Florida School Shooting

[JimL]

Or you are because you don't have a clue what he was saying.

He wasn't saying that the 2nd amendment just covers muskets. He was saying that it covers all firearms in common use. 200 years ago that covered muskets and pistols and canons and swords and such. Today that means pistols, and semi-automatic rifles including AR-15s and any other common fire arm.

Where I disagree is that I think that the 2nd amendment was clear: there are no restrictions at all. They could have easily said "only commonly used firearms" but it didn't. And it doesn't just mean the militia like you were saying. I quoted that the supreme court agreed with that:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Your quote says "an individual has a right to possess a firearm" Sparko, which we have, it doesn't say "unlimited."

[Sparko]

Yes, today we should all have a right to possess nuclear missles, stealth bombers, etc etc. etc. You know, like Sparko says, it should be unlimited.

You can buy a tank or a cannon or any number of other WMDs online, JimL. Perfectly legal.

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/ope...sale-armslist/

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1

www.armslist.com

[Sparko]

Your quote says "an individual has a right to possess a firearm" Sparko, which we have, it doesn't say "unlimited."

You were arguing that the second amendment only pertains to "well regulated militias" and not to individuals owning weapons for personal defense. That shows you were wrong.

No, it's not as simple as that. The Constitution was written at a different time under different circumstances. The second amendment had to do with a well regulated militia which todays gun owners have no part in. Do you belong to a well regulated militia?

[JimL]

You can buy a tank or a cannon or any number of other WMDs online, JimL. Perfectly legal.

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/ope...sale-armslist/

http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1

www.armslist.com

So what, you can buy AR 15's right now as well, but we can change that any time we decide that there is a need to change it. The 2nd amendment isn't unlimited, we can regulate it as we like.

[Sparko]

So what, you can buy AR 15's right now as well, but we can change that any time we decide that there is a need to change it. The 2nd amendment isn't unlimited, we can regulate it as we like.

Keep dreaming Jimmy.

[JimL]

You were arguing that the second amendment only pertains to "well regulated militias" and not to individuals owning weapons for personal defense. That shows you were wrong.


[/B]

Yes, the 2nd amendment was written at a different time and it had to do with state militia's which were made up of civilians. They didn't differentiate civilians from militia. If you notice, it also says well regulated right in the amendment itself.

[Sparko]

Yes, the 2nd amendment was written at a different time and it had to do with state militia's which were made up of civilians. They didn't differentiate civilians from militia. If you notice, it also says well regulated right in the amendment itself.

And I showed you a quote from YOUR OWN SOURCE that said it was not about militias but about the individual's right to own guns. The part about militias is just one of the reasons that INDIVIDUALS can own guns, not a condition.

Read it again slowly...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.


JimL, please stop Posting Under the Influence. Don't drink and post.

[Mountain Man]

Okay, if you really need to be spoon fed here is Scalia's own words.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the 2nd amendment is not unlimited.....It is ...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding pohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. We think that the limitation is fairly supported by historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Clear enough for you?

The only thing clear enough is that you're selectively quoting a tiny part of Scalia's very lengthy opinion to support your argument.

Here's the full text for anybody who is interested:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The gist of it is that he upholds the 2nd Amendment interpretation that it protects the right of the individual to "keep and bear arms", but he also recognizes allowances for certain restrictions, provided those restrictions do not unnecessarily or unreasonably infringe on one's protected rights.

[JimL]

Keep dreaming Jimmy.

You're not even making sense Sparko. You admitted yourself that the amendment is not unlimited when you said felons and the mentally ill could be restricted. Does the amendment say that, or did we initiate that restriction.

[Sparko]

You're not even making sense Sparko. You admitted yourself that the amendment is not unlimited when you said felons and the mentally ill could be restricted. Does the amendment say that, or did we initiate that restriction.

Because under other parts of the constitution there are means to remove a citizen's rights, such as being convicted of a crime. The mentally ill part is more iffy. That is common sense, but constitutionally, it may be harder to uphold.

It doesn't mean that they can just invoke any restrictions they want, willy nilly. And they sure can't legally impose restrictions or bans of guns on all citizens.

[JimL]

The only thing clear enough is that you're selectively quoting a tiny part of Scalia's very lengthy opinion to support your argument.

Here's the full text for anybody who is interested:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The gist of it is that he upholds the 2nd Amendment interpretation that it protects the right of the individual to "keep and bear arms", but he also recognizes allowances for certain restrictions, provided those restrictions do not unnecessarily or unreasonably infringe on one's protected rights.

So, Scalia allows for certain restrictions eh? You might want to try and understand what that means yourself, and once you get it, try to explain it to Sparko.

[Mountain Man]

So, Scalia allows for certain restrictions eh? You might want to try and understand what that means yourself, and once you get it, try to explain it to Sparko.

I already said you could make an exception for felons and perhaps the mentally ill. Did you not read what I posted?

Jimmy =

[Sparko]

Jimmy =

index.jpg

[JimL]

Because under other parts of the constitution there are means to remove a citizen's rights, such as being convicted of a crime. The mentally ill part is more iffy. That is common sense, but constitutionally, it may be harder to uphold.

It doesn't mean that they can just invoke any restrictions they want, willy nilly. And they sure can't legally impose restrictions or bans of guns on all citizens.

Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited.....it is ...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, or for whatever purpose. Anton Scalia.

[Mountain Man]

So, Scalia allows for certain restrictions eh? You might want to try and understand what that means yourself, and once you get it, try to explain it to Sparko.

And if you weren't such a dunce, you would realize that Scalia explicitly defined those restrictions in his opinion:

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html