XPost: alt.atheism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.trump, alt.religio   
   .christian.roman-catholic   
   XPost: alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: j_carlson@gmx.com   
      
   On 3/26/2021 8:48 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   > On 3/26/21 9:28 AM, Bill Flett wrote:   
   >> On 3/26/2021 7:05 AM, David Hartung wrote:   
   >>> On 3/26/21 8:22 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:   
   >>>> David Hartung  wrote in   
   >>>> news:MbydnfXtT8g3NsD9nZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@giganews.com:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On 3/26/21 1:59 AM, Dutch wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 2021-03-25 5:48 a.m., David Hartung wrote:   
   >>>>>>> According to Wikipedia, there were about 520 people killed in mass   
   >>>>>>> shootings during 2020. As horrible as this is, in that same year in   
   >>>>>>> the city of Chicago alone there were over 725 homicides. Our nation   
   >>>>>>> lose its collective mind over these mass shootings, but seems to care   
   >>>>>>> less about the "common garden variety" homicide, even though they kill   
   >>>>>>> far more people than the mass shootings. Why is this?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Most "common garden variety" homicides fall into just a few categories,   
   >>>>>> such as drug gang turf war killings, a few collateral to these, and   
   >>>>>> targeted killings of spouses or rivals. The average law abiding   
   >>>>>> suburbanite doesn't have fear these. Once crazed gunmen start shooting   
   >>>>>> up random movie theaters and grocery stores that instills terror in the   
   >>>>>> population. Police killing unarmed suspects has a similar chilling   
   >>>>>> effect. That's why.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So the reaction to these mass killings is emotional.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      Just like natural disasters.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Should we let   
   >>>>> emotion drive us into unconstitutional legislation?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      What "unconstitutional legislation"?   
   >>>   
   >>> Don't act stupid, this has been discussed enough in this group that there   
   is   
   >>> no way that you do not know  to what I am referring.   
   >>   
   >> You think any limits on guns are unconstitutional.  They aren't, of course.   
   >> The right to own guns is not unlimited.   
   >>   
   >>         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]   
   >>   
   >>         Justice Scalia in Heller   
   >>   
   >> No federal appeals court has ever held a ban on assault weapons to be   
   >> unconstitutional.   
   >   
   > Yet such a ban is in fact unconstitutional   
      
   We don't take pronouncements on the constitutionality of laws from 67 year old   
   boneheads who can't even complete a degree in a soft subject.   
      
   > based upon the clear language of the second amendment,   
      
   No.  I have instructed you and the other irrational and crazed and bloodthirsty   
   gun loons on this too many times to count:   
      
      * the amendment neither *creates* nor *defines* the right; it is taken as a   
        given   
      * the right, like all rights, has *inherent* limits   
      * the amendment "secures" the right, whatever the right — with its limits   
   — is   
      
   We know, as Justice Scalia elaborated, that the right is not a right to keep   
   and   
   bear just whatever arms you may wish to have.  We know this beyond dispute.   
      
   We just don't take pronouncements on constitutionality from stupid fake pastors   
   who are not even educated laymen in the law.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't   
   claim to "know the law," but clearly I know rights theory and *how* legal   
   reasoning works far better than you.  You don't know either one at all.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)