Florida School Shooting

[Sparko]

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.

Here we go... in a JimL timeloop again.


For 1 to infinity goto loop

[JimL]

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

Right, and who determined that there should be limitations, and what those limitations would be MM?

[Mountain Man]

Right, and who determined that there should be limitations, and what those limitations would be MM?

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are. You're obviously anticipating that I will concede that it is federal, state, and local legislatures who put such prohibitions into law, at which point you're going say, "Ah-ha! That means they can arbitrarily expand those restrictions in any way they see fit!" But obviously they can't, or you wouldn't have the Supreme Court decision striking down the District of Columbia's attempt to ban handguns, a decision which you have ironically been quoting from to support your argument. Let's drop down to the last paragraph of that opinion:

the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

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

"Own Goal Jimmy" strikes again!

[JimL]

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are. You're obviously anticipating that I will concede that it is federal, state, and local legislatures who put such prohibitions into law, at which point you're going say, "Ah-ha! That means they can arbitrarily expand those restrictions in any way they see fit!" But obviously they can't, or you wouldn't have the Supreme Court decision striking down the District of Columbia's attempt to ban handguns, a decision which you have ironically been quoting from to support your argument. Let's drop down to the last paragraph of that opinion:

the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

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

"Own Goal Jimmy" strikes again!

Nice evasive move, MM. So now answer the question. Who determined that there should be limitations to the 2nd amendment, and what those limitations would be?

[Mountain Man]

Nice evasive move, MM. So now answer the question. Who determined that there should be limitations to the 2nd amendment, and what those limitations would be?

I did answer the question, and I'm not going to engage you any further. I'll content myself with laughing at your utter cluelessness and delusional belief that you're winning this debate.

Ahem...

[Cow Poke]

Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited........ Anton Scalia.

Scalia is too smart to mess up a verb agreement like that.

[JimL]

Scalia is too smart to mess up a verb agreement like that.

Try looking it up, CP. Should take you about 2 seconds. I trust you can do that if you care to.

[Cow Poke]

Try looking it up, CP. Should take you about 2 seconds. I trust you can do that if you care to.

You're too stupid to know what verb agreement is.

[Mountain Man]

Try looking it up, CP. Should take you about 2 seconds. I trust you can do that if you care to.

Mind if I look it up?

Here's how you presented the quote:

"Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited."

Here's the quote copied and pasted directly from the decision itself:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Can you spot your mistake, Jimmy?

That's own-goal #2.

[Cow Poke]

Mind if I look it up?

Here's how you presented the quote:

"Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited."

Here's the quote from the decision itself:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Can you spot your mistake, Jimmy?

That's own-goal #2.

He's too busy being a jackasss.

[Mountain Man]

He's too busy being a jackasss.

My guess is he didn't even look at the decision himself. He likely copied his material -- grammatical mistake and all -- from some left-wing anti-gun site which is why he's too chicken to cite his source. I doubt he even knew the context in which that quote was made, because the overall decision doesn't support his argument.

[Cow Poke]

My guess is he didn't even look at the decision himself. He likely copied his material -- grammatical mistake and all -- from some left-wing anti-gun site which is why he's too chicken to cite his source. I doubt he even knew the context in which that quote was made, because the overall decision doesn't support his argument.

I knew immediately it wasn't a direct quote from Scalia, that's for sure.

[Sea of red]

I'm for the prohibition of drugs more out of moral conscience ...

Yeah, right, we believe you.

[demi-conservative]

Yeah, right, we believe you.

Look who's back!!! How's Mueller???

[Sea of red]

Look who's back!!! How's Mueller???

Oh, he's just out there indicting people for money laundering, identity theft, wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, violations of FEC and FARA, perjury and obstruction of justice.

So sweet of you to ask.