ing.cocksucking.dwarf.com> 3eb82e63
XPost: misc.survivalism, talk.politics.guns, alt.politics
XPost: alt.california, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com
[Default] Rudy "Cunt Flaps" Canoza typed:
>I note it's time for a refresher.
>
>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]
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
>
>
>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 gun crackpots, such as scooter and Francis Mark Hansen, are going to
>have to accommodate themselves to that fact. You do not have a right to just
>whatever guns you wish to have.
Nobody is claiming the right is unlimited, dwarf. But semi-auto sport
utility rifles and normal capacity magazines are protected under the
Second Amendment.
And there's nothing you can do about it. This is settled.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
