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   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   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-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)