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

[Broderick Sampson]

I see some people are showing the need for a refresher course <sigh> ...

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 judicial interpretation, it is not. That is simply a fact, and
crazed far-right squat-to-piss girly boy gun crackpots are going to have to
accommodate themselves to that fact.

Some amount of restriction on access to firearms is necessary and
constitutional, and we shall have it. We should have more of it.

[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.

[dyno dan]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 10:51:06 -0700, Mike Colangelo <air@vatican_.con>
wrote:

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

Obviously you're not the least bit prejudiced....





--
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.