The Light of Truth
- Sep 26, 2007
- Reaction score
Non Seq.Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).
You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"."Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."
Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.