On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:38:18 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
I see some people are showing the need for a refresher course sigh ...


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]


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.

Rudy, were you really THAT bored?

On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:18:26 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:38:18 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
I see some people are showing the need for a refresher course sigh ...


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]


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.

Rudy, were you really THAT bored?

He's trolling with a downrigger, to get to the flounders on the
bottom. When all else fails, there's always the 2nd Amendment. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 10:24:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:18:26 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:38:18 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
I see some people are showing the need for a refresher course sigh ....


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]


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.

Rudy, were you really THAT bored?

He's trolling with a downrigger, to get to the flounders on the
bottom. When all else fails, there's always the 2nd Amendment. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Obviously. But how bored do you have to be to resort to stirring that hornet's nest?

On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:36:35 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 10:24:43 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2016 19:18:26 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:38:18 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
I see some people are showing the need for a refresher course sigh ...


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]


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.

Rudy, were you really THAT bored?

He's trolling with a downrigger, to get to the flounders on the
bottom. When all else fails, there's always the 2nd Amendment. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Obviously. But how bored do you have to be to resort to stirring that hornet's nest?

That's the point of talking online for many people. It's how they get
their kicks.

--
Ed Huntress