Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nothing in this paragraphs means what you think it means.Herein is Scalia's "better guess"
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
Oh please tell us what it really means.
Conservatives can’t have it both ways:
If the Second Amendment right is not subject to reasonable restrictions then Scalia is ‘wrong,’ and there is no individual right to possess a firearm.
And if conservatives believe Scalia is correct and there is an individual right, then they must also accept Scalia’s determination that the Second Amendment right is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
Why should I attempt to resolve your willful ignorance?Oh please tell us what it really means.Nothing in this paragraphs means what you think it means.Herein is Scalia's "better guess"
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
Much like this one:" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." A clear statement unable to be parsed.
Much like this one:" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." A clear statement unable to be parsed.
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.
This is of course a lie, as you know you cannot provide a single quote from me to that effect.And I agree with both of these comments by Scalia from Heller. Where we differ is you believe "an Individual" includes criminals and the mentally ill, ...Much like this one:
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.
In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
Following that SAME LOGIC as in your statement above, the same would apply to freedom of speech outlined in Amendment I, which states;Any opinion, from any court, from any judge, from any public official, to the effect that there is any legitimate infringement of this right allowed under the Second Amendment, is simply wrong. The Second Amendment, in absolute terms, states that this right shall not be infringed.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice even the OP is a surrender on the unlimited rights notion: well, felons's rights can be limited. WHERE does the Second say that? LOLNothing in this paragraphs means what you think it means.Herein is Scalia's "better guess"
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
Oh please tell us what it really means.
Looks like M14 took a pot shot, cut and ran. In the written word of Justice Scalia,
" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." A clear statement unable to be parsed.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." An ambiguous statement easily parsed in several ways.
Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
Conservatives can’t have it both ways:
If the Second Amendment right is not subject to reasonable restrictions then Scalia is ‘wrong,’ and there is no individual right to possess a firearm.
And if conservatives believe Scalia is correct and there is an individual right, then they must also accept Scalia’s determination that the Second Amendment right is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
Taking your logic of absolutism re: Amendment II and applying it to Amendment I, Congress committed an unconstitutional action with the passage the Espionage Act of 1917 and all the subsequent amendments to that LAW! For instance, Edward Snowden simply used various means to communicate what he had learned and that communication under this theory of Constitutional absolutism would be a totally protected right and Snowden was fully within his Constitutional rights to share all he learned while working with NSA and CIA classified material because FREE SPEECH IS ABSOLUTE and the 1st Amendment bars Congress from passing laws which would ABRIDGE or otherwise INFRINGE on that right.
Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
But I thought the 2nd was special to you guysAny right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
Why don't you understand this?
5th amendment, due process clause, with specific regard to removing life liberty and property.Where, in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority on the part of government to discriminate against any of “the people” by denying them this right?Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.
I'm sorry that you choose to incorrectly understand the argument.But I thought the 2nd was special to you guysAny right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?
