XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.finance
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 7/7/22 1:12 PM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
> On 7/7/2022 9:47 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 7/7/22 11:43 AM, OrigInfoJunkie wrote:
>>> On 7/7/2022 7:29 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "OrigInfoJunkie" wrote in message
>>>> news:%xmxK.39471$iR.15814@fx44.iad...
>>>>> On 7/6/2022 12:12 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:89jbch56kc8fbt16415ia3d7tkspqioner@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 07:25:05 -0400, "Scout" wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Somebody too" wrote
>>>>>>>>> I am allowed to have an AR-15
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing allowed about it.... you have a right to have an AR-15
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't have a right to an M 16 or a cruise missile though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Keep and bear *arms*"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And which of those aren't arms?
>>>>>
>>>>> I see scooter is in need of a refresher on Heller.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, but that’s a far different position than your stretch to
>>>> assert it doesn't protect commonly own guns by law abiding citizens
>>>> who regularly use them for legal purposes
>>>
>>> The simple fact is, you don't have a right to just whatever guns or
>>> other arms you wish to have
>>
>> Actually we do,
>
> Actually you do not. Your professional, intellectual and social betters
> are the ones who say what the right to arms is, and *they* say it is not
> a right to just whatever arms you wish to have. Scalia has said it, now
> Kavanaugh has said it, and before them Blackstone, Story, Tucker and
> Frankfurter, among others, have all said it. Once again:
>
The Constitution says clearly we do have the RIGHT to keep and bear
"arms" what you can't grasp is that it's an unlimited right to keep and
bear, not use or carry anything and claim it's "arms" so you'll have to
define "arms" and in the day arms were/are the weapons you carry into
battle and carry when "CALLED TO ARMS". And we know you don't grab your
battleship when called to *arms* so it's NOT something as BIG as a
battleship but is it something as small as a virus that you use as a
BIO-WEAPON? No it's NOT tiny things either....
SO what are arms, because if you have a RIGHT to them they must be some
type or class of weapons because all weapons as we know are not *ARMS*
but all arms can be used as weapons.
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
> *not unlimited*.0 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.
>
We were speaking of "arms" the quote says weapons... why did you try to
make FAKE accusations about keeping and bearing arms and then offer a
quote that doesn't use "arms"? As we have seen with the ABORTION OPINION
of the court they were wrong /or/ they are wrong, either way it's NOT
written in ink, it's written in blood when they get it wrong.
What limit is placed on arms... we know that the RIGHT is qualified by
the word ARMS so we have an UNLIMITED RIGHT to keep and bear arms, what
you and maybe Scalia miss in that quote is that they say *any weapon*
and I agree since the word in the 2nd Amendment is "arms" and changing
that to weapons in the quote above makes it a meaningless quote. You
and whoever put that quote out are measuring apples and oranges when you
change back and forth from "arms to weapons" because they're different
with different meanings as *call to arms* points out since you aren't
called to supply random weapons but rather just supply your own arms.
> The right is not a right to keep just whatever arms you wish
*And yet that is what the RIGHT is, and it says it in plain English*
> , nor is it
> a right to bear the arms you are permitted to have in just whatever
> manner you wish.
Except it is a RIGHT to bear the arms that you have a RIGHT to keep.
A RIGHT isn't a RIGHT to ask permission a RIGHT is the power to do it
without permission.
>
> This is settled.
If it were settled then your version of reality would accept that the
RIGHT to keep and bear is NOT limited, and that what is limited is the
thing that can be kept and carried and that is limited when they
describe it as arms, that is the only limitation on keeping and bearing
until you produce an ARTICLE 5 Amendment that can limit what arms are.
Until then it's a fluid description that the courts describe as the
weapons in common use for survival and hunting and self defense and to
carry into a battle when called to arms (meaning you and your arms are
needed) to protect yourself, your family, your home, and/or your State
or Nation...
Shovels and Pitchforks are NOT arms, and neither is a B-52 aircraft or a
stealth fighter. The irony being that they aren't protected by the 2nd
amendment's affirmation that we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
Because the limitation for that RIGHT of the people to keep and bear "is
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
