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

Post by Rudy Canoza
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
   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 are going to have to accommodate themselves to that
fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.

Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned,
under the case that you cited. Only extreme guns (like full-auto M16s) can
be reasonably banned by this case. I acknowledge that this case supports
regulation for obtaining firearms, but nevertheless requires them to be
accessible to good-health non-felon Americans.

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm-
ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." (Page 56)

This paragraph protects handguns, but easily protects also shotguns and
rifles, as they're also commonly used by Americans for self-defense (and
other purposes). The same idea can be extended to them.

--
"Do not come; do not come"
"I'm gonna come!"
https://youtube.com/shorts/oC8wQAscVKY?si=EUAnZarWPttn7XSd

don

2024-09-30 20:58:04 UTC

Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned,
under the case that you cited. Only extreme guns (like full-auto M16s) can
be reasonably banned by this case. I acknowledge that this case supports
regulation for obtaining firearms, but nevertheless requires them to be
accessible to good-health non-felon Americans.
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm-
ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." (Page 56)
This paragraph protects handguns, but easily protects also shotguns and
rifles, as they're also commonly used by Americans for self-defense (and
other purposes). The same idea can be extended to them.

Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the
population so they can force their nutty agendas without fear of opposition.

Rudy Canoza

2024-09-30 21:50:33 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
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
    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 are going to have to accommodate themselves to that
fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.

Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned,
under the case that you cited. Only extreme guns (like full-auto M16s) can
be reasonably banned by this case. I acknowledge that this case supports
regulation for obtaining firearms, but nevertheless requires them to be
accessible to good-health non-felon Americans.
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm-
ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." (Page 56)
This paragraph protects handguns, but easily protects also shotguns and
rifles, as they're also commonly used by Americans for self-defense (and
other purposes). The same idea can be extended to them.

Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense restrictions. The
Democrats are after complete disarmament of the population

That's a lie.

--
Every Republiscum/QAnon accusation is, in fact, a confession

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:23:38 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
That's a lie.

Governor Swill /Rudy Canoza/Lou Bricano/J Carlson/Michael A
Terrell/Chris Ahlstrom/Intelligent Party and a few dozen other socks wrote:

Multiple death threats against Trump:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!netnews.com!s1-4.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
<ONIkO.102541$***@fx11.ams4> <***@185.151.15.190>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 55
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:38:43 -0400

Oh poor me I got shot at ...

Swill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path:
eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.netnews.com!s1-3.netnews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Governor Swill <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.elections
Subject: Re: Triumphant Trump Photo After Assassination Attempt
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@earthlink.com>
<***@185.151.15.160>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Easynews - www.easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:37:51 -0400

Cheer up, maybe someone else will try.

Swill

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: J Carlson <***@gmx.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.immigration,alt.politics.nationalism.white,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: AP Lies by Ommission About Identity of Invaders Charged with
Rape, Murder of 12-Year-Old
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:35:52 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <v5f66o$1mps9$***@dont-email.me>
References: <v54h6j$39cuk$***@dont-email.me> <v54hrs$38mfs$***@dont-email.me>
<moKcnZP3dbqUm-***@giganews.com>
<v58c4f$6squ$***@dont-email.me>
<v5df1n$1caue$***@dont-email.me> <v5edju$1hv3p$***@dont-email.me>
<***@4ax.com>
<v5erpf$1jkrf$***@dont-email.me>
<O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:35:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me;
posting-host="f3de9d0c1e618b255237332494133eec";
logging-data="1795977";
mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195k8uMNmZfnyDG9tQmsu21WqljX3bfQxM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PNoPW9d+9gKJj0fX+YCk+YFslQg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <O9acnRiefIZol-***@giganews.com>
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.politics.immigration:383549
alt.politics.nationalism.white:10913 talk.politics.misc:1295918
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3024985

Post by Rudy Canoza
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to

thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently

Post by Rudy Canoza
is an important step to getting there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That constitutes a DEATH THREAT against a former President, Rudey:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the
Presidency
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail
or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any
letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any
threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon
the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice
President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office
of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or
knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the
President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the
order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years,
or both.
(b)The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in
this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful
candidates for the offices of President and Vice President,
respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections
held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in
accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The
phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of
President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the
order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3,
United States Code, sections 19 and 20.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 740; June 1, 1955, ch. 115, § 1, 69
Stat. 80; Pub. L. 87–829, § 1, Oct. 15, 1962, 76 Stat. 956; Pub. L.
97–297, § 2, Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1318; Pub. L. 103–322, title
XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

9-65.200 - Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency; Threats Against Former Presidents; and Certain Other Secret
Service Protectees
The Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division has
supervisory authority over 18 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 879 cases. As great
caution must be taken in matters relating to the security of the persons
protected by 18 U.S.C. § 871, United States Attorneys are encouraged to
consult with the Counterterrorism Section (CTS) of the National Security
Division when they have doubts on the prosecutive merit of a case. For
the same reason, dismissal of complaints under 18 U.S.C. § 871, when the
defendant is in custody under the Mental Incompetency Statutes (18
U.S.C. §§ 4244, 4246), requires approval from CTS. In other cases,
United States Attorneys must consult prior to dismissing a count
involving, or entering into any sentence commitment or other case
settlement involving a § 871 charge.

https://www.secretservice.gov/newsroom/releases/2024/01/phoenix-man-arrested-making-online-death-threats-against-president-and

PHOENIX –David Michael Hanson, 41, of Phoenix, was arrested on Wednesday
for making online threats against the President and Vice-President.
Hanson was charged by Federal criminal complaint on Tuesday with five
counts of Threats Against the President and Successors to the Presidency
and five counts of Interstate Communication of Threats.

The complaint alleges that in November and December of 2023, while
living in Arizona, Hanson used a social media platform to post threats
to murder the President and Vice President of the United States. On
November 19, 2023, Hanson posted online a series of threatening
statements including one that stated, “#joeAndKamala I’m asking you to
resign on Monday your alternative is death brutally murdered.” After the
U.S. Secret Service spoke to Hanson and warned him that it was a Federal
crime to post such threats, on December 23, 2023, Hanson posted another
series of similar threats aimed at the President and Vice-President.

Each count of Threats Against the President and Successors to the
Presidency carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a fine of
up to $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release. Each count
of Interstate Communication of Threats carries a maximum sentence of
five years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and up to three years of
supervised release.

A complaint is simply a method by which a person is charged with
criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is
presumed innocent until evidence is presented to a jury that establishes
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The United States Secret Service is conducting the investigation in this
case. The United States Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, is
handling the prosecution.

Those can be reported here:

https://tips.fbi.gov/home

https://www.justice.gov/action-center/report-crime-or-submit-complaint

https://www.secretservice.gov/contact

https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something/reporting/california

Fellow citizens, won't you join in ending Rudey's terrorism here?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Governor Swill

2024-10-01 11:45:41 UTC

Post by don
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions. The Democrats are after complete disarmament of the
population so they can force their nutty agendas without fear of opposition.

Lie.

--
Today's two reasons to not vote for Trump in 36 days.

21) Trump separated more than 5000 children from their
parents at the border with no plan to ever reunite them.
Putting babies in cages without their families.

22) The Muslim Ban.

Chris Ahlstrom

2024-10-01 15:10:09 UTC

Not like Trump and his Agenda 47 / Project 2025, eh Farquar?

Lie.

--
William Safire's rules for writing as seen in the New York Times

Do not put statements in the negative form.
And don't start sentences with a conjunction.
If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great
deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.
Last, but not least, avoid cliches like the plague.

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:22:56 UTC

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Project 2025, eh Farquar?

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to

thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
is an important step to getting there.

Scout

2024-10-01 14:55:10 UTC

Lie.

Exactly what part(s) are a lie and post your proof of that.

(ok, boys it's time to start warming up)
<cri,,,,,, cri.. ip.. cr.. cr. ip)

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:23:20 UTC

Post by J Carlson

Post by don
opposition.

Lie.

Post by J Carlson
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to

thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently

Post by J Carlson
is an important step to getting there.

Just Wondering

2024-10-01 16:52:29 UTC

Post by don
Most of us don't have a problem with reasonable common sense
restrictions.

That's not helpful. There is wide disagreement over what
restrictions are reasonable and common sense, and "reasonable
common sense" is not a test the Supreme Court decisions apply
anyway. What most gun grabbers call reasonable common sense
are not reasonable or common sense.

Rudy Canoza

2024-09-30 21:50:21 UTC

Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned,
under the case that you cited.

The key point is that, contrary to what the right-wingnut gun fondlers claim,
*not* all guns (and other arms) are protected. And note that *no* ban on assault
weapons has ever been overturned by a circuit court of appeals.

So, my conclusion is, to date, validated: you don't have a right to just
whatever guns you might wish to have...nor should you have such a right. Some
guns you might wish to have may be banned, and there is no inherent violation of
the right to arms.

Post by Grimble Crumble
Only extreme guns (like full-auto M16s) can
be reasonably banned by this case. I acknowledge that this case supports
regulation for obtaining firearms, but nevertheless requires them to be
accessible to good-health non-felon Americans.
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm-
ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute." (Page 56)
This paragraph protects handguns, but easily protects also shotguns and
rifles, as they're also commonly used by Americans for self-defense (and
other purposes). The same idea can be extended to them.

--
Every Republiscum/QAnon accusation is, in fact, a confession

Grimble Crumble

2024-09-30 22:36:44 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza

Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned,
under the case that you cited.

I think we agree here on the facts.

Post by Rudy Canoza
So, my conclusion is, to date, validated: you don't have a right to just
whatever guns you might wish to have...nor should you have such a right. Some
guns you might wish to have may be banned, and there is no inherent violation of
the right to arms.

I agree mostly once again, but I do think there should be some exceptions
for collecting. Vintage AKs should not be discarded, even if they're full
auto.

Post by Rudy Canoza

--
"Do not come; do not come"
"I'm gonna come!"
https://youtube.com/shorts/oC8wQAscVKY?si=EUAnZarWPttn7XSd

Scout

2024-10-01 15:07:10 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Rudy Canoza
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
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 are going to have to accommodate themselves to that
fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.

Yes, it is not unlimited, but most guns are actually protected, not banned,
under the case that you cited.

Yep, they were overturned at the district court level and those rulings were
NOT overturned by the circuit court of appeals.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/05/1003649674/california-assault-weapons-ban-disrespects-freedom-federal-judge-writes

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207329132/a-federal-judge-rules-again-that-californias-assault-weapons-ban-is-unconstituti

So you're right no circuit court has ever overturned a ruling the assault
weapons bans are Unconstitutional.

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:24:03 UTC

Post by J Carlson
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to

thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently

Post by J Carlson
is an important step to getting there.

Peter Fairbrother

2024-09-30 22:56:41 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

Jim Wilkins

2024-09-30 23:56:48 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.

Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a
militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping
arms for self-defense.
Peter Fairbrother

----------------------------------

That may be your personal opinion, but it isn't what the US Supreme Court
confirmed in the Heller case.

https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller

".. U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second
Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of
service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful
purposes, including self-defense within the home."

Scout

2024-10-01 15:19:06 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.

So "the right of the people" is NOT a right of the people?

Please note the 2nd does not speak of the right of the militia, but the
right of the people.

Are there any other rights of the people you think they don't have because
they aren't the militia, even when by law they are???

Alan Bond

2024-10-01 17:47:35 UTC

On 10/1/2024 8:19 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless

Post by Scout

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.

So "the right of the people" is NOT a right of the people?

You pulled that out of your ass, as always, scooter. Whenever you write "So...",
what follows is some straw man you pulled out of your ass.

Post by Scout
Please note the 2nd does not speak of the right of the militia, but the right of
the people.

Yes. And we also note that it does not address self defense in any way, scooter.

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:21:57 UTC

Post by Alan Bond
You pulled that out of your ass, as always, scooter.

Post by Alan Bond
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to

thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently

Post by Alan Bond
is an important step to getting there.

Grimble Crumble

2024-10-01 00:01:32 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

You can disagree with that, but the supreme court case cited disagrees. The
opinion of the court has long supported the 2nd amendment's connection to
the right of self-defense.

--
"Do not come; do not come"
"I'm gonna come!"
https://youtube.com/shorts/oC8wQAscVKY?si=EUAnZarWPttn7XSd

Scout

2024-10-01 15:20:06 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

You can disagree with that, but the supreme court case cited disagrees. The
opinion of the court has long supported the 2nd amendment's connection to
the right of self-defense.

yep, one can hardly defend another until they can first defend themselves.

AlleyCat

2024-10-01 17:48:46 UTC

On 10/1/2024 8:20 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless

Post by Scout

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

You can disagree with that, but the supreme court case cited disagrees. The
opinion of the court has long supported the 2nd amendment's connection to
the right of self-defense.

yep, one can hardly defend another until they can first defend themselves.

The amendment has nothing to do with defense of anything, scooter. The point of
the amendment was solely to ensure the continued existence of armed slave patrols.

Rudy Canoza

2024-10-01 15:11:51 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

In Heller, Scalia said it does protect keeping arms for self defense.

Scalia also said that the prefatory clause about the militia merely serves to
announce the purpose for the amendment, and that it does not restrict the right
in any way.

--
Every Republiscum/QAnon accusation is, in fact, a confession

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:22:44 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
Scalia also said that the prefatory clause

Post by Rudy Canoza
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to

thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently

Post by Rudy Canoza
is an important step to getting there.

Just Wondering

2024-10-01 16:57:02 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.

The Second Amendment confers no right. You admit bearing arms for
self-defense is a right. Well and good, 2A doesn't create that right,
it exists to protect that right from government infringement.

Post by Peter Fairbrother
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a
militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping
arms for self-defense.

Do try to keep up The Supreme Court has already held the opposite
of what you have written.

Jim Wilkins

2024-10-01 17:37:17 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.

The Second Amendment confers no right. You admit bearing arms for
self-defense is a right. Well and good, 2A doesn't create that right,
it exists to protect that right from government infringement.

Post by Peter Fairbrother
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a
militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping arms
for self-defense.

Do try to keep up The Supreme Court has already held the opposite
of what you have written.

-------------------------------------------

He's British, our Bill of Rights is a reaction to their government's abuses.

Scout

2024-10-01 15:17:04 UTC

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.

Based on what facts?

Post by Peter Fairbrother
Under the second amendment you can keep and bear arms in order to form a
militia; but the second amendment doesn't say anything about keeping arms
for self-defense.

Question: Until you can defend yourself, how can you defend others?

Further, I'm unaware any any requirement that the right to keep or bear arms
ONLY extends to a militia.

However, let's take some samples and see who the militia are.

Virginia:

Article 1. Classification of Militia.
§ 44-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied
residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all
other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared
their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16
years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of
age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard,
which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the
Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.

Ohio:

Section 5923.01 | State militia membership - limitation of troops.
(D) The unorganized militia consists of all citizens of the state to whom
all of the following apply:

(1) They are not members of the Ohio organized militia ;

(2) They are more than seventeen years of age and not more than sixty-seven
years of age;

(3) They are not exempt from service under section 5923.02 of the Revised
Code.

New York:

New York Consolidated Laws, Military Law - MIL § 2. Militia of the state;
division and composition
2. The unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents
of the state between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who are not
serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on the state
reserve list or the state retired list and who are or who have declared
their intention to become citizens of the United States, subject, however,
to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the laws of the
United States.

Now let's try California...

Part 1 - THE STATE MILITIA
Section 122 - Composition of the militia of the State
The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all
other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens
of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five,
and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon
their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the
provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now
exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of
this State.

So, even if we assume the 2nd extends to only the militia rather than being
"the right of the people".

How exactly can you disarm those who by law ARE the militia????

Further, consider for a second.. how can an unarmed body of people form a
militia. Trying to arm them AFTER they are needed seems a bit like locking
the gate after the horse has run away.

J Carlson

2024-10-01 17:46:12 UTC

On 10/1/2024 8:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless

Post by Scout

Post by Grimble Crumble
"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right.

Can't say I agree with that. Bearing arms for self-defense may be a long
established right, but it isn't a second amendment right.

Based on what facts?

On the *fact* that the amendment doesn't address self defense in any way, scooter.

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:22:09 UTC

Post by J Carlson
On the *fact* that

Post by J Carlson
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to

thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently

Post by J Carlson
is an important step to getting there.

Snag

2024-10-01 00:43:27 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
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
   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 are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns
you wish to have.

What you are ignoring is the INTENT behind the 2nd Amendment . The
intent was for the people to be armed equally with the military . And in
fact more than a few of the cannons used in the Revolutionary War were
privately owned ... so ANY limitation of private ownership of armaments
- be it cannons , bombs , full auto rifles or whatever - is technically
unconstitutional . If I wanted any of these I'd have it whether the
gov't liked it or not .

--
Snag
Voting for Kamabla after Biden
is like changing your shirt because
you shit your pants .

Jim Wilkins

2024-10-01 11:18:33 UTC

"Snag" wrote in message news:vdfgjh$2egfn$***@dont-email.me...

What you are ignoring is the INTENT behind the 2nd Amendment . The
intent was for the people to be armed equally with the military . And in
fact more than a few of the cannons used in the Revolutionary War were
privately owned ... so ANY limitation of private ownership of armaments
- be it cannons , bombs , full auto rifles or whatever - is technically
unconstitutional . If I wanted any of these I'd have it whether the
gov't liked it or not .
Snag

--------------------------------

Thomas Jefferson owned high capacity military-issue assault rifles, so the
Founding Fathers definitely knew of their possibility.
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/op-ed-thomas-jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cassault-rifle%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-girardoni-air-rifle

Lewis and Clark carried one and demonstrated it to dissuade hostile attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle

max headroom

2024-10-10 03:10:40 UTC

Post by Snag
Snag
Voting for Kamabla after Biden
is like changing your shirt because
you shit your pants .

Love that tagline.

Jonathan Ball is a Faggot

2024-10-01 12:49:07 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
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
   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 are going to have to accommodate themselves to that fact.
You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.

Scalia supported civilian ownership of AR-15s.

Just Wondering

2024-10-01 16:48:58 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
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
   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 are going to have to accommodate
themselves to that fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns
you wish to have.

That is obiter dicta and says nothing about what any such weapon
control might pass constitutional muster.
Heller and Bruen went on to provide actual guidance about what
might be acceptable limits. For example, Heller says government
cannot ban weapons that are in common use of lawful purposes,
while dangerous and unusual weapons may be restricted. Bruen says
to apply the text of 2A and the history and tradition of arms
controls at the time 2A was adopted - an actual test that
invalidates a whole bunch of actual and proposed current
gun control legislation.

J Carlson

2024-10-01 18:35:52 UTC

Post by Just Wondering

Post by Rudy Canoza
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
    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 are going to have to accommodate themselves to that
fact. You do not have a right to just whatever guns you wish to have.

That is obiter dicta and

No, it isn't, Francis, you *fake* lawyer.

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:21:28 UTC

Post by J Carlson
you *fake* lawyer.

Post by J Carlson
No. I am a patriotic American who wants the country and its people to

thrive. Getting rid of Trump permanently

Post by J Carlson
is an important step to getting there.

Lil dwarf Rudey

2024-10-01 19:24:46 UTC