueGirl, kleine
>>> klauschen "no-foreskin" Schittenkike — these right-wingnuts think the
>>> right is to just whatever arms they might wish to have, and that is
>>> false.  If Congress were to pass a law prohibiting private ownership
>>> ("keeping") of, say, shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles, that law would
>>> be upheld.  Such arms are outside the inherent limits of the right, so
>>> banning them doesn't violate the right.
>>
>> You overlook the facts
>
> No, I don't.

You sure do.

[governo...@gmail.com]

Exactly. They are not "the People", they are the protectors of the
People working in their interest.

But Uncle Sam still isn't going to allow you fully automatic rifles or
armed tanks and submarines.

[Nic]

Which Uncle Sam are you talking about?


U.S. Funds Workshops in India to Counter Stigma, Prejudice in
Transgender Community

https://www.judicialwatch.org/us-funds-workshops-in-india/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=corruption+chronicles&utm_term=members

The protectors of the people are at the bottom line the same people.

[Robert Gowan]

And of course, prohibiting those to private citizens is not infringing their
right to arms, because the right never extended to them. The right to arms is
not a right to just whatever arms people might wish to have.

[governo...@gmail.com]

It's astonishing what the rich will spend their money on.

$50,000. Fifty Thousand Dollars. Look at 'em. A whole fifty
thousand dollar bills. That's 500 Franklins! I bet it wouldn't pay
for an hour's worth of toilet paper in North America. I wonder what
it was really for?

"Judicial Watch"?
"Corruption Chronicles?"

This isn't corruption, this is wasteful spending. It's also an
opening gambit into the Indian economy. They will soon have more
people than China and India's economy is growing as fast when not
faster. Hmm . . . Could be a new and valuable friend in Asia.
Especially now that they need LNG which the US is a leading producer
of. The US, Australia and the industry originator, Qatar.

If China and Russia want to get together in opposition to NA and EU,
India might be a useful ace in the hole.