Re: Republicans vote against medals to Capitol Police Who Shoot Unarmed Women

[Jon Ball]

On 24 Jun 2023, Gronk <inva...@invalid.invalid> posted some
>
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 6/11/2023 11:06 PM, Gronk wrote:
>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2023 12:03 AM, Gronk wrote:
>>>>> Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> In article <u51bn3$19s69$1...@dont-email.me>,
inva...@invalid.invalid
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gronk" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:u4hh1p$2f4on$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2023 7:50 AM, Michael A Terrell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2023 5:02 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Gronk" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:u32456$27h5e$4...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2023 09:02:43 -0700, Carl Kinsey Goman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ckg@förbes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may think the right *ought* to be unlimited, but
as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of text,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> history and interpretation, it is not. That is
simply a fact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and crazed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far-right-wingnut gun crackpots are going to have to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accommodate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with your post right up until . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't have a right to an AR-15.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show me where the SCOTUS has so ruled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not specifically but technically "not a right to keep
and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry *any weapon whatsoever*"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's lawyer bait ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means the issue wasn't specifically addressed,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The issue of establishing that the right is not to just
whatever
>>>>>>>>>>> arms you wish was addressed, scooter.  Some guns and
other
>>>>>>>>>>> arms are
>>>>>>>>>>> off limits, scooter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The SCOTUS Heller decision says 2A protects from
infringement
>>>>>>>>>> a right to keep and bear arms that are in common use for
>>>>>>>>>> lawful purposes.  AR-15s are in common use for lawful
purposes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "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."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The same can be said about the freedom of speech and press
as
>>>>>>>> well, but
>>>>>>>> oddly enough we find that the overwhelming portion of
speech and
>>>>>>>> press
>>>>>>>> IS protected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But not all. You're agreeing with me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That does NOT mean you can restrict such rights without a
clear
>>>>>>>> violation of the purpose and intent of the protection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in
any
>>>>>>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" which means once
>>>>>>> such justification is stated then that particular weapon(s)
is
>>>>>>> thereby disallowed. You just stated the grounds for this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can still have an AR-15
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you can be limited to a handgun. Reas this carefully
>>>>>
>>>>> "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
>>>>> manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
>>>>>
>>>>> "any" "whatsoever" "whatever" are rather encompassing...
>>>>>
>>>> "In common use for lawful purposes" is rather more descriptive.
>>>> That's out of Heller, and describes AR-15s quite nicely.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "any" "whatsoever" "whatever" covers that.
>>
>> Those words provide no guidance whatsoever concerning AR-15s.
>
> "any weapon" clearly would cover "any weapon" - like an AR15...

It would also cover a concrete hammer used to crush your thick
stupid skull.