Re: "[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
0 views
Skip to first unread message
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 29, 2022, 9:36:00 AM11/29/22
to
On 11/28/22 10:28 PM, Mike Colangelo 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]
>
It is either wrong or you interpreted it wrong... your interpretation of
his interpretation isn't close to the reality of the 2nd Amendment so it
must be like the game where your classroom all form a circle and someone
makes up a secret and writes it on a paper and each person passes on
what they interpret as being said by the previous person. At the end
they write the final person's interpretation and compare it to the
original persons version on their piece of paper.
We find that it's NOT at all close to reality of the piece of paper at
the beginning.
Why is that?
Here: start with this and see where Scalia might have gotten it wrong by
you interpreting and then compare yours to Scalia...
*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms* , *shall not be*
*infringed* .
Tell us what that clause means?
--
-Reality Matters-
> 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]
>
It is either wrong or you interpreted it wrong... your interpretation of
his interpretation isn't close to the reality of the 2nd Amendment so it
must be like the game where your classroom all form a circle and someone
makes up a secret and writes it on a paper and each person passes on
what they interpret as being said by the previous person. At the end
they write the final person's interpretation and compare it to the
original persons version on their piece of paper.
We find that it's NOT at all close to reality of the piece of paper at
the beginning.
Why is that?
Here: start with this and see where Scalia might have gotten it wrong by
you interpreting and then compare yours to Scalia...
*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms* , *shall not be*
*infringed* .
Tell us what that clause means?
--
-Reality Matters-
BeamMeUpScotty
Dec 1, 2022, 11:25:53 AM12/1/22
to
On 12/1/22 7:51 AM, Nic wrote:
> On 12/1/22 12:48 AM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> 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 . . .
>>
>> Swill
>
> 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.
>
The President has the codes and the keys..... the rest are just symbols
of it being a process to unleash MASS DESTRUCTION.
We know it's a false process because general Milley and Nancy Pelosi
conspired to enagage in a Coup D`etat that seized control of the nuclear
weapons by undermining the President's top secret authority.
--
-Reality Matters-
> On 12/1/22 12:48 AM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 07:53:35 -0500, Nic <N...@none.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/28/22 10:28 PM, Mike Colangelo 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun-fondling morons want the
>>
>>> On 11/28/22 10:28 PM, Mike Colangelo 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>> 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 . . .
>>
>> Swill
>
> 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.
>
The President has the codes and the keys..... the rest are just symbols
of it being a process to unleash MASS DESTRUCTION.
We know it's a false process because general Milley and Nancy Pelosi
conspired to enagage in a Coup D`etat that seized control of the nuclear
weapons by undermining the President's top secret authority.
--
-Reality Matters-
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages